Deaf Student's Request for California School for the Deaf Placement Denied — Local TCP Found Appropriate

A profoundly deaf 14-year-old student's parents sought placement at the California School for the Deaf in Riverside (CSDR), arguing that the local Total Communication Program (TCP) failed to meet his ASL communication needs. The ALJ found that Baldwin Park USD and Covina Valley USD offered an appropriate FAPE in the least restrictive environment through the TCP at Sierra Vista Middle School. Both the student's claims and the districts' request to implement the 2012 IEP without parental consent were resolved in favor of the districts.

What Happened

The student is a profoundly deaf 14-year-old who has used American Sign Language (ASL) as his primary language since age four and received a cochlear implant (CI) at age ten. He has been eligible for special education as hearing impaired with a speech/language disorder since preschool, and has attended Covina Valley USD's Deaf and Hard of Hearing Total Communication Program (TCP) — operated on behalf of his resident district, Baldwin Park USD — since kindergarten. The TCP uses a multi-modal approach combining ASL, vocalization, lip reading, and visual cues, and is located on a general education campus where DHH students interact with hearing peers throughout the day.

Beginning at the May 2011 IEP meeting, the student's mother asked the IEP team to refer her son to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside (CSDR), a state residential school offering total ASL immersion. She believed immersion in a Deaf community setting would improve his reading, writing, and ASL fluency, which remained significantly below grade level. The districts declined, maintaining that the TCP was an appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The student filed a due process complaint in March 2012, and the districts filed their own complaint seeking authority to implement the May 2012 IEP without parental consent. The cases were consolidated and heard over six days in March 2013.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both districts on all issues decided. Key findings included:

The districts adequately considered ASL program options in both the 2011 and 2012 IEPs. At every IEP meeting, team members discussed the student's communication needs, reviewed his present levels of performance, considered multiple placement options, and allowed Mother to voice her request for CSDR. The IEP team was not required by IDEA or California law to refer the student to CSDR simply because he was deaf, so long as the local program was appropriate.
The TCP placement was appropriate and in the LRE for both the 2011 and 2012 IEPs. All TCP staff at Sierra Vista were credentialed and ASL-proficient. The program offered SAI, speech-language therapy, aural rehabilitation therapy, ASL interpreter services, after-school tutoring, remedial reading, and meaningful mainstreaming opportunities with hearing peers. The student made consistent measurable academic and social progress each year.
The CSDR was not a superior or legally required alternative. Evidence showed CSDR lacked remedial reading and tutoring programs offered by the TCP, and provided no meaningful mainstreaming opportunities. The round-trip commute from the student's home would have been at least two hours daily. California law permits CSDR placement only when no appropriate local program exists — a threshold the student did not meet.
Parental participation was not denied. Mother actively participated in all IEP meetings, expressed disagreement, requested revisions, and ultimately exercised her right to due process. The districts' decision to decline discussing CSDR referral at the May 2012 IEP meeting while due process was pending was found to be reasonable and did not impede meaningful parental participation.
The 2012 assessments were procedurally and substantively appropriate. Testing covered psychoeducational, speech-language, and audiology domains, used multiple instruments, was conducted in ASL where appropriate, and was administered by qualified personnel who knew the student well. The student offered no evidence challenging the validity of any assessment.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief.
The May 11, 2012 IEP was found to constitute a FAPE in the LRE.
The districts were authorized to implement the May 11, 2012 IEP in its entirety without parental written consent.
The student's request for a referral to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Wanting "something different" is not enough to win a placement dispute. To successfully challenge a district's placement, parents must present credible expert evidence that the existing program cannot meet the child's unique needs — not simply that another school might be preferable or more immersive. A parent's desire to try a different approach, without supporting professional testimony, will likely not overcome the district's evidence.
CSDR (and other state schools) are placements of last resort under California law. State law requires that a referral to the California School for the Deaf occur only when the IEP team finds no appropriate local program is available. If your child is making measurable progress in a local DHH program, a hearing officer will likely find the local placement appropriate even if you believe CSDR would be better.
A district's refusal to discuss a specific placement during pending due process is not automatically a procedural violation. The ALJ found it reasonable for the districts to decline discussing CSDR at the 2012 IEP while the due process case was active. Parents exercising their due process rights are not simultaneously entitled to compel the district to renegotiate the disputed placement at the IEP table.
Meaningful parental participation does not mean the district must agree with you. Parents have a right to be heard, share concerns, and request options — but if the district listens, considers your input, and reaches a different conclusion, that alone does not constitute a denial of parental participation. Document your requests and disagreements in writing at every IEP meeting.
Home communication matters — districts may cite it as a factor. Multiple district witnesses noted that the parents' limited ASL fluency contributed to the student's communication delays at home. If your child's primary language is ASL, investing in your own ASL skills can strengthen your child's development and may reduce one argument districts use to justify their program over alternatives you are seeking.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both districts on all issues decided. Key findings included:

