Preschooler with Apraxia Denied General Ed Preschool and Proper Speech Therapy by Sylvan Union

What Happened

The student was a four-year-old boy living in the Sylvan Union School District who had been diagnosed with severe to profound childhood apraxia of speech — a rare neurological disorder that made it extremely difficult for him to produce the sounds he intended to say, leaving him largely unintelligible to others. Despite average cognitive ability and strong receptive language skills, his expressive communication was in the lowest one percent of children with his diagnosis. His parents enrolled him in private preschool and hired a private speech-language pathologist starting when he was about two and a half years old, long before the district became involved. The Regional Center referred him to the district for assessment in September 2015, just before his third birthday.

At his initial IEP meeting in December 2015, the district found him eligible under "Speech and Language Impairment" and offered only group speech therapy sessions — no preschool placement of any kind. Over the following year and a half, the family repeatedly asked for more: a comprehensive assessment to understand his social-emotional and pre-academic needs, a general education preschool placement so he could practice speech with typical peers, and the individual speech therapy sessions promised in his IEP. The district refused to offer a preschool program, claiming it did not operate one, and a district speech pathologist secretly crossed out a written IEP commitment to provide an assessment plan and then provided 42 group therapy sessions in place of the individual sessions his IEP required. Parents ultimately filed for due process in February 2017.

What the District Did Wrong

1. Refused to offer a general education preschool placement for the 2016–2017 school year. By the start of the 2016–2017 school year, the district knew the student had social-emotional, fine motor, and pre-academic deficits in addition to his severe speech impairment. His private speech-language pathologist and his Early Intervention Readiness provider both testified credibly that a preschool placement was essential for him to practice speech with peers and develop academically. A Stanford Children's Hospital multidisciplinary evaluation obtained by the parents also recommended considering a preschool placement. The district's response at the December 2016 IEP meeting was simply that it did not operate a general education preschool — but the law requires districts to find one, even if that means contracting with a private preschool or placing the child in a Head Start or community program. Refusing to even genuinely consider the option was a FAPE denial.

2. Failed to conduct psycho-educational and occupational therapy assessments from December 2015 through February 2017. The district's own assessors noted at the very first IEP meeting that the student did not interact with peers at his preschool and hid under a table to avoid a health assessment — behaviors the ALJ found should have raised immediate red flags about potential social-emotional and behavioral disabilities beyond speech. Despite these observations, and despite the mother repeatedly requesting a "baseline" comprehensive assessment at both the December 2015 and May 2016 IEP meetings, the district never conducted a psycho-educational or occupational therapy assessment during this 14-month period. The district only proposed a comprehensive assessment plan in February 2017 — after the due process complaint was filed. The ALJ found this failure deprived parents of critical information and materially impeded their ability to participate in IEP decisions, particularly the decision about whether a preschool placement was needed.

3. Secretly deleted the IEP team's written commitment to provide an assessment plan. At the May 2016 IEP meeting, the team's notes clearly stated that an assessment plan addressing the student's pre-academic concerns would be provided to the parents within 15 days. The district speech-language pathologist, Gina Mason, later crossed out this commitment from the IEP notes — without the mother's knowledge or consent — and then claimed at hearing that the mother had agreed to the deletion. The ALJ found this testimony not credible and that no such agreement had ever occurred.

4. Ignored the Stanford Children's Hospital independent evaluation. Parents provided the district with a detailed multidisciplinary evaluation from Stanford Children's Health at the December 2016 IEP meeting. The district was legally required to consider this privately funded evaluation in making FAPE decisions. No evidence was introduced that the district ever discussed the report with the parents or convened an IEP meeting to review it. The district's special education director even told the mother in the school parking lot after the meeting that the district would not be changing its offer — before the team had reviewed the Stanford report at all.

5. Provided group speech therapy instead of the individual sessions required by the IEP. The student's May 2016 IEP called for 10 individual, 20-minute speech therapy sessions per month. District records showed that from August 2016 through January 2017, only 3 out of 45 sessions were individual — the other 42 were group sessions. The district's explanation that the mother verbally agreed to the change was rejected as not credible. The ALJ also rejected the argument that the student still received the same number of "minutes" of therapy, noting that under established law a child does not need to show actual harm when an IEP is materially violated.

What Was Ordered

1. Preschool tuition reimbursement: District must reimburse parents $2,925, covering the $125 Grace Academy registration fee plus $300/month tuition for nine months (September 2016 through May 2017).
2. District-funded independent educational evaluations: District must pay for independent evaluations of the student in the areas of psycho-education and occupational therapy, conducted by qualified evaluators of the parents' choosing located in Stanislaus County or an adjacent county. Evaluator fees are capped at District or SELPA maximum rates but must include up to four hours of payment (at the evaluator's normal rate, including travel) for the evaluators to attend IEP meetings to discuss the results.
3. 42 compensatory individual speech therapy sessions: District must provide 42 individual, 20-minute speech therapy sessions through a non-public agency with a qualified speech-language pathologist, to be used by December 31, 2018 — in addition to, not instead of, the student's ongoing IEP services.
4. Issue 1 denied: The family did not prevail on their claim that the district violated FAPE for the 2015–2016 school year by not offering a preschool placement at the initial IEP. The ALJ found that at that early stage, the district lacked sufficient notice that the student needed a preschool placement to address social-emotional deficits, and the mother had not raised the issue at that meeting.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts that don't run preschools still must offer one. The law requires districts to provide preschool-age children with disabilities access to settings with typical peers — even if the district has to contract with a private preschool, place the child in Head Start, or find another community option. A district saying "we don't have a program" is not a legal excuse. If your child is preschool age and has an IEP, you can demand that placement be on the table.

2. Red flags in assessment reports should trigger more assessments. When assessors observe a child avoiding peers, refusing to participate in testing, or showing behaviors outside the norm, those observations should prompt the IEP team to assess the child in social-emotional, behavioral, and other areas — not just note the behavior and move on. If an assessment uncovers unexpected findings, ask the team directly: "What other areas should we be assessing given what you observed?"

3. Get IEP commitments in writing — and watch for deletions. This case involved a district employee secretly crossing out a written IEP promise without the parent's knowledge. Always keep dated copies of every draft and final IEP document. If you notice language has been changed or removed from notes after a meeting, challenge it in writing immediately and request that the original language be restored.

4. Private evaluations must be discussed, not just received. Handing the district a private evaluation report is not enough — the district is legally required to convene a meeting to actually consider it in making FAPE decisions. If you provide an outside evaluation, follow up in writing to confirm a meeting date to review the results. If the district refuses or ignores it, that refusal is itself a procedural violation.

5. IEP services mean exactly what they say — group is not the same as individual. If your child's IEP says "individual" sessions, the district cannot substitute group sessions without a formal IEP amendment and your written consent. Keep your own attendance log and ask for session notes. If you suspect sessions are being changed, request the district's attendance records in writing. Under the law, your child does not have to prove they were harmed — the material deviation from the IEP is itself a violation.