Districts Prevail: Student's Broad FAPE Claims Denied, But Speech Service Gap Found

What Happened

Student is a young teenager who qualifies for special education under the category of specific learning disability, with documented weaknesses in reading, written language, expressive language, and auditory memory. During sixth grade, Student attended school in Rio Linda Union School District, and in seventh and eighth grades moved into the jurisdictional boundaries of Grant Joint Union High School District, attending Rio Linda Junior High School. Parent filed a due process complaint in October 2006 — just before a change in California's statute of limitations from three years to two years — challenging both districts' actions across multiple school years.

Parent alleged that both districts failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability (including ADHD, dysgraphia, sensory disorders, and behavior), used inappropriate assessments that inflated Student's academic performance, failed to identify all of Student's unique educational needs, wrote inadequate IEP goals, placed Student in settings that were too difficult for him, and failed to deliver required speech services. Parent sought independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense, reimbursement for educational costs, and placement in an appropriate program. The hearing took place over four days in March 2007.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected nearly all of the parent's claims, finding that both districts had properly assessed Student, identified his unique needs, written appropriate IEP goals, and offered placements reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. On the assessment claims, the ALJ found that the district's school psychologist had conducted a thorough evaluation building on prior testing, and that there were no observable indicators — from teachers, staff, or Student's behavior — that would have required assessment in areas like ADHD, dysgraphia, sensory processing, or behavior. Because the assessments were found appropriate, Student was not entitled to publicly funded IEEs.

On placement, the ALJ found that Student made real academic progress in both districts. In sixth grade, his reading level advanced nearly a full grade level. In seventh grade he moved from a mid-second grade reading level to nearly fourth grade. He successfully passed an algebra readiness test in eighth grade and was promoted to general education English — concrete evidence of progress that undermined the parent's claims. Student's expert witness from the Huntington Learning Center was repeatedly found to lack knowledge of Student's actual assessments, IEPs, or progress, which significantly limited the weight her testimony received.

The one area where Grant was found to have fallen short was speech services. In January, February, and March 2006, Student stopped attending his speech therapy sessions. Grant's therapist made efforts to track Student down and remind him, but Grant failed to notify the parents that Student was not attending. The ALJ found this was a denial of FAPE — parents cannot make sure their child attends if they are never told there is a problem. However, because a June 2006 speech evaluation showed that Student had made significant gains and no longer needed speech intervention, the ALJ found no basis to award compensatory speech therapy.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. No independent educational evaluations at public expense were ordered.
3. No compensatory education was awarded.
4. No reimbursement for educational expenses was granted.
5. Rio Linda prevailed on all issues involving Rio Linda. Grant prevailed on all issues involving Grant.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Your expert witness must actually review your child's records. The parent's expert had never seen Student's assessments, IEPs, or progress data — and the ALJ noted this repeatedly in rejecting her testimony. If you bring an expert to a due process hearing, make sure that expert has reviewed all relevant school records and can speak directly to what the district did or did not do.

2. If your child stops attending a related service, the district must notify you promptly. This case established that Grant violated FAPE when it failed to tell parents that Student was skipping speech therapy sessions for three months. As a parent, you have both the right to know and the ability to intervene — as this parent did, by telling Student he couldn't pursue his NBA dream without attending speech. Schools cannot quietly let services lapse and then claim the student chose not to attend.

3. Real academic progress is a powerful defense for districts. The ALJ was persuaded that both districts provided FAPE largely because Student demonstrably improved — his reading level advanced, he passed an algebra readiness test, and he moved into general education classes. If your child is not making measurable progress, document that carefully because it is the strongest foundation for a FAPE claim.

4. Filing your due process complaint as early as possible protects your rights. In this case, a fax machine malfunction at OAH nearly cost Student his claims against Rio Linda due to the statute of limitations. Parent was able to prove the complaint was faxed on the earlier date, which saved the claims. Keep records of exactly when and how you file any due process complaint.