Rialto USD Wins: Special Day Class Placement Upheld Over Parents' Preference for Private School

Rialto Unified School District filed for due process after parents refused to consent to placing their nine-year-old daughter, who has an auditory processing disorder and fine motor deficits, in a special day class at Casey Elementary School. The ALJ found that the district's proposed placement provided a free and appropriate public education and that the district had followed all required procedures. The parents' preference for a private school called Big Springs was not the legal standard, and their request was denied.

What Happened

A nine-year-old girl with an auditory processing disorder and fine motor deficits had been attending a full-inclusion general education fourth-grade class at Hughbanks Elementary School in Rialto USD, but was performing academically at only a first-grade level. Despite receiving resource specialist program (RSP) services, speech-language therapy, adapted physical education (APE), and occupational therapy, she was not meeting her IEP goals in reading, writing, or math. Her teachers acknowledged that her current program was not meeting her needs.

This case was actually the second due process hearing between the same parties. In an earlier 2006 decision (Rialto One), a different ALJ had already determined that both a district special day class (SDC) and a private school called Big Springs could provide the student a FAPE, and ordered the district to choose between them. The district chose its SDC at Casey Elementary School. When parents refused to consent to that placement — insisting the student be placed only at Big Springs — the district filed this second due process case to implement the IEP over the parents' objection. The parents left the hearing partway through and did not present any witnesses or evidence to challenge the district's case.

What the ALJ Found

The Casey SDC provided FAPE. The special day class at Casey Elementary was specifically designed to meet the student's unique needs. The classroom teacher had 25 years of special education experience, used a variety of research-based and individualized reading programs (including Lindamood-Bell), kept daily notes for parents, and structured opportunities for the student to participate alongside general education peers in reading, PE, and other activities.
The district properly selected the placement. The district reviewed eight schools before selecting Casey. It rejected the SDC at the student's home school due to the teacher's limited experience, and rejected Big Springs because the district could not monitor that private school's teaching methods, Big Springs lacked a playground and APE services, and the commute would be 45 minutes each way.
The district followed required IEP procedures. Both the annual IEP meeting (February 9, 2006) and the follow-up placement meeting (February 27, 2006) included all required team members and a Spanish interpreter. Parents participated fully, asked questions, and tape-recorded both meetings.
The district's refusal to provide a written program description did not deny FAPE. Parents were verbally informed about the Casey SDC program at the February 27 meeting, the SDC teacher offered written materials on the specific programs she used, and parents received written confirmation of the IEP offer afterward. This was sufficient.
Prior findings could not be re-litigated. Because Rialto One had already determined that the district SDC and Big Springs were both appropriate options, the parents could not use this second hearing to re-argue that Big Springs was the only acceptable placement. The legal doctrine of collateral estoppel barred re-litigation of issues already decided.
The placement was in the least restrictive environment. The Casey SDC provided 20% of the student's time in general education settings, and the classroom structure gave students regular contact with general education peers.

What Was Ordered

The district's placement of the student in the special day class at Casey Elementary School, with related services (speech-language, APE, and occupational therapy), was confirmed as providing FAPE for the 2006–2007 school year.
The parents' refusal to consent to the placement was overridden.
No additional remedies were ordered — the district prevailed on the only issue heard.

