District Wins: Preschooler Found Ineligible for Special Ed Despite Speech Concerns

What Happened

Student was a preschooler, approximately three and a half years old, who lived with her mother in the Yucaipa-Calimesa school district. Both English and Spanish were spoken in the home. Parent became concerned about Student's speech after neither she nor others could understand much of what Student said. Student had also experienced the traumatic loss of an older sibling, which contributed to behavioral changes at home, including tantrums, sleep problems, and emotional distress. At the recommendation of Student's doctor, Parent contacted the District in June 2010 to request a special education assessment.

The District conducted two full multidisciplinary assessments — one in the summer and fall of 2010, and a second in late 2010 and early 2011 at Parent's request. Assessors administered a range of speech and language tests, cognitive and developmental scales, adaptive behavior rating scales, and classroom observations. IEP meetings were held on October 14, 2010, and January 18 and February 7, 2011. At each meeting, the IEP team concluded that Student did not qualify for special education services. Because the District initiated the due process hearing — not the parent — the District carried the legal burden of proving its assessments and eligibility decisions were correct.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District on all issues. While Student scored very low on one language test (the Mullens, landing in the 1st percentile for receptive and expressive language), she scored in the average range on a separate Spanish-language assessment (the PLS-4, at the 39th percentile overall) and produced an age-appropriate language sample. California law requires a child to score below the 7th percentile on two or more standardized tests measuring the same area of language before qualifying as speech or language impaired. Student only scored that low on one test, so the legal threshold was not met.

The ALJ also found that Student's lower scores on some assessments were best explained by the fact that she was simultaneously learning two languages — English and Spanish — rather than by a language disorder. Experts explained that it can take four to ten years for a child learning a second language to achieve full fluency, and that some language "errors" are normal and expected in bilingual children. Importantly, Student's preschool teacher — who was not a District employee — reported that Student communicated effectively in the classroom, followed directions, interacted well with peers, and did not need any supports or accommodations to participate in the general education preschool program. The ALJ noted that a child who is succeeding in a general education setting without modifications may not qualify for special education even if she has some areas of difficulty, because the law requires that a student's needs cannot be met in a regular education environment before special education services are warranted.

On pre-academic and adaptive skills, the ALJ found a significant gap between what Parent observed at home and what Student demonstrated at school. At school, Student was toilet-trained, fed herself, helped classmates and teachers, and participated fully in all activities. The ALJ credited Student's school performance over Parent's home observations in making the eligibility determination.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's assessments were found to be appropriate and in compliance with all legal requirements.
2. Student was found not eligible for special education services based on speech or language impairment, pre-academic deficits, adaptive skill deficits, or social/behavioral needs as of the October 2010 and January/February 2011 IEP meetings.
3. Parent's requests for a finding of eligibility and special education services were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Scoring low on one test is usually not enough to qualify. California law requires a child to score below the 7th percentile on two or more standardized tests in the same area of language before qualifying as speech or language impaired. If your child has inconsistent test results — high on some, low on others — the district may argue the low scores do not reflect a true disorder.

2. A bilingual or multilingual background complicates eligibility but does not eliminate it. Districts are required to assess children in the language most likely to yield accurate results, and they may attribute speech differences to language learning rather than disability. If you believe your child has a true disorder beyond what bilingualism explains, consider requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) from an outside evaluator.

3. How your child performs at school carries enormous weight. In this case, teacher observations showing Student succeeding without supports were central to the ruling against eligibility. If your child is struggling in the classroom — not just at home — document it carefully and bring that evidence to the IEP meeting.

4. The District filing due process does not mean the parent is wrong. Here, the District filed the case seeking validation of its eligibility decision. Even when a district initiates a hearing, parents have the right to present their own evidence, call witnesses, and challenge the district's findings. The ALJ acknowledged that Student might qualify for supports in the future if her progress plateaus.