Unmeasurable IEP Goals Cost District: Student Wins on FAPE Denial for 2022-23 School Year

A 10th-grade student with a specific learning disability and ADHD filed a due process complaint against Huntington Beach Union High School District alleging multiple FAPE denials across the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years. The ALJ found the district denied FAPE during the 2022-23 school year because IEP goals in reading, writing, and math lacked specific baseline data and were not objectively measurable, significantly impeding the parent's ability to participate in decision-making. The district prevailed on all other issues, including ESY 2022, assessment adequacy, and the 2023-24 school year. The district was ordered to hold an IEP meeting within 30 days to correct the deficient goals.

What Happened

Student is a 10th-grader with a specific learning disability (including significant weaknesses in reading, phonological processing, and working memory) and ADHD. Student had not attended school in person for two years before entering Huntington Beach Union High School District in August 2022, having previously participated in a virtual and home-hospital model through a private tutor. Parent had longstanding concerns about Student's reading skills and the district's ability to provide the multisensory instruction Student's private tutor had been using. When Student transitioned to high school, Parent declined to consent to multiple IEPs offered by the district, preferring a continued home-based tutoring model instead of in-person special education classes.

Parent filed a due process complaint in March 2024 alleging the district denied Student FAPE across multiple school years — including during Extended School Year 2022, through its assessment practices, and through deficient IEPs during the 2022-23 school year. Parent argued the district failed to assess Student in speech-language and mental health, failed to offer appropriate multisensory instruction, and developed IEP goals that were not measurable. The ALJ found for Student on one key issue: the IEP goals written in January and May 2023 lacked meaningful baseline data and were not objectively measurable, which denied Parent a genuine opportunity to evaluate whether Student could actually make progress.

What the ALJ Found

Where the District Prevailed: The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on most issues. The ESY 2022 offer — which included a literacy clinic and math services — was found appropriate, and no second IEP meeting was required. The district's decision not to assess Student in speech-language was upheld because Student had exited speech services in sixth grade and no new concerns had emerged. The claim for an educationally related mental health services assessment was denied because Student's own self-ratings and his teachers' reports did not support a clinical need, even though Parent expressed concern about anxiety. The three-year psychoeducational reassessment completed in May 2023 was found timely and legally compliant — the delay was attributed to Parent's withholding consent to the assessment plan for six months.

Where the District Lost: The ALJ found the district denied Student FAPE in both the January 25, 2023 and May 16, 2023 IEPs because the goals were not measurable. For example, the reading goal baseline simply stated Student had a "C+ to B- grade in English" — it said nothing about what Student could actually do. The writing and math baselines were equally vague. Even after the May 2023 meeting updated the baselines to reference grades and "below grade level" performance, the goals remained deficient because they still failed to specify Student's actual functioning level. A new reading comprehension goal stated Student should work "at his current reading level" but never identified what that level was. The ALJ found this significantly impeded Parent's ability to make informed decisions about the IEP — a legally recognized harm under IDEA.

The ALJ declined to find a FAPE denial for the missing reading intervention class in the January 2023 IEP, ruling the omission was harmless because Parent had already declined the reading intervention offered in May 2022, and Parent's choice to have Student leave school early each day prevented him from participating in the program regardless.

What Was Ordered

Huntington Beach Union shall hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of the decision (by approximately September 28, 2024) to update the baselines for Student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance for each goal, and to review and revise the goals to ensure they are objectively measurable.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IEP goals must be specific enough to actually measure progress — grades alone are not enough. This case confirms that a goal baseline saying a student has a "B in English" tells you nothing about what the student can do. Baselines must describe actual skill levels — for example, what reading level a student is at, how many words per minute they can read, or what types of writing tasks they can complete independently.
When a parent withholds consent to an assessment plan, the clock stops for the district — but so does accountability. The district proposed a reassessment in September 2022, but Parent didn't sign the plan until March 2023. The ALJ held the district could not be penalized for the delay because it was caused by Parent's inaction. Parents should understand that refusing to sign an assessment plan may delay services and limit legal claims about untimely assessment.
A district does not have to use your preferred teaching method, but it does have to show its program actually addresses your child's needs. Parent argued Student required multisensory instruction but could not define the term at hearing, while district staff explained their program already incorporated multisensory elements. Parents raising methodology concerns should bring documentation — such as reports from private providers — that specifically explains what approach is needed and why the district's approach is different.
If you don't consent to an IEP, the district cannot be held responsible for not implementing it. Several of Student's claims failed in part because Parent never agreed to the IEPs being challenged. While parents have the right to withhold consent, doing so means the district may not be able to provide the very services the parent is later seeking as a remedy.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Huntington Beach Union shall hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of the decision (by approximately September 28, 2024) to update the baselines for Student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance for each goal, and to review and revise the goals to ensure they are objectively measurable.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IEP goals must be specific enough to actually measure progress — grades alone are not enough. This case confirms that a goal baseline saying a student has a "B in English" tells you nothing about what the student can do. Baselines must describe actual skill levels — for example, what reading level a student is at, how many words per minute they can read, or what types of writing tasks they can complete independently.
When a parent withholds consent to an assessment plan, the clock stops for the district — but so does accountability. The district proposed a reassessment in September 2022, but Parent didn't sign the plan until March 2023. The ALJ held the district could not be penalized for the delay because it was caused by Parent's inaction. Parents should understand that refusing to sign an assessment plan may delay services and limit legal claims about untimely assessment.
A district does not have to use your preferred teaching method, but it does have to show its program actually addresses your child's needs. Parent argued Student required multisensory instruction but could not define the term at hearing, while district staff explained their program already incorporated multisensory elements. Parents raising methodology concerns should bring documentation — such as reports from private providers — that specifically explains what approach is needed and why the district's approach is different.
If you don't consent to an IEP, the district cannot be held responsible for not implementing it. Several of Student's claims failed in part because Parent never agreed to the IEPs being challenged. While parents have the right to withhold consent, doing so means the district may not be able to provide the very services the parent is later seeking as a remedy.