## Facts

- A student in Clovis, New Mexico had a specific learning disability in reading and written language, with suspected dyslexia.
- The parent and school district developed annual IEPs from second through fifth grade.
- The district frequently relied on an assessment tool (Istation) to set goals and measure progress, but did not explain the scores’ meaning or their effect on IEP goals to the parent.
- The student remained below grade level in reading, writing, and spelling over multiple years; the IEPs remained substantially similar year to year and, at times, lowered academic goals.
- The IEPs required specified minutes of special-education instruction in reading and writing, but the district did not consistently provide the required specialized-instruction minutes.
- After a due process hearing, the hearing officer found IDEA violations and ordered continued special-education services, compensatory education, and an independent assistive-technology evaluation at district expense.
- Both sides sought federal court review; the district, in substance, sought reversal of the hearing officer’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether the district denied the student a FAPE by developing IEPs not reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress in light of the student’s circumstances.
2. Whether the district materially failed to implement the IEPs by not providing required specialized instruction.
3. Whether the district’s opaque reliance on assessment data significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in IEP decision-making, and whether that procedural violation contributed to denial of FAPE.
4. Whether the ordered remedies, including compensatory education and an independent assistive-technology evaluation, were appropriate.

## Decision

- The court denied the district’s request to overturn the administrative ruling and affirmed the hearing officer’s decision in full.
- The court upheld findings that the district denied FAPE through substantively inadequate IEPs, material nonimplementation of required services, and a procedural violation that significantly impeded parental participation.
- The court affirmed the remedies requiring continued special-education services, compensatory education, and an independent assistive-technology evaluation.

## Legal Principles

- An IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances; repeated, minimally adjusted plans amid persistent deficits can fail this standard.
- A material failure to implement required IEP services—such as not delivering specified minutes of specialized instruction—supports a finding of denial of FAPE.
- Procedural violations under IDEA are actionable when they significantly impede parents’ opportunity to participate, impede the child’s right to FAPE, or deprive the child of educational benefits.
- In judicial review of IDEA administrative decisions, the court makes an independent decision on the record while giving due weight to supported administrative findings, particularly on educational judgments and credibility.
- Compensatory education and targeted independent evaluations are permissible equitable remedies to address the effects of a denial of FAPE.

## Conclusion

The court upheld an administrative determination that the district denied a student with a reading- and writing-related learning disability a FAPE by using largely repetitive IEPs that did not produce appropriate progress, failing to deliver required specialized instruction, and limiting parental participation through unexplained assessment-driven decision-making, and it affirmed compensatory services and an independent assistive-technology evaluation as appropriate relief.


Preciado v. Bd. of Educ. of Clovis Mun. Sch., 443 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (D.N.M. 2020)