District Wins Eligibility Battle, But Must Move Student Out of Segregated English Class

What Happened

Student is a girl who was first found eligible for special education at age two due to significant expressive language difficulties. She received speech-language therapy throughout elementary school and made substantial progress over the years. In May 2011, after conducting a triennial assessment, the District proposed to exit Student from special education entirely, concluding she was no longer eligible in any disability category. Parents disagreed, refused to consent, and the prior IEP remained in effect. The parties eventually agreed to a new IEP in July 2012, but in August 2013 the District again proposed to exit Student from special education. Parents again refused. Parents filed a due process complaint in April 2013, and the District filed its own complaint seeking a formal ruling that Student was no longer eligible for special education. The cases were consolidated and heard together.

Parents raised a wide range of claims: that the District had predetermined its decision to exit Student, denied them meaningful participation in IEP meetings, withheld critical assessment information, failed to timely hold annual IEP meetings, and denied Student appropriate services in speech-language, reading, and resource support. They also argued Student's grades overstated her true academic performance and that she qualified for special education under three separate eligibility categories. The District argued that Student's speech-language therapy had been a success story, that her academic performance was genuinely average or better, and that she simply no longer required special education.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on nearly every issue. On the question of predetermination, the ALJ found that a mistaken notice listing "termination of special education" as the meeting purpose was just that — a clerical mistake corrected on the spot, not evidence of a pre-decided outcome. The assessments recommending exit hadn't even been completed yet when the error occurred. On the claim that the District withheld assessment protocols, the ALJ found that raw scoring worksheets are professional work product, not required disclosures — and that the District's written reports accurately summarized all the information in those documents. Parents were found to have participated meaningfully in every IEP meeting, receiving assessments in advance, submitting written materials, and asking and receiving answers to their questions.

On eligibility, the ALJ carefully examined all three categories Parents raised. For speech-language impairment, multiple assessors — including both District and independent evaluators — found Student no longer scored low enough on standardized tests to qualify. The independent assessor hired by Parents was found to have made serious scoring errors, undermining her conclusions. For specific learning disability, no credible assessment showed the required severe discrepancy between Student's cognitive ability and academic achievement. For other health impairment based on ADHD, even the one professional who diagnosed ADHD concluded Student's needs could be addressed with a 504 plan — meaning special education was not required.

The one area where Student prevailed was the least restrictive environment claim. Student had been placed in "English 60," a fully segregated special education class with no typically developing peers. The District tried to defend this placement by pointing to a mediation agreement, but the ALJ held clearly that a district cannot contract away its legal obligation to educate students alongside their non-disabled peers. The ALJ also noted that the class Student was actually placed in (English 60) was not even the class specified in the mediation agreement (English 10), which would have included some general education students.

What Was Ordered

1. The District must transfer Student from English 60 to an appropriate general education English class as soon as practicable.
2. All other requests for relief by Student and Parents are denied.
3. Student is formally found to be not eligible for special education and related services at this time.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot use a mediation agreement to justify a placement that violates the law. Even if you signed an agreement placing your child in a particular setting, the District is still legally required to educate your child alongside non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. If the placement turns out to be more segregated than the law allows, parents can still challenge it.

2. Assessment protocols (raw scoring worksheets) are not automatically required to be shared with parents — but the written report must accurately summarize everything in them. If you believe an assessor's report left out important information, you can request your child's full educational records under California Education Code section 56504, which does require production of those underlying documents.

3. Success in therapy can be used as grounds to exit a child from special education. If your child has made strong measurable progress, the District may argue that special education is no longer needed. Consider requesting an independent educational evaluation if you disagree with the District's eligibility conclusion — but make sure the independent evaluator uses correct scoring procedures, because errors can undermine the entire assessment.

4. A single teacher rating scale — even one with very elevated scores — is not enough to establish an ADHD-based eligibility. Eligibility requires looking at the full picture: classroom observations, cognitive testing, academic performance, and multiple sources of information. If you believe your child has ADHD that is affecting school performance, seek a comprehensive evaluation that goes beyond questionnaires.