Progress is a legal requirement, not just a hope

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Endrew F. decision requires that a child’s IEP be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” The Court was explicit that schools cannot settle for barely-more-than-nothing progress simply because a child has a significant disability. A lower starting point changes what ambitious progress looks like — it does not excuse a district from aiming for it.

What flat progress can mean, legally

• The instructional approach isn’t matched to your child’s actual needs, even if it’s being implemented consistently.
• Goals are being marked “met” without real underlying data supporting that conclusion.
• The IEP hasn’t meaningfully changed in years despite the lack of results — a strong sign no one has stopped to ask why.

This applies across disabilities and grade levels

This isn’t limited to reading, and it isn’t limited to elementary school. Flat progress in communication, behavior, math, or functional life skills raises the same legal question at any age: is this program actually reasonably calculated to help, or has it simply become the default because no one revisited it?

What to do next

Start by pulling your child’s actual progress-monitoring data across the last two to three years, not just the summary language on report cards. Look at the present levels of performance over the last three IEPs. If the pattern is real, an independent evaluation and a serious conversation with the IEP team about changing the approach — not just repeating it — is usually the right first step, and may also open the door to compensatory services or reimbursement for outside help you’ve already paid for.

How many years of flat progress is “enough” to raise concerns?

There’s no fixed legal number, but as a practical matter, one disappointing progress report is very different from a multi-year pattern. A single flat semester might reflect a rough patch; two or three years of essentially unchanged performance despite consistent services is a much stronger signal that the program itself, not the child, is the limiting factor. If this sounds like your family’s experience in San Diego County, we’re glad to talk through what your options look like.

The post My Child Isn’t Making Progress — Is That Legal? appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

The standard is individualized, not uniform

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” — and specifically rejected the idea that schools can settle for barely-more-than-nothing progress just because a child’s disability is significant. A lower cognitive ceiling can change what ambitious looks like; it doesn’t eliminate the requirement that real progress happen.

Warning signs in a child’s IEP

• Goals that repeat, nearly word-for-word, from one year’s IEP to the next.
• Progress reports that say “progressing” or “met” without any underlying data to show what changed.
• A student’s actual skill level looking essentially the same as it did one, two, or three years ago, despite reportedly meeting annual goals.

Flat progress is information, not just disappointment

Multiple years without meaningful change in a core skill area — reading, communication, functional life skills — is not simply something to accept as “that’s just how it is for my child.” It can be direct evidence that the program itself, not the child’s ceiling, is the problem. Courts have been clear that a school district doesn’t get credit for effort or good intentions if the actual result, over time, is stagnation.

What to do if this sounds familiar

Ask for the underlying progress-monitoring data behind any “goal met” determination — not just the summary. You need data! If a pattern of flat progress emerges across multiple years, an independent evaluation and a hard look at whether the program needs to change (not just be repeated) is often the right next step.

Does a lower cognitive score mean the district can aim lower?

It means the starting point and pace look different, not that the district is excused from aiming for genuine growth. Endrew F. specifically addressed this scenario, rejecting the idea that a school can be satisfied with barely-more-than-nothing progress simply because a child can’t be fully mainstreamed. What counts as “ambitious” is calibrated to the child, but the requirement that real progress happen does not disappear. Our office helps San Diego families evaluate exactly this pattern, including whether privately obtained services should be reimbursed by the district.

The post Intellectual Disability and IEP Goals: What ‘Appropriate Progress’ Should Look Like appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

The legal test, in two parts

Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Burlington and Carter decisions, parents can recover reimbursement when (1) the school district failed to offer a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and (2) the private service the parents obtained was appropriate to the child’s needs. Both parts matter, but neither requires perfection.

A common misconception: “but the tutoring didn’t fully work”

Districts sometimes argue that if a child’s privately obtained tutoring or therapy didn’t produce dramatic, measurable gains, it must not have been “appropriate” — and therefore shouldn’t be reimbursed. Courts have specifically rejected this argument. Appropriateness is judged by whether the service was reasonably designed to meet the child’s needs at the time it was chosen, not by grading the outcome years later. A private program doesn’t have to guarantee results any more than a public school district’s IEP does.

What actually matters for a reimbursement claim

• Clear documentation that the district’s own program wasn’t providing meaningful progress (report cards, progress notes, evaluations).
• Evidence the private service was individually matched to your child’s diagnosed needs — not simply the most convenient or popular option.
• Timely written notice to the district, where required, of your intent to seek private services at the district’s expense.
• Reasonable, market-comparable costs for the services obtained.

