District Correctly Identified Orthographic Dyslexia Subtype and Won on Assessment Adequacy

What Happened

A first grader with orthographic dyslexia -- also known as surface dyslexia, which involves difficulty visually recognizing and processing written words and letter patterns -- enrolled in Capistrano USD for the 2022-2023 school year. The student was also eligible under other health impairment due to attention deficits. This is notable as the only known California OAH decision to specifically identify and analyze the orthographic/surface dyslexia subtype.

Capistrano identified the student's academic deficits at the start of first grade and placed him in an intensive reading intervention program (WIN -- What I Need) by September 2022. After the student continued in the intensive group through a second cycle, a student success team meeting on December 9, 2022 identified concerns about phonemic awareness, processing skills, and anxiety. The team referred the student for a special education assessment that same day. The assessment was completed by February 7, 2023, and an IEP was developed at a March 1, 2023 meeting.

The parents withdrew the student from Capistrano after the 2022-2023 school year and enrolled him at The Lexington School in Kentucky -- a private school for students with dyslexia -- for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years. The parents then sought reimbursement of $78,545.94 for Lexington tuition, $3,910 for two summer camps, and $8,500 for a September 2024 independent educational evaluation by Dr. Dawn Richards.

This was a consolidated case: the student filed a complaint raising seven issues, and Capistrano filed its own complaint to defend the adequacy of its February 2023 assessment. The case was heard over 11 days and decided in a 126-page opinion.

What the Parent Argued

The parents argued on numerous fronts: that Capistrano failed its child find obligation from November through December 2022; that the March 2023 IEP denied FAPE by failing to offer appropriate goals in 13 areas (including reading, writing, math, phonological processing, orthographic processing, attention, executive functioning, and self-advocacy); that it failed to offer appropriate counseling and behavioral services; that it failed to offer placement with small-group instruction; that the May 2024 IEP had the same deficiencies; that the district predetermined placement; that it failed to consider the September 2024 IEE; that it failed to convene the annual IEP meeting by May 2025; and that it failed to have an IEP in place for 2025-2026. The parents also sought reimbursement for Lexington tuition, summer camps, and the IEE.

Why the District Won

Assessment Was Comprehensive and Adequate

The ALJ found that Capistrano's February 2023 assessment met all legal requirements. The district "used qualified assessors" and the assessment plan "complied with all applicable statutory requirements regarding form, function, and notice." The school psychologist assessed intellectual development, processing abilities, social-emotional functioning, and adaptive behavior. An education specialist assessed academic achievement. A speech-language pathologist assessed communication. The assessor, Brown, had conducted over 2,000 assessments in her career and correctly identified the orthographic dyslexia subtype.

Child Find Was Timely

The ALJ found Capistrano acted appropriately by placing the student in intensive reading intervention (WIN) immediately, monitoring his progress every two weeks, and referring him for assessment after the second cycle showed continued below-grade-level performance. "It was reasonable and appropriate for Capistrano Unified to wait to review his response to interventions following his second cycle of WIN before referring him for a special education assessment."

Most IEP Goals Were Appropriate

Capistrano prevailed on goals for basic reading skills, reading fluency, reading comprehension, basic writing skills, written expression, math application tasks, phonological processing, orthographic processing, peer interactions, and social-emotional skills -- across both the March 2023 and May 2024 IEPs. The student prevailed on only three narrow sub-issues: the March 2023 IEP's failure to offer goals in attention, executive functioning, and self-advocacy.

Tuition Reimbursement Was Denied Entirely

The ALJ denied all $78,545.94 in Lexington tuition reimbursement for multiple independent reasons: (1) the parents' emails did not constitute proper written notice of their intent to place at public expense; (2) the notice was untimely -- parents placed the student at Lexington just five business days after emailing the district; (3) parents did not afford the district an opportunity to meet before the placement; (4) the student did not reside in Capistrano's boundaries during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, and therefore could not demand FAPE from Capistrano for those years.

IEE Reimbursement Was Denied

Because the district proved its psychoeducational assessment was appropriate, the ALJ denied the $8,500 IEE reimbursement. The failure to offer attention, executive functioning, and self-advocacy goals "did not occur because Capistrano Unified's assessors failed to properly and comprehensively assess those needs" -- so the IEE could not be justified as a remedy for assessment failure.

What Was Ordered

Despite the overwhelming district victory, the student prevailed on three narrow issues -- the failure to offer attention, executive functioning, and self-advocacy goals in the March 2023 IEP. The remedy was modest:

1. Capistrano is not required to fund an IEE in psychoeducation.
2. Capistrano must provide 20 hours of compensatory educational services in the area of attention or executive functioning, by a credentialed teacher or qualified provider, at a rate not to exceed $200/hour (total: $4,000).
3. Services must be used by December 31, 2026, or forfeited.
4. All other relief -- including $78,545.94 in tuition reimbursement, $3,910 in summer camp reimbursement, and $8,500 in IEE reimbursement -- was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

This decision is a cautionary tale about the practical requirements for seeking tuition reimbursement and the importance of the details that can make or break a case.

Written notice requirements are rigid and unforgiving. The parents emailed the district expressing concern and then enrolled their child in a Kentucky private school five business days later. The ALJ found this did not constitute proper written notice under 20 U.S.C. section 1412(a)(10)(iii)(C)(I)(aa). If you are considering a unilateral private placement, you must provide clear, specific written notice to the district at the last IEP meeting or at least 10 business days before removing the child. State in writing that you are rejecting the district's placement, why, and that you intend to seek reimbursement. Anything less may cost you everything.

Moving out of the district eliminates your FAPE claim. The parents moved to Kentucky but tried to hold Capistrano responsible for two additional school years. The ALJ found Capistrano had no duty to provide FAPE to a student who did not reside within its boundaries. If you are planning a unilateral placement out of state, understand that you may be severing your legal relationship with your home district.

Give the district a chance to respond before you pull the trigger. The parents did not respond to Capistrano's August 28 and 29, 2023 request to meet before the placement. The ALJ specifically noted this. Courts and ALJs want to see that parents gave the district a fair opportunity to address their concerns before resorting to a private placement. Refusing to meet undercuts your equitable case for reimbursement.

Assessment adequacy is hard to challenge when the assessor is experienced. The district's assessor had conducted over 2,000 assessments and correctly identified the orthographic dyslexia subtype. Challenging assessment adequacy requires showing specific deficiencies in what was assessed, how it was assessed, or who assessed it -- not simply disagreeing with the conclusions.

Winning on small issues does not win the war. The parents prevailed on 3 out of more than 40 sub-issues and were awarded $4,000 out of the $90,955.94 they sought. That is a 4.4% recovery rate. Unless you have strong evidence on your core claims -- particularly reimbursement and IEE -- filing on dozens of issues will result in enormous legal fees and a largely pyrrhic victory.