Charter School Can Exit Student from Special Ed, But Failed to Assess Visual Processing

A 13-year-old student at High Tech Middle Media Arts School, previously eligible for special education under the hearing impaired category, was the subject of consolidated due process cases after the school sought to exit her from special education. The ALJ found the school failed to properly assess the student for visual processing disorders, but ultimately ruled that the school could exit the student because she did not qualify for special education under any category. The decision is a split outcome: the student won on the assessment issue but lost on continued eligibility.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old eighth grader at High Tech Middle Media Arts School, a charter school in San Diego. She was originally found eligible for special education in fifth grade under the "hearing impaired" category, due to fluid buildup and mild conductive hearing loss in her ears. Over time, her hearing improved significantly, and by the time of the hearing, her own auditory expert confirmed her hearing was within normal limits. At a March 2006 IEP meeting, High Tech's team recommended that Student be exited from special education because her hearing impairment had resolved and she no longer needed those services. Student's parents disagreed, raising concerns that she might have an auditory processing disorder and/or a visual processing disorder. They also pointed out that Student took unusually long to complete homework, sometimes staying up until midnight, and often needed to re-read passages to understand them.

High Tech hired a clinical psychologist, Dr. Stika, to conduct a comprehensive reassessment. Dr. Stika administered extensive testing, including intelligence and achievement batteries. Student scored in the high average range of intelligence (GAI of 117) but showed notably low scores in reading fluency and processing speed. Dr. Stika attributed these slow scores to Student's perfectionistic personality rather than any disorder. Student's parents privately hired an audiologist and an optometrist, who found evidence of both auditory and visual processing disorders. High Tech filed a due process complaint to formally exit Student from special education, and Student filed her own complaint alleging the school had failed to assess her in all areas of suspected disability. The two cases were consolidated and heard together in December 2006.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that High Tech failed to properly assess Student in the area of visual processing. Despite Dr. Stika's own test results showing dramatically slow processing speeds and below-grade-level reading fluency scores, and despite Student's parents raising concerns about the time it took her to complete work, High Tech did not follow up with a specific visual processing assessment. Student's educational advocate flagged this gap at the IEP meeting, but High Tech declined to conduct further testing. The ALJ found that the pattern of low fluency and processing speed scores — which Dr. Stika herself acknowledged reflected "something going on" — should have been a "red flag" requiring more investigation.

The ALJ did not find that High Tech failed to assess auditory processing. Dr. Stika's testing specifically targeted auditory concerns and found no disorder. The independent audiologist's contrary findings were given little weight because she was operating on incorrect information (she incorrectly believed classes were very small and believed teachers were under a "gag order" to stay silent, neither of which was true), and she herself admitted Student's high grades were inconsistent with an auditory processing disorder.

What Was Ordered

High Tech was permitted to exit Student from the special education program. The ALJ ruled that Student no longer qualified as hearing impaired, and that she did not qualify under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) — despite having a confirmed visual processing disorder — because there was no severe discrepancy between her intellectual ability and academic achievement, and she was not underachieving in any area.
No compensatory services were ordered, and no reimbursement was awarded. Student had withdrawn her request for reimbursement of the costs of independent evaluations on the first day of hearing.
The ALJ accepted Dr. Dean's visual processing findings as correct for purposes of the decision, but found this did not change Student's eligibility outcome.

Why This Matters for Parents

A processing disorder alone does not automatically qualify a child for special education. Under California law, a Specific Learning Disability requires both a disorder in a basic psychological process (like visual processing) AND a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. Student was found to have a visual processing disorder, but her grades and test scores were consistent with her intellectual ability, so she did not meet the full SLD definition. Parents should understand that documenting a processing disorder is an important first step — but it is not the finish line.
If your child shows unexplained gaps in testing — like very low processing speed despite high intelligence — push for follow-up assessments in writing. The ALJ found that High Tech should have ordered a visual processing assessment based on the red flags in Dr. Stika's own results. If you see discrepancies in your child's assessment data, put your concerns in writing at the IEP meeting and formally request additional targeted testing. Schools are legally required to assess in all areas of suspected disability.
Independent evaluations carry more weight when the evaluator has accurate information. The privately hired audiologist's findings were largely dismissed because she was working from incorrect assumptions about classroom size and believed — incorrectly — that teachers had been silenced. If you obtain a private evaluation, make sure the evaluator reviews accurate school records, visits the school environment if possible, and does not rely solely on parent reports.
Good grades do not automatically disqualify a child from special education — but they matter a lot. The ALJ emphasized repeatedly that Student's A/B average, near-perfect scores on state tests, and teacher praise were all highly relevant to whether she needed special education services. For children who are achieving at or near grade level, the legal bar for demonstrating a "need" for special education is high. If your child is struggling in ways that don't yet show up in grades — such as exhaustion, long homework hours, or needing accommodations teachers provide informally — document that evidence carefully and early.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

High Tech was permitted to exit Student from the special education program. The ALJ ruled that Student no longer qualified as hearing impaired, and that she did not qualify under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) — despite having a confirmed visual processing disorder — because there was no severe discrepancy between her intellectual ability and academic achievement, and she was not underachieving in any area.
No compensatory services were ordered, and no reimbursement was awarded. Student had withdrawn her request for reimbursement of the costs of independent evaluations on the first day of hearing.
The ALJ accepted Dr. Dean's visual processing findings as correct for purposes of the decision, but found this did not change Student's eligibility outcome.

Why This Matters for Parents

A processing disorder alone does not automatically qualify a child for special education. Under California law, a Specific Learning Disability requires both a disorder in a basic psychological process (like visual processing) AND a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement. Student was found to have a visual processing disorder, but her grades and test scores were consistent with her intellectual ability, so she did not meet the full SLD definition. Parents should understand that documenting a processing disorder is an important first step — but it is not the finish line.
If your child shows unexplained gaps in testing — like very low processing speed despite high intelligence — push for follow-up assessments in writing. The ALJ found that High Tech should have ordered a visual processing assessment based on the red flags in Dr. Stika's own results. If you see discrepancies in your child's assessment data, put your concerns in writing at the IEP meeting and formally request additional targeted testing. Schools are legally required to assess in all areas of suspected disability.
Independent evaluations carry more weight when the evaluator has accurate information. The privately hired audiologist's findings were largely dismissed because she was working from incorrect assumptions about classroom size and believed — incorrectly — that teachers had been silenced. If you obtain a private evaluation, make sure the evaluator reviews accurate school records, visits the school environment if possible, and does not rely solely on parent reports.
Good grades do not automatically disqualify a child from special education — but they matter a lot. The ALJ emphasized repeatedly that Student's A/B average, near-perfect scores on state tests, and teacher praise were all highly relevant to whether she needed special education services. For children who are achieving at or near grade level, the legal bar for demonstrating a "need" for special education is high. If your child is struggling in ways that don't yet show up in grades — such as exhaustion, long homework hours, or needing accommodations teachers provide informally — document that evidence carefully and early.