Los Alamitos USD Failed Child Find Duty for Student with Dyslexia Despite CDE Dyslexia Guidelines Warning Signs and Lack of RTI Progress

What Happened

This case involves a student in the Los Alamitos Unified School District who struggled with reading from the earliest grades. The student exhibited the classic warning signs of dyslexia -- difficulty with phonological awareness, problems decoding unfamiliar words, poor spelling, slow reading fluency, and letter or word reversals. These are precisely the indicators listed in the California Department of Education's 2017 Dyslexia Guidelines, which all California school districts are expected to follow.

The district placed the student in its Response to Intervention (RTI) program, providing tiered reading support in the general education setting. While RTI is an appropriate first step for students who are struggling, it cannot be used to indefinitely delay a referral for special education assessment when a student is not making sufficient progress. That is exactly what happened here.

Despite receiving RTI interventions over an extended period, the student was not making sufficient progress in reading. The gap between the student and grade-level peers was not closing. By May 2019, the accumulation of warning signs and the student's lack of adequate progress through RTI should have triggered the district's child find duty to refer the student for a comprehensive special education assessment.

What the District Did Wrong

Los Alamitos USD failed its child find duty in several critical ways. The district had access to data showing the student was exhibiting virtually all of the warning signs of dyslexia that the CDE Dyslexia Guidelines describe. The student's struggles with phonological processing, decoding, spelling, and reading fluency were documented through classroom performance, RTI progress monitoring data, and teacher observations.

Despite this accumulation of red flags, the district did not refer the student for a special education evaluation. Instead, the district continued to rely on RTI as the sole response, effectively using the intervention program as a barrier to assessment rather than a pathway to it. Under California law, RTI may not be used to delay or deny a timely referral for assessment when a disability is suspected.

The district should have referred the student for assessment no later than May 2019. The failure to do so meant that the student went without the specialized, evidence-based reading instruction that students with dyslexia are entitled to under California Education Code section 56335. Each month of delay allowed the student to fall further behind peers, as the cumulative effects of untreated dyslexia compounded over time.

The parents, recognizing that their child was not making adequate progress, eventually sought a private evaluation. That evaluation confirmed what the warning signs had been indicating all along: the student had dyslexia and needed specialized intervention that went beyond what general education RTI could provide.

What the Judge Found

The ALJ found that Los Alamitos USD failed its child find obligation. The decision established that the district had reason to suspect the student might have a disability -- specifically, a specific learning disability in the area of reading (dyslexia) -- no later than May 2019. The student's profile matched the CDE Dyslexia Guidelines indicators, and the RTI data showed insufficient progress.

The ALJ found that FAPE was denied beginning in October 2019 (within the two-year statute of limitations from the filing date). From that point forward, the student was entitled to, but did not receive, the specialized reading instruction that an appropriate IEP would have provided.

The private evaluation confirming dyslexia was found to be credible and well-supported. It demonstrated that the student had the phonological processing deficits and reading difficulties characteristic of dyslexia, and that the student required evidence-based, structured literacy instruction -- not simply more of the same general education interventions that had already proven insufficient.

The decision emphasized that California's Dyslexia Guidelines are not merely aspirational. They provide a practical framework that districts should use to identify students who may have dyslexia, and a district that ignores these guidelines when a student is exhibiting the listed warning signs does so at its peril.

What Was Ordered

The ALJ ordered relief to compensate the student for the period of denied FAPE:

1. Compensatory education to make up for the specialized reading instruction the student should have been receiving from October 2019 onward. The compensatory services were designed to provide the educational benefits that would have accrued had the district assessed the student and provided appropriate services in the first place.

2. Reimbursement for the private evaluation that confirmed the student's dyslexia diagnosis. Because the district failed to conduct its own assessment despite having reason to suspect a disability, it was reasonable for the parents to obtain a private evaluation at their own expense.

3. Appropriate IEP development including evidence-based, structured literacy instruction as required under Education Code section 56335 for students identified with dyslexia.

Why This Matters for Parents

This case is a landmark example of how California's 2017 Dyslexia Guidelines can be used to hold districts accountable for their child find obligations. When a student exhibits the warning signs of dyslexia that the CDE has specifically enumerated -- difficulty with phonological awareness, problems with decoding, poor spelling, slow fluency -- and is not making adequate progress in RTI, the district has a legal duty to refer for assessment. The RTI process cannot be used as an indefinite holding pattern.

Parents whose children are struggling to read should familiarize themselves with the CDE Dyslexia Guidelines warning signs. If your child matches many of these indicators and is not making progress in intervention, you have strong grounds to request a comprehensive special education assessment. Document everything: keep copies of progress monitoring data, report cards, and any communications where you express concern about your child's reading.

If the district refuses to assess, put your request in writing and cite the child find obligation. The district must respond with either an assessment plan or a prior written notice explaining why it is refusing to assess. If the district delays, a private evaluation can confirm what you already suspect -- and the district may be ordered to reimburse you for that evaluation, as happened in this case.

The key takeaway: RTI cannot be used to delay assessment when dyslexia is suspected. California law is clear that a referral for special education must happen once the resources of the regular education program have been considered and utilized, and the student is still not making adequate progress. Every month of delay is a month of lost educational opportunity for a child with dyslexia.