Fresno USD Violated FAPE by Excluding Speech Therapist from IEP Meeting

A high-achieving autistic high school student in Fresno Unified School District won a partial victory after the district excluded a speech and language pathologist from a critical IEP meeting in April 2013, significantly impeding the parents' ability to meaningfully participate in IEP development. The district was also found to have failed to consistently provide progress reports on Student's goals. As a remedy, the district was ordered to provide at least three hours of training to special education case managers on IEP team membership requirements and progress reporting obligations.

What Happened

Student was a high school student with a clinical diagnosis of autism attending Roosevelt High School within Fresno Unified School District. He had been eligible for special education under the category of autistic-like behaviors since early childhood, and his IEP from December 2011 included specialized academic instruction in co-taught classes and 30 minutes per week of speech and language services. Student was an exceptionally high performer academically — he graduated near the top of his class of over 400 students and was accepted to California State University Fresno. Despite this, his parents had ongoing concerns about low scores on standardized assessments and believed the district was not adequately addressing his needs.

The family filed for due process in March 2015, raising five main issues: (1) the district's failure to have a speech and language pathologist at an April 2013 IEP meeting; (2) alleged procedural violations at August 2014 IEP meetings, including an attempt to change Student's eligibility category; (3) failure to provide required progress reports on Student's goals; (4) allegations that the district fabricated IEP documents; and (5) a claim that Student was substantively denied a FAPE from March 2013 through March 2015. Parents also requested an independent educational evaluation, which the district agreed to fund — Dr. Glidden, a neuropsychologist, ultimately assessed Student and agreed that Student met the criteria for speech and language impairment but not autistic-like behaviors.

What the ALJ Found

On the one issue Student won: The district committed a procedural violation by failing to have a speech and language pathologist at the April 19, 2013 IEP meeting. That meeting was held to review a psychoeducational assessment and determine whether Student remained eligible for special education. Because no speech and language assessment had yet been completed — even though parents had consented to one six months earlier — and Student was not receiving speech therapy at the time, there was no one at the meeting who could inform the team about his speech and language needs. This absence significantly impeded the parents' meaningful participation in the IEP development process and was a clear procedural violation.

On issues where the district prevailed: The ALJ found that Student did not meet his burden of proof on the remaining issues. The proposed change in eligibility at the August 2014 IEP meetings was never implemented because parents did not consent to it, so it remained a moot issue. The August 2014 IEP goals — while flawed by unclear baselines — were found sufficient to address Student's needs in reading comprehension, written language, and speech and language comprehension. The ALJ rejected the claim that goals must be written to address every low subtest score. On progress reports, the district did fail to prepare reports on academic goals, but parents had access to enough other information (teacher reports at IEP meetings, report cards, assessments, online grade access) that this failure did not significantly impede their participation. The fabricated documents claim was rejected — discrepancies between documents were explained by the way the district's IEP software (SEIS) generated records. Finally, the substantive FAPE denial claim failed because Student's exceptional grades, high class standing, graduation with a regular diploma, and college acceptance all demonstrated he received educational benefit.

What Was Ordered

Within 90 days of the decision, Fresno Unified must contract with an outside agency to provide at least three hours of training to special education staff who serve as case managers.
The training must cover: (a) requirements and best practices for ensuring that required IEP team members attend IEP meetings, and (b) ensuring that progress reports on goals are timely prepared and provided to parents.
The training must be completed no later than March 1, 2016.
All of Student's other requests for relief — including compensatory education — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

The right IEP team members must be present — and their absence can be a violation. When a student has a speech and language impairment or may qualify under that category, a speech and language pathologist should be at the IEP meeting. If a required team member is missing, parents should document their objection in writing and request that the meeting be rescheduled or continued until that person can attend.
Consenting to an assessment creates an obligation the district must follow through on. In this case, parents signed consent for a speech and language assessment in October 2012, but the district did not conduct it for over a year. When you sign an assessment consent, note the date and follow up if the assessment is not completed promptly — the district's delay here was found to be a contributing factor in the procedural violation.
High grades alone don't automatically prove a student is receiving FAPE — but they are powerful evidence. The ALJ gave significant weight to Student's exceptional academic performance as proof that he was receiving educational benefit. If your child is struggling despite good grades, document specific examples of difficulties and bring that evidence to IEP meetings rather than relying solely on standardized test scores.
Progress reports are a legal requirement, not optional. The district is required to send parents periodic reports — typically quarterly — on how a student is progressing toward each annual IEP goal. If you are not receiving these, put your request in writing. In this case, the failure to provide them was found to be a violation, even though it did not rise to the level of a FAPE denial because parents had other information available.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Within 90 days of the decision, Fresno Unified must contract with an outside agency to provide at least three hours of training to special education staff who serve as case managers.
The training must cover: (a) requirements and best practices for ensuring that required IEP team members attend IEP meetings, and (b) ensuring that progress reports on goals are timely prepared and provided to parents.
The training must be completed no later than March 1, 2016.
All of Student's other requests for relief — including compensatory education — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

The right IEP team members must be present — and their absence can be a violation. When a student has a speech and language impairment or may qualify under that category, a speech and language pathologist should be at the IEP meeting. If a required team member is missing, parents should document their objection in writing and request that the meeting be rescheduled or continued until that person can attend.
Consenting to an assessment creates an obligation the district must follow through on. In this case, parents signed consent for a speech and language assessment in October 2012, but the district did not conduct it for over a year. When you sign an assessment consent, note the date and follow up if the assessment is not completed promptly — the district's delay here was found to be a contributing factor in the procedural violation.
High grades alone don't automatically prove a student is receiving FAPE — but they are powerful evidence. The ALJ gave significant weight to Student's exceptional academic performance as proof that he was receiving educational benefit. If your child is struggling despite good grades, document specific examples of difficulties and bring that evidence to IEP meetings rather than relying solely on standardized test scores.
Progress reports are a legal requirement, not optional. The district is required to send parents periodic reports — typically quarterly — on how a student is progressing toward each annual IEP goal. If you are not receiving these, put your request in writing. In this case, the failure to provide them was found to be a violation, even though it did not rise to the level of a FAPE denial because parents had other information available.