A real decision, 2025
What "need, not more" looks like when a judge applies it.
This is a public California due process decision from 2025, shown here without identifying details. A hearing was held after a family and a district disagreed about assessment, services, and placement for a student in emotional crisis with a history of school refusal. It is a clean illustration of the ideas in this resource.
- 01Benefit is not the standard.
- 02Access itself was the barrier.
- 03The data carried the decision.
Open each step to follow the case.
Benefit is not the standard.
01 The judge held that the law does not require every goal, service, or accommodation an expert recommends, and does not require maximizing a student's potential. It requires a program reasonably calculated to enable appropriate progress. That is "need, not more" in a ruling.
Access itself was the barrier.
02 The student was at or above grade level academically. What stood between the student and their education was access, driven by mental health and school refusal, and the services the law required were the ones aimed at access.
The data carried the decision.
03 The ruling turned on what was documented: what was tried, what was assessed, and what the evidence showed the student needed. It did not turn on assumptions about what the student might need.
This decision is kept de-identified here on the public site, so the full case citation is held back to protect the family.