Chino Valley Denies FAPE: Flawed Assessment, Inadequate Behavior and Academic Support

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old boy who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury at birth, requiring hospitalization for two months, multiple surgeries, and seizure management. He was found eligible for special education under the categories of traumatic brain injury and speech and language impairment, and also carried diagnoses of central auditory processing disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and phonological processing and memory deficits. Despite these serious challenges, Student was placed in a general education classroom at Hidden Trails Elementary School within Chino Valley Unified School District, with resource support and a one-to-one aide for three hours per day.

Starting in fall 2014 (third grade), Student's scores on standardized reading and math assessments dropped significantly. His reading comprehension fell into the below-average range, and state and district tests showed performance far below standard. Parents grew increasingly concerned that the district's program was not keeping pace with Student's needs. The district conducted a triennial psychoeducational assessment in fall 2014 and held IEP meetings in October 2014 and October 2015. Parents ultimately hired an independent neuropsychologist, Dr. Majors, whose report concluded that Student had a specific learning disorder in reading and a language learning disability requiring intensive intervention. Parents filed for due process in January 2016, challenging the adequacy of the assessment, the behavior support, and the academic services in both IEPs.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district's fall 2014 psychoeducational assessment was legally deficient in five significant ways. The school psychologist failed to document or thoroughly review Student's existing records, meaning he was unaware of Student's prior diagnoses of central auditory processing disorder and ADHD, and overlooked years of documented aggressive behavior toward peers. He conducted a classroom observation but could not recall its duration or frequency, and he never observed Student in the general education setting or on the playground where aggression most often occurred. His report also contained factual errors — scores listed in the tables did not match scores described in the written text — undermining the reliability of his analysis of Student's visual processing deficits. Finally, the psychologist applied Student's low verbal IQ score from a language-heavy test (the Wechsler) while largely discounting Student's average score on the nonverbal Naglieri, which more accurately reflected Student's true cognitive ability given his language learning disability. These combined failures meant Student was never properly considered for a specific learning disability eligibility category, and Parents did not receive an accurate picture of their child.

On behavior support, the ALJ found that Student had carried essentially the same behavior goal — maintaining personal space with peers — since kindergarten, with only minor modifications year to year. This repetition demonstrated that the behavior plan was not working. Despite five years of an unresolved behavior problem, the district never conducted a functional behavior assessment (FBA). The one-to-one aide was not documented as having any behavior training, was never formally supervised, and gradually took on expanded academic support duties without any IEP team discussion or authorization.

On academic services, the ALJ found that the October 2014 IEP's doubling of specialized academic instruction to 240 minutes per week was a reasonable initial response to Student's newly identified reading struggles. However, by the October 2015 IEP, the district had far more information — including Dr. Majors' detailed report — showing that Student's deficits in phonological processing, auditory processing, and verbal memory required intensive intervention such as Lindamood-Bell services. The 2015 IEP offered nothing new beyond some computer programs, and Student's performance on all district and state standardized tests remained far below standard. This was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

What Was Ordered

1. District must reimburse Parents $3,500 for Dr. Majors' independent neuropsychological assessment and report, within 45 days.
2. District must fund an independent functional behavior assessment (FBA) by an assessor selected by Parents, with criteria provided to Parents within 30 days.
3. District must convene an IEP meeting within 30 days of the FBA's completion to review results, and must pay for the assessor's time to attend.
4. District must reimburse Parents $10,856 for Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes services already received, within 45 days.
5. District must pay for all additional Lindamood-Bell services until Student completes a total of 18 weeks of services since beginning the program in June 2016.
6. District must provide a one-to-one behavior aide from a nonpublic agency, trained in applied behavior analysis, present throughout the entire school day. This is designated as stay-put.
7. District must provide 12 hours per month of supervision of the aide by a board-certified behavior analyst from a nonpublic agency. This is also designated as stay-put.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A school psychologist must actually review your child's records before assessing — not just list them. In this case, the assessor was unaware of diagnoses that had been in the file for years. Parents should ask in writing what records the assessor reviewed and request that prior evaluations, IEPs, and outside reports be explicitly referenced in the assessment report.

2. If your child's behavior goal has stayed the same for years, that is evidence the plan is not working — and the district should be doing more. The ALJ found that repeating the same goal with only minor tweaks year after year supported the conclusion that the behavior support plan had failed. Parents can use stagnant behavior goals as grounds to request a functional behavior assessment.

3. When an independent evaluator recommends a specific intervention and the district ignores it, that can constitute a denial of FAPE. Once Dr. Majors' report was presented at the 2015 IEP meeting recommending Lindamood-Bell services, the district's failure to offer anything comparable left Student without meaningful academic support. Parents should ensure that IEP teams formally respond to independent evaluation recommendations in writing.

4. A one-to-one aide must have defined, documented duties, proper training, and supervision — or the aide's presence may not satisfy FAPE. The district's aide gradually shifted from behavior support to academic support without any IEP team decision, without documented training, and without supervision. Parents should ask their child's IEP to specify the aide's exact role and what qualifications and oversight are required.