Pleasanton USD Denied FAPE by Failing to Have IEP in Place, Impeding Parent Participation Through Months of IEP Confusion for Student with Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia, and ADHD

What Happened

This case involves a 12-year-old seventh grader eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. She had diagnoses of dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The student resided within Pleasanton Unified School District's boundaries and was placed in general education for most of the school day, with smaller classes to support her in reading, writing, and math.

The family's troubles began in April 2020 when the parties met six times to develop a new annual IEP. After the sixth meeting, the district sent the resulting IEP document to the parents for signature. On June 15, 2020, the parents declined to agree to the offer with one exception -- they accepted 60 minutes a week of writing services during the extended school year. The parents explicitly rejected all other changes from the April 2019 IEP. Their core disagreements were that the IEP did not provide for one-to-one instruction in math using Making Math Real, or one-to-one reading instruction using the Wilson Reading System.

Pleasanton's Assistant Superintendent, Ed Diolazo, committed to reimbursing the parents for their expenses in hiring outside providers to teach the student math and reading in a one-to-one setting using these programs. This reimbursement was to continue until the dispute was resolved. A new IEP team meeting was held on August 29, 2020, but the parties never finalized a complete IEP document or obtained parents' written consent.

What the District Did Wrong

The district's procedural failures were extensive and cascading. First, Pleasanton failed to have a completed, written IEP in place at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year. The written August 2020 offer was never completed and was never agreed to by the parents in writing. As ALJ Marson emphasized, "The requirement that an IEP be written is not just a technicality; it is critical to implementation of a student's program."

From that point, the IEP situation deteriorated into chaos. In January 2021, the district's program specialist sent a document she described as the "complete and current offer of FAPE" -- but it was actually an amendment to the April 2019 IEP, not the August 2020 offer at all. In February 2021, she sent yet another document, this time using a "new approach" of picking and choosing parts from the April 2019 IEP and the April 2020 offer. The mother believed this confirmed the August 2020 agreement, but the document instead made "changes to the IEP dated 4/15/2020."

The confusion only grew worse. Five district staff members testified at hearing that they were not certain what IEP document governed the student's program or which set of annual goals to use. On September 28, 2021, the Senior Director of Special Education accurately wrote to the parents: "We do not have an agreed to IEP."

When the mother requested a copy of the governing IEP, the Director of Special Education refused to provide one, asking instead for exact dates of the IEP she requested and stating that parents had been given full access to the student's files. Federal regulation requires the district to respond affirmatively to such a request: "The public agency must give the parent a copy of the child's IEP at no cost to the parent." The district's refusal violated this provision and further impeded parental participation.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Charles Marson found that the student prevailed on the key procedural issues. On the failure to have an IEP in place, the judge rejected the district's attempt to blame parents for the delay, noting that the Ninth Circuit "has consistently warned against blaming parents for breakdowns in the IEP process." The parents did not refuse to attend or cancel any IEP team meetings; they actively engaged and came close to agreement on August 29.

The judge found that the district's procedural failures had real consequences. The months of confusion about the student's program "substantially impeded Parents' right to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to Student." The confusion "involved Parents in a lengthy but futile effort to clarify that program, brought about the implementation of an IEP that did not have lawful parental agreement, confused District staff, and eventually restricted Parents' ability to invoke the IDEA's stay put provision."

On the question of whether the student needed specific methodologies like Wilson Reading System and Making Math Real, the ALJ did not reach the substantive issues because the procedural violations alone warranted full relief. As the judge explained: "It is unnecessary to address [the substantive adequacy of an IEP] if we identify 'procedural inadequacies that ... seriously infringe the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process.'"

What Was Ordered

The ALJ ordered significant relief:

1. Reimbursement of $17,325 for educational services provided by Tanya Aungle (a Wilson Reading System certified specialist and Making Math Real instructor) during July, August, and September 2021, at her rate of $150 per hour. The district could deduct any reimbursement payments already made.

2. Reimbursement for Aungle's services from October 1 to October 13, 2021, upon proof of payment.

3. Reimbursement of $3,850 for private assessments by Aungle ($1,350) and Dr. Kathy Futterman ($2,500), a Doctor of Education and member of the California Department of Education's Dyslexia Program Guidelines Work Group.

4. All reimbursement to be paid within 45 days of appropriate documentation.

5. A new IEP team meeting within 30 days, with detailed requirements: the new IEP must be a complete, standalone document (not an amendment to any prior IEP), must not be distributed to staff until all provisions are complete, and must not be presented for signature until finished.

6. Ten hours of mandatory staff training within 90 days on writing, processing, and recording IEPs and the legal requirements for their completion and presentation. The training must be presented by special education attorneys or experienced administrators -- not by Pleasanton's own attorneys or employees.

Why This Matters for Parents

This case powerfully illustrates why a complete, written IEP matters. When the district failed to finalize a written IEP document, the result was over a year of confusion that left even the district's own staff unsure what program they were supposed to implement. As ALJ Marson noted, "Parents must be able to use the IEP to monitor and enforce the services that their child is to receive."

For parents of children with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia, this case shows that districts cannot escape liability by blaming parents for insisting on specific methodologies like Wilson Reading or Making Math Real. The Ninth Circuit has made clear that blaming parents for IEP process breakdowns is not acceptable. Parents who hire qualified private providers when the district fails to provide a FAPE can recover those costs -- including the reasonable hourly rate of the specialist ($150/hour in this case was found reasonable for a master's-level educational therapist certified in structured literacy).

The ordered staff training is particularly notable. ALJ Marson found it "apparent that Pleasanton staff have sometimes departed significantly from the procedural requirements of the IDEA" and ordered training by outside experts, not the district's own attorneys. This remedy sends a clear message that districts must take IEP documentation seriously.