Don’t assume it’s too late, or too complicated

Reimbursement claims are subject to filing deadlines, so it’s worth getting advice sooner rather than later even if the spending happened over several years.

Do I need the district’s permission before starting private services?

No, but there are notice rules worth following carefully. To preserve full reimbursement, parents generally need to notify the district’s IEP team — in writing, before removing the child from a public placement or starting the private service, or at the most recent IEP meeting — of their concerns and their intent to seek reimbursement. Skipping this step doesn’t necessarily kill a claim, but it can reduce what’s recoverable, so it’s worth doing even if you’re planning to start services quickly. If your San Diego family has spent significant money on tutoring or therapy your school district should have provided, we can help you evaluate whether a reimbursement claim makes sense.

The post Can I Get Reimbursed for Private Tutoring or Therapy My School District Should Have Provided? appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

The legal standard, in plain language

California’s regulation (5 CCR § 3043) makes a student eligible for ESY when their disability is likely to continue indefinitely or for a prolonged period, and a break in services may cause regression that the student can’t reasonably recoup once school resumes. Importantly, the regulation does not require your family to produce a formal clinical study proving regression — the IEP team can and should find eligibility based on reasonable evidence, including the nature of the disability itself.

Who typically qualifies

• Students with autism, intellectual disability, or significant communication disorders, where skill-building is often slow and hard-won.
• Students who have shown a pattern of losing skills over past school breaks and taking weeks or longer to recover them.
• Students working on critical, foundational skills (reading, communication, self-care, behavior regulation) where a summer gap could meaningfully set back the year’s progress.

A common misconception

Some districts act as though ESY requires proof the child would regress to “nothing” without summer services. That is not the legal standard. The real question is whether the benefits the child gained during the school year would be significantly put at risk by a summer without programming — a much lower bar than “total collapse.”

If your district says no

A district cannot deny ESY solely because you don’t have a formal regression study — the absence of that specific kind of evidence is not, by itself, a legally sufficient reason to deny services where other evidence supports the need.

Does ESY have to look like the regular school-year program?

No, but it does have to be comparable in quality and actually address the goals it’s meant to protect. California requires a minimum number of instructional days and requires the program be appropriate to the child’s needs — it doesn’t have to be a full replica of the regular school year, but it also can’t be a token, watered-down version offered just to check a compliance box. If your San Diego County child has been denied ESY, or if a district has never even raised it at an IEP meeting despite an ongoing pattern of slow progress, it’s worth having that conversation directly, in writing, before summer break arrives.

The post Extended School Year (ESY) in California: Is Your Child Entitled to Summer Services? appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

Section 504 covers the majority of ADHD cases

If your child’s ADHD substantially limits a major life activity — concentrating, learning, or behavior regulation — but they can access the general curriculum with accommodations, a 504 Plan is usually the right fit. Common accommodations include extended time, preferential seating, movement breaks, chunked assignments, and organizational support.

When ADHD supports an IEP instead

If ADHD significantly impacts academic achievement despite accommodations — not just attention, but actual learning — a child may qualify for an IEP under the “Other Health Impairment” category. This is especially common when ADHD co-occurs with a learning disability, anxiety, or executive functioning deficits severe enough that specialized instruction, not just accommodation, is needed.

Accommodations that actually address ADHD, versus ones that just look supportive

• Movement breaks and reduced unstructured transition time tend to outperform generic “extra time” accommodations for younger students.
• Checklists and visual schedules for executive functioning support are often more useful than verbal reminders alone.
• Behavior plans should be based on an actual functional behavior assessment, not a generic template reused across students.

If accommodations aren’t working

A 504 Plan that looks reasonable on paper but isn’t actually being implemented — teachers not following it, accommodations forgotten mid-year — is a common and often overlooked problem. You have the right to ask for an implementation review, and if a 504 Plan repeatedly fails in practice, that may be evidence your child actually needs the stronger protections of an IEP.

Can my child have an IEP and still take ADHD medication at school?

Yes. Medication management is a health matter between your family and your child’s doctor, and having an IEP or 504 Plan doesn’t change that. Schools can play a supporting role — a health plan for administering medication during school hours, for example — but neither an IEP team nor a 504 team can require medication as a condition of receiving services, and you’re not required to disclose medication decisions you’d rather keep private. We help San Diego families sort out which path fits their child, and what to do when a plan isn’t being followed.