The districts adequately considered ASL program options in both the 2011 and 2012 IEPs. At every IEP meeting, team members discussed the student's communication needs, reviewed his present levels of performance, considered multiple placement options, and allowed Mother to voice her request for CSDR. The IEP team was not required by IDEA or California law to refer the student to CSDR simply because he was deaf, so long as the local program was appropriate.
The TCP placement was appropriate and in the LRE for both the 2011 and 2012 IEPs. All TCP staff at Sierra Vista were credentialed and ASL-proficient. The program offered SAI, speech-language therapy, aural rehabilitation therapy, ASL interpreter services, after-school tutoring, remedial reading, and meaningful mainstreaming opportunities with hearing peers. The student made consistent measurable academic and social progress each year.
The CSDR was not a superior or legally required alternative. Evidence showed CSDR lacked remedial reading and tutoring programs offered by the TCP, and provided no meaningful mainstreaming opportunities. The round-trip commute from the student's home would have been at least two hours daily. California law permits CSDR placement only when no appropriate local program exists — a threshold the student did not meet.
Parental participation was not denied. Mother actively participated in all IEP meetings, expressed disagreement, requested revisions, and ultimately exercised her right to due process. The districts' decision to decline discussing CSDR referral at the May 2012 IEP meeting while due process was pending was found to be reasonable and did not impede meaningful parental participation.
The 2012 assessments were procedurally and substantively appropriate. Testing covered psychoeducational, speech-language, and audiology domains, used multiple instruments, was conducted in ASL where appropriate, and was administered by qualified personnel who knew the student well. The student offered no evidence challenging the validity of any assessment.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief.
The May 11, 2012 IEP was found to constitute a FAPE in the LRE.
The districts were authorized to implement the May 11, 2012 IEP in its entirety without parental written consent.
The student's request for a referral to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Wanting "something different" is not enough to win a placement dispute. To successfully challenge a district's placement, parents must present credible expert evidence that the existing program cannot meet the child's unique needs — not simply that another school might be preferable or more immersive. A parent's desire to try a different approach, without supporting professional testimony, will likely not overcome the district's evidence.
CSDR (and other state schools) are placements of last resort under California law. State law requires that a referral to the California School for the Deaf occur only when the IEP team finds no appropriate local program is available. If your child is making measurable progress in a local DHH program, a hearing officer will likely find the local placement appropriate even if you believe CSDR would be better.
A district's refusal to discuss a specific placement during pending due process is not automatically a procedural violation. The ALJ found it reasonable for the districts to decline discussing CSDR at the 2012 IEP while the due process case was active. Parents exercising their due process rights are not simultaneously entitled to compel the district to renegotiate the disputed placement at the IEP table.
Meaningful parental participation does not mean the district must agree with you. Parents have a right to be heard, share concerns, and request options — but if the district listens, considers your input, and reaches a different conclusion, that alone does not constitute a denial of parental participation. Document your requests and disagreements in writing at every IEP meeting.
Home communication matters — districts may cite it as a factor. Multiple district witnesses noted that the parents' limited ASL fluency contributed to the student's communication delays at home. If your child's primary language is ASL, investing in your own ASL skills can strengthen your child's development and may reduce one argument districts use to justify their program over alternatives you are seeking.