Adelanto Failed to Identify Student with SLD and Speech-Language Impairment for Two Years

A 13-year-old student with specific learning disability and speech-language impairment attended Adelanto Elementary School District for two years before the District finally found him eligible for special education in February 2008. The District failed its child find obligations by not identifying the student under SLD and SLI categories during the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years, denying him FAPE. As a result, the ALJ ordered the District to provide 210 hours of Lindamood Bell instruction and 114 hours of individual speech-language therapy as compensatory education.

What Happened

A 13-year-old boy with a history of ADHD, suspected bipolar disorder, and psychiatric hospitalizations was home-schooled before enrolling in Adelanto Elementary School District in August 2006. His parents hired a private educational psychologist, Dr. Christine Davidson, whose 2006 assessment found the student met criteria for emotional disturbance, specific learning disability, Asperger Syndrome, and speech-language impairment. Armed with that report, the parents brought the student to the District and enrolled him. Despite the detailed private assessment and a letter from the student's psychiatrist recommending residential treatment, the District conducted its own assessment and concluded the student was not eligible for special education under any category — primarily because he appeared to behave well in class and his home-school report card showed passing grades. The District continued to deny eligibility through the entire 2006-2007 school year and into the 2007-2008 school year, finally finding him eligible in February 2008 — more than a year and a half after his initial enrollment.

Throughout this period, the student was performing one to two years below grade level, scored far below basic on state STAR tests despite acceptable report card grades, and received no IEP or special education services. After the student was psychiatrically hospitalized in November 2006 and again in May 2007, the parents requested independent educational evaluations. By the 2007-2008 school year, the student was receiving home-hospital instruction and eventually transitioned to a residential treatment facility in Florida called Devereux School. At hearing, the ALJ found that while the District was not wrong to decline to find the student eligible under emotional disturbance or autism/autistic-like behaviors, it clearly failed its child find obligations by not qualifying him under specific learning disability and speech-language impairment from the very beginning of his enrollment.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed child find for Specific Learning Disability (SLD): Both the District's own assessment and the private assessment showed a severe discrepancy between the student's cognitive ability and academic achievement. The District acknowledged it could not determine whether his needs could be addressed in general education without special education, yet still declined to find him eligible. In fact, the District had already tried to pull him from class for resource room math instruction — a program that functioned as special education — demonstrating that general education modifications alone were insufficient. The District should have found him eligible under SLD from the 2006-2007 school year onward.
Failed child find for Speech-Language Impairment (SLI): The District's own speech-language assessment produced test scores meeting the legal threshold for SLI — multiple scores at or below the 7th percentile. Despite this, the District's speech-language pathologist checked the wrong box on her report and then attributed the student's deficits to gaps in his home-school instruction rather than a genuine disorder. The ALJ found the independent evaluator's contrary opinion more persuasive, and ruled the District should have found him eligible for SLI beginning in the 2006-2007 school year.
Continued to deny eligibility into 2007-2008: Even after psychiatric hospitalizations, independent evaluations, and a full additional year of data showing the student was not progressing, the District still did not find him eligible until February 2008. This compounded the original denial of FAPE.
February 2008 IEP failed to offer adequate speech-language services: Once the student was finally found eligible, the IEP offered only 90 minutes per week of speech-language services — the ALJ found this was insufficient to enable the student to benefit from his special education.
District prevailed on several issues: The District was not found to have wrongly denied eligibility under emotional disturbance or autism/autistic-like behaviors, because the student displayed none of those characteristics at school. The District also prevailed on the issue of IEP goals and the records production claim. The District was granted the right to conduct a functional analysis assessment (FAA) of the student without parental consent, given the severity of his behaviors.

What Was Ordered

The District must fund 210 hours of Lindamood Bell instruction (including Visualizing and Verbalizing, Seeing Stars, and/or Cloud Nine Math programs, as determined by Lindamood Bell educators) as compensatory education for failing to identify the student under SLD. Services must begin within 45 days of the decision if available near the student's Florida placement, or within 45 days of the student's return to California if not. All services must be completed within three years of commencement. Associated transportation costs are included.
The District must fund 114 hours of individual speech-language therapy as compensatory education for failing to identify the student under SLI. Services must begin within 45 days if a qualified provider is available at Devereux, or within 45 days of return to California. These hours are in addition to any speech-language services in the student's current IEP.
The District may conduct a functional analysis assessment (FAA) of the student without parental consent, given the severity of his behavioral needs and the requirement to develop a behavior intervention plan.
Requests denied: The ALJ declined to order reimbursement for psychiatric services (Dr. Haraszti and Dr. Clements), medication management at Devereux, additional parent travel to visit the student at Devereux, social skills training funding, a visual therapy evaluation, adoption of all IEE goals, or funding for additional reading/grammar programs beyond Lindamood Bell.

