Private Dyslexia School Reimbursement After District IEP Failed to Specify Adequate Services for Student with Double-Deficit Dyslexia

What Happened

A student in Twin Rivers Unified School District had been identified with specific learning disabilities and speech-language impairment since first grade. By eighth grade, the student — who had average cognitive abilities — had "double-deficit dyslexia" with significant deficits in both phonological awareness and rapid naming. Despite years of special education services, her academic skills were devastatingly low: her broad reading scores corresponded to a child in the fifth month of first grade, her writing skills to the first month of second grade, and her math skills to the second month of third grade.

The parent, dissatisfied with the district's programming, withdrew the student in January 2022 and eventually placed her at READ Academy, a private school in Sacramento specifically designed for students with dyslexia. At READ Academy, the student received intensive intervention through the Wilson Reading System, the Institute for Excellence in Writing, and Making Math Real.

After a prior settlement, the parties returned to dispute the district's January 11, 2024 IEP offer. ALJ Robert G. Martin heard the case over 12 days of hearing with attorneys Colleen Snyder and Julia Baker representing the student.

What the District Did Wrong

Internally Inconsistent IEP That No One Could Understand

The January 11, 2024 IEP contained varying, inconsistent descriptions of the student's school day. Different pages described a five-period or six-period school day, offered specialized academic instruction in as few as three or as many as five subjects, and variously described the student as spending time in four or five periods of special day classes. The ALJ found "it was impossible to confirm" from the IEP itself how many classes the student would receive or what percentage of her day would be in general education.

Citing the Ninth Circuit's 2024 decision in Los Angeles v. A.O., the ALJ rejected the district's argument that parents could have asked clarifying questions: "We also do not see a limiting principle in the dissenting opinion's suggestion that parents should be obliged to ask follow-up questions until all terms of the IEP are reasonably clear."

Reading Intervention Was Not Evidence-Based

The district's reading intervention used READ 180, which the student's expert, Ms. Pippin, testified was not supported by peer-reviewed studies for high-risk readers like this student. Pippin observed the academic intervention class at the proposed placement and found "there was no direct instruction or oral reading" — students wore headphones and logged onto computers. By the district's own estimate, students received only 25 to 30 minutes of direct instruction, three days per week, on a two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off basis. The student's expert opined she required 90 minutes of direct structured literacy instruction four to five days per week.

Math Instruction Lacked Direct, Explicit Approach

The district offered one period of Integrated Math Essentials, a special day class that taught grade-level general education content at a slower pace. The expert observed the teacher using a "Socratic method" approach — working problems on the board and asking questions — rather than the direct, explicit instruction the student needed. The district's own Special Education Director agreed the student required more direct instruction and that MATH 180 was necessary for a FAPE, but this program was never mentioned in the IEP or any subsequent IEP offer.

Assistive Technology Offered Without Training

The district offered speech-to-text and text-to-speech software as accommodations, but listed them only on the accommodations page rather than the special factors page for assistive technology. No training was offered. The Special Education Director admitted she did not know how to access these tools on the district's Chromebooks or whether additional software would be needed.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Robert G. Martin found the district denied FAPE on multiple issues and that the January 11, 2024 IEP could not be implemented without parental consent.

On the unclear IEP offer:

"Twin Rivers' offer of specialized academic instruction in the January 11, 2024 IEP does not satisfy the standards for a clear written offer described in Union v. Smith, Los Angeles v. A.O., and Mercer Island."

On the inadequacy of the reading intervention:

"The weight of the evidence proved Twin Rivers' offer of specialized academic instruction in reading in the January 11, 2024 IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress in light of her circumstances."

The ALJ found the student prevailed on the clear written offer (Issue 1.A), missing goals in math facts and listening comprehension (Issue 1.C), inappropriate reading and math instruction (Issue 1.D, in part), and assistive technology training (Issue 1.F). The district prevailed on speech and language services and written expression instruction. The district's own issue — whether its IEP offered a FAPE that could be implemented without consent — was decided in favor of the student.

On the appropriateness of READ Academy, the ALJ found the private placement provided "educational instruction specially designed to meet Student's needs" through research-based, structured programs. The student received 90 minutes per day of direct reading instruction four days per week in a setting with one other student and a teacher trained in working with students with dyslexia. Testing showed "clinically significant improvement in her skills in all areas of reading, and in spelling, sentence combining, essay composition and math-numerical operations."

What Was Ordered

1. Reimburse $8,800 to the student's compensatory education fund for expenses incurred at READ Academy through the end of the 2023-2024 school year

2. Reimburse mileage at $30.15 per day of attendance (45 miles round trip at the IRS rate of $0.67 per mile) for each day the student attended READ Academy from January 11, 2024 through the end of the 2023-2024 school year

3. All other requests for relief by both parties were denied

Why This Matters for Parents

1. An IEP that contradicts itself is not a clear offer of FAPE. Under the Ninth Circuit's 2024 decision in Los Angeles v. A.O., the burden is on the district to make the IEP clear — not on parents to decode it. If your child's IEP contains inconsistent information about placement, services, or time in general education, that is a procedural violation that can support a FAPE denial finding.

2. Progress at a private school proves the district's program was inadequate. This student's scores showed clinically significant improvement in reading, spelling, writing, and math at READ Academy using evidence-based programs like Wilson Reading System and Making Math Real. When a private placement produces measurable growth that the district's program never achieved, it powerfully demonstrates that the district failed to offer a FAPE.

3. READ 180 and similar computer-based programs may not be appropriate for students with severe dyslexia. The ALJ credited expert testimony that READ 180 lacked peer-reviewed support for high-risk readers and that the actual classroom implementation provided minimal direct instruction. Students with severe reading disabilities typically need intensive, direct, explicit structured literacy instruction — not computer-based programs.

4. Assistive technology requires training, not just listing on the IEP. Offering speech-to-text software as an accommodation is meaningless if the student has never been taught how to use it and the district's own director does not know how to access it on the school's devices. The California Dyslexia Guidelines call training the "most crucial" service for student success with assistive technology.

5. Private school reimbursement does not require the private school to provide all services. Under C.B. v. Garden Grove and Florence County v. Carter, parents need only show that the private placement provided educational instruction designed to meet the child's unique needs. The private school does not need state-credentialed teachers or formal IEP meetings.