District Wins: Parent Fails to Prove Missed AT Services or Inadequate Speech Assessment

A parent filed due process against Sacramento City Unified School District claiming the district failed to deliver required assistive technology services and failed to adequately assess Student's speech and language, specifically for stuttering. The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on both issues, finding that the parent's evidence was contradictory and insufficient to prove either claim by a preponderance of the evidence. All requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student is a 9-year-old boy with autism as his primary disability and speech and language impairment as his secondary disability. He receives specialized academic instruction, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, behavior intervention, and assistive technology services from Sacramento City Unified School District. Parent filed for due process in December 2016 raising two main complaints: (1) that the district failed to deliver the five 60-minute sessions of assistive technology services promised in Student's November 2015 IEP, and (2) that the district's October 2016 speech and language assessment was inadequate because it did not specifically address Student's stuttering, which Parent first noticed in August 2016.

At the hearing, the only witnesses were Parent and Grandmother. The district called no witnesses of its own. Parent's case relied primarily on two documents — an Assistive Technology Service Log and an Assistive Technology Evaluation Report — that gave conflicting information about how many sessions Student actually received. On the speech issue, Parent argued that email correspondence with Student's speech therapist in January 2017 proved the therapist had known about Student's stuttering all along and should have assessed and treated it from the start of the school year. No expert witnesses testified on either issue.

What the ALJ Found

On the assistive technology claim: The ALJ found that Parent's evidence was internally contradictory and unreliable. The Assistive Technology Service Log suggested Student received only about 1.5 hours of the required services, but the Assistive Technology Evaluation Report stated that Student received five sessions during the school year — exactly what the IEP required. Parent presented no way to resolve this contradiction. Critically, Parent did not call the assistive technology provider to testify, nor did anyone explain how the service log was created or whether it captured all services delivered. Because the parent bears the burden of proof in a due process hearing, this evidentiary gap was fatal to the claim.

On the speech and language assessment claim: The ALJ found that the district's October 2016 speech assessment was adequate. The speech therapist used standardized tests to evaluate Student's articulation, receptive language, expressive language, and language memory — the areas of concern identified in his existing IEP. Parent's theory was that the speech therapist's January 2017 email — in which she apologized for not recognizing Student's stuttering as a new condition — proved she had known about it all along and should have assessed it in October. The ALJ rejected this reading of the email. The ALJ also found that Parent never raised stuttering concerns with the speech therapist or at the October 2016 IEP meeting. No expert testified about what a stuttering assessment would involve, whether Student's stuttering was a new condition versus a different form of his existing fluency difficulties, or whether the October assessment should have included specific stuttering measures. Without that expert testimony, the claim could not be sustained. The ALJ also noted that when the speech therapist did learn of Parent's concerns in January 2017, she responded promptly by adding a fluency group for Student.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Sacramento City Unified School District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Bring the right witnesses to your hearing. Parent's assistive technology claim failed largely because the person who actually delivered — and logged — the services never testified. If you are challenging whether services were actually provided, the service provider's testimony and an explanation of how records are kept are essential. A document alone, without someone to explain it, may not be enough.
Raise concerns in writing and early — don't wait until the hearing. The ALJ specifically noted that Parent never told the speech therapist about stuttering concerns until January 2017, months after the October assessment and IEP meeting. If you have concerns about a specific issue like stuttering, dyslexia, or a new symptom, raise it in writing before or during the assessment period. This creates a record that the district was on notice and had an obligation to address it.
Expert testimony is often required to win on assessment adequacy claims. Parent argued that the speech assessment was inadequate, but no expert testified about what a proper stuttering assessment looks like, whether Student needed one, or what the therapist should have done differently. Courts and ALJs generally will not find an assessment inadequate without professional testimony explaining the deficiency.
A district improving services later does not automatically mean earlier services were wrong. Parent argued that because the speech therapist added stuttering-related sessions in early 2017, that proved the original program was inadequate. The ALJ rejected this reasoning, citing a legal principle that penalizing districts for updating IEPs would discourage them from ever making improvements — the opposite of what special education law intends. An increase in services is not, by itself, an admission that prior services were insufficient.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Sacramento City Unified School District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Bring the right witnesses to your hearing. Parent's assistive technology claim failed largely because the person who actually delivered — and logged — the services never testified. If you are challenging whether services were actually provided, the service provider's testimony and an explanation of how records are kept are essential. A document alone, without someone to explain it, may not be enough.
Raise concerns in writing and early — don't wait until the hearing. The ALJ specifically noted that Parent never told the speech therapist about stuttering concerns until January 2017, months after the October assessment and IEP meeting. If you have concerns about a specific issue like stuttering, dyslexia, or a new symptom, raise it in writing before or during the assessment period. This creates a record that the district was on notice and had an obligation to address it.
Expert testimony is often required to win on assessment adequacy claims. Parent argued that the speech assessment was inadequate, but no expert testified about what a proper stuttering assessment looks like, whether Student needed one, or what the therapist should have done differently. Courts and ALJs generally will not find an assessment inadequate without professional testimony explaining the deficiency.
A district improving services later does not automatically mean earlier services were wrong. Parent argued that because the speech therapist added stuttering-related sessions in early 2017, that proved the original program was inadequate. The ALJ rejected this reasoning, citing a legal principle that penalizing districts for updating IEPs would discourage them from ever making improvements — the opposite of what special education law intends. An increase in services is not, by itself, an admission that prior services were insufficient.