The post ADHD in the Classroom: 504 Plan vs. IEP, and Which Accommodations Actually Help appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

Documentation wins cases, not intentions

Across San Diego County OAH decisions, a consistent pattern shows up: parents (and districts) who can point to specific dates, specific written requests, and specific data consistently do better than those relying on general impressions of what happened. If you asked for an assessment, you want the email. If you saw regression over the summer, you want the specific example, not just a feeling that things got worse.

“Some progress” is a legal standard, not just a phrase

Many decisions turn on whether a district’s program was “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” — the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District. That means the question isn’t whether a child made incredible progress, or even whether an outside program worked perfectly; it’s whether the plan on paper, at the time it was written, made sense for that specific child.

Districts have to prove their evaluations were appropriate — not just done

When parents challenge a district’s assessment and request an Independent Educational Evaluation, decisions consistently show that simply completing an assessment on time doesn’t end the inquiry; the district still has to show the assessment used appropriate tools, covered all areas of suspected disability, and was administered by qualified staff.

What this means for San Diego County parents

• Keep dated records of every request, concern, and response — they matter more than most parents expect.
• “Appropriate” is a legal term with real content, not just a feeling either side has about how things are going.
• A completed evaluation is not automatically a legally sufficient one.

Are past OAH decisions binding on my case?

No — each OAH decision is specific to its own facts and doesn’t set binding precedent the way an appellate court ruling does. But decisions are still genuinely useful: they show how administrative law judges apply the same legal standards your case will be measured against, and reading several from your own county gives a realistic sense of what evidence tends to persuade a judge in practice, not just in theory.

If you’re trying to understand how a due process decision might apply to your San Diego County situation, or whether your documentation is strong enough to support a claim, our office regularly reviews these patterns with families before a dispute escalates.

The post Understanding Due Process Decisions: What Recent San Diego County OAH Cases Teach Parents appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

How SLD eligibility works

California law prohibits districts from requiring a rigid “severe discrepancy” between IQ and achievement scores as the only path to an SLD finding; districts may also use a child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention, or a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in specific cognitive processes tied to reading. If your school has only tried informal, in-class support without a real assessment, ask directly for a formal SLD evaluation in writing.

Instruction matters as much as the label

Getting the eligibility category right is only step one. Dyslexia responds best to structured literacy approaches — explicit, systematic phonics instruction (such as Orton-Gillingham-based programs) — not generic reading support or extra time alone. If your child qualifies for an IEP but the services offered are just “extra help” without a specific, evidence-based reading methodology, that’s worth questioning.

IEP or 504 Plan?

• An IEP is appropriate when a child needs specialized instruction — a different way of being taught, not just accommodations.
• A 504 Plan may be appropriate when a child can access the curriculum with accommodations alone (extra time, audiobooks, reduced reading load) but doesn’t need specialized reading instruction.
• Many children with dyslexia need an IEP, not just a 504 Plan, because the core deficit is in how reading is taught, not just how it’s accessed.

Watch for flat progress

If your child has had a reading-related IEP for a year or more with little measurable movement in reading level, that is itself worth examining — it can mean the instructional approach isn’t matched to your child’s specific needs, not that your child simply “can’t” make progress. Ask for data!

My child gets “extra time” for reading but no different instruction — is that enough?

Usually not, if your child needs an IEP-level intervention. Extra time addresses access, not the underlying skill deficit. A child with dyslexia typically needs a different way of being taught to read — explicit, sequential phonics instruction — not simply more time with the same instructional approach that hasn’t worked so far. If that distinction sounds like your child’s IEP, it’s worth raising directly at the next meeting. Our office works with San Diego families to evaluate whether a district’s reading program is actually appropriate, not just present on paper.

The post Dyslexia and Specific Learning Disabilities: Getting an IEP or 504 Plan in San Diego Schools appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

The legal category is broader than the word “autism” suggests

California’s special education regulations (5 CCR § 3030), mirroring federal law, define the Autism eligibility category as a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects educational performance. Notably, this covers older diagnostic labels too: Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD), PDD-NOS, and Asperger’s Syndrome — all pre-2013 diagnostic terms — generally fall within this same legal category, since the DSM-5 folded them into “Autism Spectrum Disorder.” A school district cannot deny eligibility just because an older evaluation uses one of these earlier terms instead of the word “autism.”

A diagnosis alone isn’t the end of the inquiry

Eligibility requires two things: your child fits a qualifying category, and the disability adversely affects educational performance such that specialized instruction is needed. A private autism diagnosis with no educational impact doesn’t automatically create IEP eligibility — but “educational performance” is not limited to grades. Social skills, communication, behavior, and the ability to access the school environment all count.

