District Wins: Immigrant Student's Poor Grades Tied to Absences, Not Disability

A family sought special education services for a teenage immigrant student enrolled in a high school Newcomer Program, claiming the district failed its child find obligations and conducted inadequate assessments. The ALJ found that the student's academic struggles stemmed from years of missed schooling, limited English proficiency, and chronic absences — not a disability — and that the district's assessments were appropriate. All of the family's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a teenager who immigrated from Honduras and enrolled in Chaffey Joint Union High School District's Newcomer Program in 2018. He had completed only sixth grade in Honduras and had been out of school for several years before arriving in the United States. He spoke little to no English when he enrolled. During his first semester, his grades were poor across all subjects — a pattern the district said was typical for new Newcomer Program students adjusting to a completely new educational environment. His grades improved significantly in the third quarter, with an A+ in English language development reading, before dropping again in the fourth quarter when he turned 18 and began missing school regularly, eventually being truant for 15 out of 49 school days.

The family, assisted by a non-attorney advocate, attempted to request a special education assessment through emails and phone calls in April 2018. The district did not treat these communications as a formal assessment request. The district eventually agreed to assess Student voluntarily in April 2019, completed the assessments, and held an IEP team meeting on September 27, 2019. The IEP team determined Student did not qualify for special education under any category. The family then filed for due process, raising a wide range of claims covering child find, assessment adequacy, eligibility determinations, goals, services, and parental participation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on every issue.

On child find, the ALJ found the district had no reason to suspect a disability prior to agreeing to assess Student in April 2019. Student's poor grades were directly explained by his excessive absences, not by any suspected disability. Teachers consistently described him as polite, engaged, hardworking, and socially connected. His grades improved dramatically when he attended school consistently. The ALJ found it was Student's poor attendance — not a disability — that caused his academic struggles.

On the April 2018 assessment request, the ALJ found the emails and phone calls from the family's advocate did not legally constitute a valid assessment request. The advocate did not identify Student by name, did not demonstrate he had authority to act on the family's behalf, and the follow-up documents sent the next day made no reference to any assessment request. Because no valid request was made, the district had no obligation to respond with an assessment plan or prior written notice.

On eligibility, the ALJ found Student did not qualify under specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, or intellectual disability. The district's expert, school psychologist Mr. Rivera, persuasively explained that standardized test scores underestimated Student's true abilities given his limited schooling and cultural background. The family's expert, Dr. Paltin, relied too heavily on standardized test scores without adequately accounting for Student's years out of school, limited English proficiency, poor attendance, and classroom performance. The ALJ found the district's speech-language assessment was appropriate: the bilingual speech-language pathologist — not the school psychologist — conducted the articulation assessment, and informal assessment methods were sufficient to evaluate voice, fluency, and pragmatic language given the absence of any concerns in those areas.

On parental participation, the ALJ found that it was the family's own advocate who hung up the phone during the IEP meeting after a dispute over when Dr. Paltin could ask questions. The family did not call back, even though the meeting continued for over an hour. The district did not disconnect the call and made efforts to reconnect.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
No compensatory education, assessments, services, goals, or any other remedy was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

An informal or incomplete assessment request may not trigger the district's legal obligations. The ALJ found that emails and phone calls from an advocate who was not formally authorized in writing, and who never identified the student by name, did not constitute a valid referral for assessment. If you want to formally request an assessment, put it in writing, sign it yourself, clearly identify your child, and state explicitly that you are requesting a special education evaluation.
Poor grades alone do not automatically trigger child find. The law requires the district to suspect a disability — not just academic struggle. When a student's failing grades are clearly explained by chronic absences, a language barrier, or a gap in schooling, the district may not be obligated to assess for special education. Document your own explanations for your child's struggles carefully, because they may be used against you later.
A non-attorney advocate's actions can bind you — and hurt your case. The ALJ found that the family's advocate hung up on the IEP meeting, cutting off the parent's participation. Even though the parent was present on the same call, the advocate's decision to disengage ended her meaningful participation. Know what authority you are giving any representative, and make sure they are advancing your child's interests — not creating conflict that undermines your case.
Cultural background and limited schooling must be considered in eligibility decisions — but they can also explain away low test scores. The law explicitly says a student whose needs arise primarily from limited English proficiency or lack of instruction does not automatically qualify for special education. In this case, that same legal protection worked against the family, as the ALJ credited the district's explanation that Student's low scores reflected his educational gaps, not a disability.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor on every issue.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
No compensatory education, assessments, services, goals, or any other remedy was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

An informal or incomplete assessment request may not trigger the district's legal obligations. The ALJ found that emails and phone calls from an advocate who was not formally authorized in writing, and who never identified the student by name, did not constitute a valid referral for assessment. If you want to formally request an assessment, put it in writing, sign it yourself, clearly identify your child, and state explicitly that you are requesting a special education evaluation.
Poor grades alone do not automatically trigger child find. The law requires the district to suspect a disability — not just academic struggle. When a student's failing grades are clearly explained by chronic absences, a language barrier, or a gap in schooling, the district may not be obligated to assess for special education. Document your own explanations for your child's struggles carefully, because they may be used against you later.
A non-attorney advocate's actions can bind you — and hurt your case. The ALJ found that the family's advocate hung up on the IEP meeting, cutting off the parent's participation. Even though the parent was present on the same call, the advocate's decision to disengage ended her meaningful participation. Know what authority you are giving any representative, and make sure they are advancing your child's interests — not creating conflict that undermines your case.
Cultural background and limited schooling must be considered in eligibility decisions — but they can also explain away low test scores. The law explicitly says a student whose needs arise primarily from limited English proficiency or lack of instruction does not automatically qualify for special education. In this case, that same legal protection worked against the family, as the ALJ credited the district's explanation that Student's low scores reflected his educational gaps, not a disability.