Why This Matters for Parents

A child who "seems fine at school" can still qualify for special education. The District repeatedly pointed to the student's good classroom behavior as a reason not to find him eligible. But child find obligations require districts to look at the whole picture — including test scores, academic performance, and outside assessments — not just in-class behavior. If your child holds it together at school but falls apart academically or at home, push the district to look deeper.
Passing grades in home school (or even general education) do not rule out a learning disability. The District dismissed the student's SLD because his home-school grades were B or better. The ALJ rejected this reasoning — grades alone do not show a child is learning without difficulty. Ask the district to explain how it ruled out a learning disability beyond just looking at report cards.
If the district's own test scores meet the eligibility threshold, the district cannot simply explain them away. The speech-language pathologist's own testing showed scores at the 1st and 5th percentiles — far below the legal threshold for SLI. Yet she attributed this to home-schooling gaps rather than a disorder. Parents should request a copy of all raw test scores and compare them against the legal eligibility criteria, which in California require scores below the 7th percentile on two or more tests.
Private assessments commissioned by parents carry real legal weight. The parents' private evaluator, Dr. Davidson, produced a 100+ page report before the student even enrolled. Although the District did not fully follow her recommendations, that report ultimately supported the ALJ's findings. If you disagree with the district's assessment, consider requesting an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at district expense — or hire your own evaluator and make sure the IEP team formally considers the results.
Compensatory education is an available remedy, but it is not automatic or unlimited. The ALJ awarded compensatory services tied specifically to what the student lost — speech-language therapy and specialized reading instruction — but denied reimbursement for psychiatric care, medication, and additional family visits. Compensatory education is designed to make up for lost academic opportunity, not to compensate for all consequences of a district's mistakes. Document your child's academic regression carefully so that any compensatory remedy is grounded in concrete educational losses.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed child find for Specific Learning Disability (SLD): Both the District's own assessment and the private assessment showed a severe discrepancy between the student's cognitive ability and academic achievement. The District acknowledged it could not determine whether his needs could be addressed in general education without special education, yet still declined to find him eligible. In fact, the District had already tried to pull him from class for resource room math instruction — a program that functioned as special education — demonstrating that general education modifications alone were insufficient. The District should have found him eligible under SLD from the 2006-2007 school year onward.
Failed child find for Speech-Language Impairment (SLI): The District's own speech-language assessment produced test scores meeting the legal threshold for SLI — multiple scores at or below the 7th percentile. Despite this, the District's speech-language pathologist checked the wrong box on her report and then attributed the student's deficits to gaps in his home-school instruction rather than a genuine disorder. The ALJ found the independent evaluator's contrary opinion more persuasive, and ruled the District should have found him eligible for SLI beginning in the 2006-2007 school year.
Continued to deny eligibility into 2007-2008: Even after psychiatric hospitalizations, independent evaluations, and a full additional year of data showing the student was not progressing, the District still did not find him eligible until February 2008. This compounded the original denial of FAPE.
February 2008 IEP failed to offer adequate speech-language services: Once the student was finally found eligible, the IEP offered only 90 minutes per week of speech-language services — the ALJ found this was insufficient to enable the student to benefit from his special education.
District prevailed on several issues: The District was not found to have wrongly denied eligibility under emotional disturbance or autism/autistic-like behaviors, because the student displayed none of those characteristics at school. The District also prevailed on the issue of IEP goals and the records production claim. The District was granted the right to conduct a functional analysis assessment (FAA) of the student without parental consent, given the severity of his behaviors.

What Was Ordered

The District must fund 210 hours of Lindamood Bell instruction (including Visualizing and Verbalizing, Seeing Stars, and/or Cloud Nine Math programs, as determined by Lindamood Bell educators) as compensatory education for failing to identify the student under SLD. Services must begin within 45 days of the decision if available near the student's Florida placement, or within 45 days of the student's return to California if not. All services must be completed within three years of commencement. Associated transportation costs are included.
The District must fund 114 hours of individual speech-language therapy as compensatory education for failing to identify the student under SLI. Services must begin within 45 days if a qualified provider is available at Devereux, or within 45 days of return to California. These hours are in addition to any speech-language services in the student's current IEP.
The District may conduct a functional analysis assessment (FAA) of the student without parental consent, given the severity of his behavioral needs and the requirement to develop a behavior intervention plan.
Requests denied: The ALJ declined to order reimbursement for psychiatric services (Dr. Haraszti and Dr. Clements), medication management at Devereux, additional parent travel to visit the student at Devereux, social skills training funding, a visual therapy evaluation, adoption of all IEE goals, or funding for additional reading/grammar programs beyond Lindamood Bell.

Why This Matters for Parents

A child who "seems fine at school" can still qualify for special education. The District repeatedly pointed to the student's good classroom behavior as a reason not to find him eligible. But child find obligations require districts to look at the whole picture — including test scores, academic performance, and outside assessments — not just in-class behavior. If your child holds it together at school but falls apart academically or at home, push the district to look deeper.
Passing grades in home school (or even general education) do not rule out a learning disability. The District dismissed the student's SLD because his home-school grades were B or better. The ALJ rejected this reasoning — grades alone do not show a child is learning without difficulty. Ask the district to explain how it ruled out a learning disability beyond just looking at report cards.
If the district's own test scores meet the eligibility threshold, the district cannot simply explain them away. The speech-language pathologist's own testing showed scores at the 1st and 5th percentiles — far below the legal threshold for SLI. Yet she attributed this to home-schooling gaps rather than a disorder. Parents should request a copy of all raw test scores and compare them against the legal eligibility criteria, which in California require scores below the 7th percentile on two or more tests.
Private assessments commissioned by parents carry real legal weight. The parents' private evaluator, Dr. Davidson, produced a 100+ page report before the student even enrolled. Although the District did not fully follow her recommendations, that report ultimately supported the ALJ's findings. If you disagree with the district's assessment, consider requesting an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at district expense — or hire your own evaluator and make sure the IEP team formally considers the results.
Compensatory education is an available remedy, but it is not automatic or unlimited. The ALJ awarded compensatory services tied specifically to what the student lost — speech-language therapy and specialized reading instruction — but denied reimbursement for psychiatric care, medication, and additional family visits. Compensatory education is designed to make up for lost academic opportunity, not to compensate for all consequences of a district's mistakes. Document your child's academic regression carefully so that any compensatory remedy is grounded in concrete educational losses.