What a thorough autism-related evaluation should include

• Social-communication and social-interaction assessment, not just academic testing.
• Sensory processing and behavioral observations across more than one setting.
• Consideration of whether Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), social skills groups, or specialized aide support are needed.

If the district disagrees with an outside diagnosis

Districts sometimes push back on outside autism diagnoses, especially where symptoms present differently in girls, in bilingual households, or in children who mask symptoms at school.

What if the school says my child “doesn’t look autistic” in class?

Many autistic children, especially girls and children who have learned to mask, present very differently at school than at home or in a clinical evaluation setting. That masking is itself well documented in the research and is not a legitimate reason to disregard an outside diagnosis — it’s a reason to make sure the district’s own observations happen across more than one setting and time of day. If your child has an autism-related diagnosis and the district’s evaluation doesn’t reflect it, an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense may be the right next step. We help San Diego-area families navigate exactly this gap between a medical diagnosis and a school district’s eligibility findings.

The post Autism and IEP Eligibility in California: What the Law Actually Requires appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

The law doesn’t scale down with district size

A small district cannot lower the bar for what counts as a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) simply because it has fewer specialists on staff or a smaller special education budget. If a small district cannot provide a service in-house, it is required to arrange for it another way — through a SELPA (Special Education Local Plan Area) partnership, a contracted provider, or a non-public agency — not simply decline to offer it.

Common challenges in smaller districts

• Fewer on-site specialists (speech, occupational therapy, school psychologists) who may split time across multiple school sites or districts.
• Longer travel distances for any out-of-district placement or related service.
• Smaller special education departments with less specialized experience in rarer disabilities.

What families can ask for

If your rural San Diego County district doesn’t have the right specialist on staff, you can ask specifically how the district plans to meet that need — through its SELPA, a itinerant provider who travels between districts, teletherapy, or a contract with an outside agency. “We don’t have anyone who does that” is not, on its own, a legally sufficient answer.

You’re not limited to your district’s usual playbook

Options like a Non-Public School placement, extended school year services, or an out-of-district specialized program remain available to families in small districts just as they are in large ones — the analysis is about your child’s individual needs, not the size of the district’s existing program list.

Does a small district have to pay for an out-of-district placement?

If a small district cannot provide an appropriate program itself, and an out-of-district or Non-Public School placement is what your child actually needs, cost to the district is not a legally valid reason to deny it. Budget constraints are a real pressure on small districts, but they don’t change what a child with a disability is legally entitled to receive. If your family is navigating special education in a smaller San Diego County district and feels like the answer is always “we don’t offer that here,” it’s worth a conversation about what the district is actually required to arrange.

The post Special Education Options for Families in San Diego’s Smaller and Rural School Districts appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.

Put your request in writing

Verbal concerns raised at drop-off or during a parent-teacher conference don’t start the legal clock. Send a written request — email is fine — to your child’s teacher or CVESD’s special education department asking for an initial evaluation, and describe specifically what you’re seeing: falling behind in reading, speech delays, behavior differences, or difficulty with peers.

What happens next, and by when

CVESD must provide a proposed assessment plan within 15 calendar days of your written request. Once you sign and return it, the district generally has 60 calendar days (not counting school breaks over five days) to complete testing and convene an IEP meeting to review results with you.

Early elementary considerations

Because CVESD serves such young children, some assessment areas are especially important to insist on early: speech and language development, early reading/phonological awareness skills, and, for students who were in early intervention (Part C) before kindergarten, a review of whether that transition happened smoothly. Catching a reading-related disability in early elementary is far easier to remediate than waiting until third or fourth grade.

• Ask whether your child’s preschool or Part C early-intervention records were requested and reviewed.
• Request that phonological awareness and early literacy skills be specifically assessed if reading is a concern.
• Get any assessment plan and results in writing, and ask questions before signing if anything is unclear.

If CVESD denies the request

The district must give you written notice explaining why it won’t assess. You are not required to accept that at face value — a state complaint, or a due process filing are all available, and getting informed early often resolves things faster than waiting to see if the concern goes away on its own.

Can I request specific tests?

Yes. While CVESD’s assessors choose the specific instruments, you can and should specify the areas you want evaluated — for example, phonological processing, expressive versus receptive language, or attention and executive functioning — and ask, before signing the assessment plan, whether each of those areas is actually covered. If your CVESD student’s assessment has been denied, delayed, or you disagree with the results, our office can help you understand your options.

The post How to Request a Special Education Assessment in Chula Vista Elementary School District appeared first on The Law Office of Matthew H. Storey.