Deaf Student's Request for Transfer to California School for the Deaf Denied — TCP Placement Upheld

A profoundly deaf eighth-grader's parents sought to have their son transferred from Covina Valley USD's Total Communication Program to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside, arguing his ASL development and academic skills were suffering. Both Baldwin Park USD and Covina Valley USD defended their placement in the local DHH program at Sierra Vista Middle School. The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the Districts, finding the TCP provided a FAPE in the LRE and allowing the 2012 IEP to be implemented without parental consent.

What Happened

The student, a profoundly deaf 14-year-old eighth-grader, had been educated since preschool in Covina Valley USD's Total Communication Program (TCP) — a DHH-specialized program serving students from multiple districts in the East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. The student used American Sign Language (ASL) as his primary language and had received a cochlear implant at age 10. He received a full range of services including specialized academic instruction, speech-language therapy, aural rehabilitation therapy, ASL interpretation, and extended school year services. Despite making measurable academic progress over the years, his mother grew concerned that his reading, writing, and ASL skills were not at grade level and requested that the Districts refer him to the California School for the Deaf in Riverside (CSDR), where all instruction would be delivered in ASL in an all-deaf environment.

The family filed for due process in March 2012, and the Districts counter-filed in July 2012 seeking authority to implement the May 2012 IEP without parental consent. The cases were consolidated and heard over six days in March 2013. The central disputes were whether the Districts properly considered all communication program options — including CSDR — when developing the student's 2011 and 2012 IEPs, and whether their offer of continued placement in the TCP denied him a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the Districts on all issues. Key findings included:

The TCP was an appropriate, well-staffed DHH program. All teachers and staff at Sierra Vista were certified in ASL, experienced in DHH education, and the program was specifically designed to address the unique needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students using a multi-modal approach (ASL, vocalization, visual cues). The campus also served hearing students, providing genuine mainstreaming opportunities during physical education, lunch, breaks, and certain academic classes.
The Districts adequately considered all program options, including CSDR. The IEP teams in both 2011 and 2012 discussed the mother's request for CSDR, reviewed the student's progress, explored options within the TCP, and consulted with BPUSD administrators. The California Department of Education confirmed it defers to local IEP teams when an appropriate local program exists. The Districts were not legally required to refer the student to CSDR simply because he was deaf.
CSDR was not a superior or necessary placement. Evidence showed CSDR had no remedial reading program and no after-school tutoring — services the TCP did provide. CSDR's student population was 100% deaf with no hearing peers, and meaningful mainstreaming would have required transportation back to the home district. The commute from the student's home to CSDR was over one hour each way.
The 2012 assessments were thorough and non-discriminatory. A comprehensive psychoeducational, speech-language, auditory skills, and audiological assessment was conducted using a battery of validated tools administered in ASL where appropriate. No single measure was used, and no credible challenge to the assessments was presented.
The mother meaningfully participated in both IEPs. She attended all IEP meetings, voiced her concerns and preferences, asked questions, and was heard by the team — even when the team ultimately disagreed with her requested placement. The Districts' decision not to discuss CSDR at the May 2012 IEP due to pending litigation was found to be reasonable and did not deprive her of meaningful participation.
The student made measurable academic progress. He met or partially met goals across multiple domains, received A's and B's, was described as socially engaged and well-liked, and was being considered for mainstreaming into a general education math class.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief — all of his claims were denied.
The Districts were authorized to implement the May 11, 2012 IEP in its entirety without parental written consent.
The Districts prevailed on all issues heard and decided in the consolidated case.