Why This Matters for Parents

Prior hearing decisions are binding — you generally cannot re-fight the same battle twice. If an ALJ has already ruled that a district placement is appropriate, a second hearing cannot be used to re-litigate that finding. If you disagree with a decision, your remedy is to appeal it in court within 90 days, not to file a new due process case on the same issue.
The legal standard is "appropriate," not "best." Districts are not required to place students in the program that parents prefer, even if parents believe a different program would produce better results. The question is whether the district's offer provides meaningful educational benefit — not whether it is the optimal option.
When a district files due process, the burden of proof is on the district. In cases where the district initiates the hearing (often to override a parent's refusal to consent), the district must prove its placement is appropriate. Parents should still attend and present evidence, because leaving the hearing early — as happened here — leaves the record entirely in the district's favor.
Districts can implement an IEP over your objection if they go through due process. California law allows districts to file for due process to override a parent's refusal to consent to a placement the district believes is necessary for FAPE. If the district wins, the placement can proceed. Refusing to sign an IEP does not permanently block a placement.
Requesting a written program description is reasonable, but its absence alone won't void an IEP. While parents have the right to be informed about their child's program, an ALJ may find that verbal explanations plus written IEP documentation is sufficient. If you want written materials about a proposed classroom or program, request them in writing before or during the IEP meeting and document the request — this creates a better record if you need to challenge the district later.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The Casey SDC provided FAPE. The special day class at Casey Elementary was specifically designed to meet the student's unique needs. The classroom teacher had 25 years of special education experience, used a variety of research-based and individualized reading programs (including Lindamood-Bell), kept daily notes for parents, and structured opportunities for the student to participate alongside general education peers in reading, PE, and other activities.
The district properly selected the placement. The district reviewed eight schools before selecting Casey. It rejected the SDC at the student's home school due to the teacher's limited experience, and rejected Big Springs because the district could not monitor that private school's teaching methods, Big Springs lacked a playground and APE services, and the commute would be 45 minutes each way.
The district followed required IEP procedures. Both the annual IEP meeting (February 9, 2006) and the follow-up placement meeting (February 27, 2006) included all required team members and a Spanish interpreter. Parents participated fully, asked questions, and tape-recorded both meetings.
The district's refusal to provide a written program description did not deny FAPE. Parents were verbally informed about the Casey SDC program at the February 27 meeting, the SDC teacher offered written materials on the specific programs she used, and parents received written confirmation of the IEP offer afterward. This was sufficient.
Prior findings could not be re-litigated. Because Rialto One had already determined that the district SDC and Big Springs were both appropriate options, the parents could not use this second hearing to re-argue that Big Springs was the only acceptable placement. The legal doctrine of collateral estoppel barred re-litigation of issues already decided.
The placement was in the least restrictive environment. The Casey SDC provided 20% of the student's time in general education settings, and the classroom structure gave students regular contact with general education peers.

What Was Ordered

The district's placement of the student in the special day class at Casey Elementary School, with related services (speech-language, APE, and occupational therapy), was confirmed as providing FAPE for the 2006–2007 school year.
The parents' refusal to consent to the placement was overridden.
No additional remedies were ordered — the district prevailed on the only issue heard.

Why This Matters for Parents

Prior hearing decisions are binding — you generally cannot re-fight the same battle twice. If an ALJ has already ruled that a district placement is appropriate, a second hearing cannot be used to re-litigate that finding. If you disagree with a decision, your remedy is to appeal it in court within 90 days, not to file a new due process case on the same issue.
The legal standard is "appropriate," not "best." Districts are not required to place students in the program that parents prefer, even if parents believe a different program would produce better results. The question is whether the district's offer provides meaningful educational benefit — not whether it is the optimal option.
When a district files due process, the burden of proof is on the district. In cases where the district initiates the hearing (often to override a parent's refusal to consent), the district must prove its placement is appropriate. Parents should still attend and present evidence, because leaving the hearing early — as happened here — leaves the record entirely in the district's favor.
Districts can implement an IEP over your objection if they go through due process. California law allows districts to file for due process to override a parent's refusal to consent to a placement the district believes is necessary for FAPE. If the district wins, the placement can proceed. Refusing to sign an IEP does not permanently block a placement.
Requesting a written program description is reasonable, but its absence alone won't void an IEP. While parents have the right to be informed about their child's program, an ALJ may find that verbal explanations plus written IEP documentation is sufficient. If you want written materials about a proposed classroom or program, request them in writing before or during the IEP meeting and document the request — this creates a better record if you need to challenge the district later.