District Wins: No FAPE Denial for Dropping 1-on-1 Tutoring at High School Transition

Parents filed for due process against Santa Cruz City Schools after the district's May 2025 transition IEP for their incoming ninth grader dropped one-to-one specialized academic instruction that had been provided in middle school. The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all issues, finding that Santa Cruz was not legally required to hold a transition meeting, did not change Student's educational placement, properly included Parents in the IEP process, and reasonably determined that group academic support was sufficient for Student to receive a FAPE.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old ninth grader with disabilities in specific learning disability and other health impairment (ADHD, inattentive type, and executive functioning challenges). He graduated from eighth grade at a different district — Soquel Union Elementary School District — and transitioned into Santa Cruz City Schools for high school. Throughout middle school, Student had received both group specialized academic instruction and two 25-minute individual (one-to-one) tutoring sessions per week, but that individual instruction had been provided pursuant to a settlement agreement between Parents and the elementary district, not as a required component of a FAPE.

In March 2025, Parents emailed Soquel High School's assistant principal requesting a transition IEP meeting. The elementary district declined to host a transition meeting. Santa Cruz stepped up voluntarily, gathered information by observing Student at his middle school and interviewing his teachers, and convened a full transition IEP team meeting on May 23, 2025 — before Student graduated eighth grade. The resulting IEP offered placement at a comprehensive high school campus with one period of small group academic support (245 weekly minutes), but no individual one-to-one instruction. Parents disagreed with the offer, withheld consent, and filed for due process on June 19, 2025.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in Santa Cruz's favor on every issue. On the transition meeting, the ALJ found that Santa Cruz was not legally required to convene any transition meeting at all — that obligation belonged to the sending elementary district. Because the Parents' prior settlement agreement with Soquel Union had released the elementary district from holding a transition meeting, the unique situation was of Parents' own making. Santa Cruz went above and beyond by voluntarily holding the meeting before Student's eighth-grade graduation.

On prior written notice, the ALJ found Santa Cruz did not change Student's educational placement. The individual tutoring sessions were provided under a settlement agreement — not as a FAPE requirement — and that agreement explicitly excluded the one-to-one minutes from Student's defined educational placement. Because Santa Cruz was a new receiving district starting fresh, it was not bound by the prior IEP or settlement terms. The May 2025 transition IEP amendment document, along with meeting notes and procedural safeguards sent June 3, 2025, satisfied any prior written notice requirements anyway. A separate formal prior written notice issued June 13, 2025 — before the IEP was ever implemented in August — was also found to be timely.

On predetermination and parental participation, the ALJ found that Parents were meaningfully included in the IEP team. The meeting was scheduled at a time convenient for Parents, team members were introduced in advance, Parents brought a list of questions that were answered, and the team actively solicited Parents' input about Student's needs. Santa Cruz had not unilaterally drafted a final IEP before the meeting. While team members had formed professional opinions in advance — which is permitted — they genuinely engaged with Parents' concerns and were open to discussion.

Most critically, on the one-to-one instruction itself, Student's own expert neuropsychologist testified that Student did not require individual instruction to receive educational benefit. The neuropsychologist's 2025 reassessment found Student's specific learning disability in written expression had been remediated. Student's actual one-to-one tutor from eighth grade testified that Student would have made meaningful progress even without her individual services. The ALJ found that Parents' argument — that because Student's needs and goals hadn't changed, his services shouldn't change — was logical but did not satisfy their legal burden of proving one-to-one instruction was necessary for a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Santa Cruz prevailed on all six issues presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements can define your child's "placement" for future districts. The parents' prior settlement agreement with the elementary district explicitly excluded one-to-one tutoring from Student's defined educational placement. When Student transferred, the new high school district used this definition to argue — successfully — that it never "changed" the placement. Before signing any settlement agreement, carefully consider how its terms might limit your child's rights with a future district.
A receiving high school district is not automatically bound by what the sending district provided. When a student moves from an elementary district to a high school district between school years (not mid-year), the new district is only required to offer an appropriate IEP for the start of the new year — not to replicate the prior program. Services provided through a settlement agreement are especially vulnerable to being dropped.
Your own expert's testimony can work against you. Student's neuropsychologist testified that the child did not need one-to-one instruction to receive educational benefit. When you hire an expert, make sure their recommendations actually support the specific service you are requesting — not just general accommodations.
Disagreeing with the IEP outcome is not the same as being excluded from the IEP team. The ALJ found Parents were full IEP team members even though the district ultimately rejected their request. Meaningful participation means your concerns are heard and considered — not that the district must agree with you. Document your participation and make your concerns part of the written meeting record.
The burden of proof is on the parent filing the complaint. In California due process hearings, the party who files bears the burden of proving their claims. Parents must affirmatively show that a specific service is necessary for FAPE — not just that the district failed to justify removing it. Building a strong evidentiary record, including expert testimony that directly supports the service you are requesting, is essential.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Santa Cruz prevailed on all six issues presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Settlement agreements can define your child's "placement" for future districts. The parents' prior settlement agreement with the elementary district explicitly excluded one-to-one tutoring from Student's defined educational placement. When Student transferred, the new high school district used this definition to argue — successfully — that it never "changed" the placement. Before signing any settlement agreement, carefully consider how its terms might limit your child's rights with a future district.
A receiving high school district is not automatically bound by what the sending district provided. When a student moves from an elementary district to a high school district between school years (not mid-year), the new district is only required to offer an appropriate IEP for the start of the new year — not to replicate the prior program. Services provided through a settlement agreement are especially vulnerable to being dropped.
Your own expert's testimony can work against you. Student's neuropsychologist testified that the child did not need one-to-one instruction to receive educational benefit. When you hire an expert, make sure their recommendations actually support the specific service you are requesting — not just general accommodations.
Disagreeing with the IEP outcome is not the same as being excluded from the IEP team. The ALJ found Parents were full IEP team members even though the district ultimately rejected their request. Meaningful participation means your concerns are heard and considered — not that the district must agree with you. Document your participation and make your concerns part of the written meeting record.
The burden of proof is on the parent filing the complaint. In California due process hearings, the party who files bears the burden of proving their claims. Parents must affirmatively show that a specific service is necessary for FAPE — not just that the district failed to justify removing it. Building a strong evidentiary record, including expert testimony that directly supports the service you are requesting, is essential.