Why This Matters for Parents

Wanting a different program is not enough — you must show the current program is inadequate. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that the legal standard is whether the district's offer provides meaningful educational benefit, not whether a parent's preferred placement would provide more benefit. If your child is making measurable progress, that carries significant weight.
Document your child's lack of progress with specific evidence, not just concerns. The mother's testimony about wanting to "try something different" was given less weight than the detailed assessments and progress reports from credentialed professionals who had worked with the student for years. Independent expert evaluations or outside professional opinions could have strengthened the family's case significantly.
Understand what a requested alternative placement actually offers — and what it doesn't. The family's request for CSDR was weakened when evidence showed CSDR lacked tutoring and remedial reading programs that the TCP provided, had no mainstreaming with hearing peers, and required a two-hour round-trip commute. Before requesting a specific placement, research it thoroughly.
IEP teams must consider communication access and program options for DHH students under both federal and California law. Education Code § 56345(d) requires IEP teams to specifically discuss language and communication needs, peer interaction opportunities, and access to staff proficient in the student's primary language. If your child is DHH, insist that these factors are explicitly addressed and documented in the IEP.
Filing for due process does not prevent the district from implementing an IEP — it may accelerate it. In this case, the Districts counter-filed specifically to gain authority to implement the 2012 IEP without the mother's consent. Parents should understand that withholding consent to an IEP can trigger a district-initiated hearing, and if the district prevails, the IEP will be implemented anyway.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the Districts on all issues. Key findings included:

The TCP was an appropriate, well-staffed DHH program. All teachers and staff at Sierra Vista were certified in ASL, experienced in DHH education, and the program was specifically designed to address the unique needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing students using a multi-modal approach (ASL, vocalization, visual cues). The campus also served hearing students, providing genuine mainstreaming opportunities during physical education, lunch, breaks, and certain academic classes.
The Districts adequately considered all program options, including CSDR. The IEP teams in both 2011 and 2012 discussed the mother's request for CSDR, reviewed the student's progress, explored options within the TCP, and consulted with BPUSD administrators. The California Department of Education confirmed it defers to local IEP teams when an appropriate local program exists. The Districts were not legally required to refer the student to CSDR simply because he was deaf.
CSDR was not a superior or necessary placement. Evidence showed CSDR had no remedial reading program and no after-school tutoring — services the TCP did provide. CSDR's student population was 100% deaf with no hearing peers, and meaningful mainstreaming would have required transportation back to the home district. The commute from the student's home to CSDR was over one hour each way.
The 2012 assessments were thorough and non-discriminatory. A comprehensive psychoeducational, speech-language, auditory skills, and audiological assessment was conducted using a battery of validated tools administered in ASL where appropriate. No single measure was used, and no credible challenge to the assessments was presented.
The mother meaningfully participated in both IEPs. She attended all IEP meetings, voiced her concerns and preferences, asked questions, and was heard by the team — even when the team ultimately disagreed with her requested placement. The Districts' decision not to discuss CSDR at the May 2012 IEP due to pending litigation was found to be reasonable and did not deprive her of meaningful participation.
The student made measurable academic progress. He met or partially met goals across multiple domains, received A's and B's, was described as socially engaged and well-liked, and was being considered for mainstreaming into a general education math class.

What Was Ordered

The student was not entitled to any relief — all of his claims were denied.
The Districts were authorized to implement the May 11, 2012 IEP in its entirety without parental written consent.
The Districts prevailed on all issues heard and decided in the consolidated case.

Why This Matters for Parents

Wanting a different program is not enough — you must show the current program is inadequate. The ALJ repeatedly emphasized that the legal standard is whether the district's offer provides meaningful educational benefit, not whether a parent's preferred placement would provide more benefit. If your child is making measurable progress, that carries significant weight.
Document your child's lack of progress with specific evidence, not just concerns. The mother's testimony about wanting to "try something different" was given less weight than the detailed assessments and progress reports from credentialed professionals who had worked with the student for years. Independent expert evaluations or outside professional opinions could have strengthened the family's case significantly.
Understand what a requested alternative placement actually offers — and what it doesn't. The family's request for CSDR was weakened when evidence showed CSDR lacked tutoring and remedial reading programs that the TCP provided, had no mainstreaming with hearing peers, and required a two-hour round-trip commute. Before requesting a specific placement, research it thoroughly.
IEP teams must consider communication access and program options for DHH students under both federal and California law. Education Code § 56345(d) requires IEP teams to specifically discuss language and communication needs, peer interaction opportunities, and access to staff proficient in the student's primary language. If your child is DHH, insist that these factors are explicitly addressed and documented in the IEP.
Filing for due process does not prevent the district from implementing an IEP — it may accelerate it. In this case, the Districts counter-filed specifically to gain authority to implement the 2012 IEP without the mother's consent. Parents should understand that withholding consent to an IEP can trigger a district-initiated hearing, and if the district prevails, the IEP will be implemented anyway.