CASE NO. 2022040873
STUDENT v. CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Counsel for Student: Sheila C. Bayne, Lynda Williams, Valerie Weiss, and Robert Burgermeister
Counsel for School: Sundee M. Johnson
Representative for School: Kelly Whelan
ALJ: Paul H. Kamoroff
Date of Decision: November 04, 2022
Significant areas of law: Lack of appropriate assessments and offer of services.
ISSUES:
– Did school deny student a FAPE by
- failing to assess her in all areas of suspected disability in a timely manner?
- failing to offer her appropriate speech, language and behavior services including an individual aide?
- failing to offer appropriate goals as part of the IEP?
- failing to offer related services for physical therapy and adapted physical education?
- failing to failing to offer occupational therapy?
- failing to find Student eligible for special education under the primary eligibility category autism, and the secondary eligibility category speech and language impairment?
- failing to consider parents’ requests?
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Student was 15 years old and was eligible for special education and related services under the categories specific learning disability, based upon an attention processing disorder that impacted her ability to progress in math, and other health impairment.
- Student was found eligible for special education under speech and language impairment, based upon low average scores in receptive and expressive language in her IEP. Accordingly four goals were offered by the school addressing these categories.
- Student changed school in ninth grade and an interim IEP was conducted in new school to assess her for special education as well as to determine appropriate goals for her.
CONCLUSION :-
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to assess her in all areas of suspected disability in a timely manner.
Rationale:-
– The Student’s case manager and teachers found her IEP goals set by previous schools far below her ability level. Accordingly they devised a re-assessment plan for her in all relevant areas and conducted the assessments with parents’ approval.
– Student’s psychoeducational assessment identified a mild attention disorder confirming her eligibility for special education under specific learning disability and other health impairment.
– All witnesses as well as minutes of IEP proved that proper assessment was done by qualified and experienced staff, in all areas of need, and neither further assessment was required nor student required any behavior intervention, assistive technology or mental health services.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to failing to offer her appropriate speech, language and behavior services including an individual aide.
Rationale:-
– Student continued to perform well at school even without receiving special education in areas of speech and language. None of the student’s witnesses were able to prove that she required speech and language supports or services.
– The private assessor hired by parents met student only twice and neither interviewed her teachers nor let them complete any tests. The private assessor’s testimony was contradictory to the evidence on record including student’s grades and testimony of other witnesses.
– Mother herself testified that she did not believe Student required behavior supports or services, including an individual aide, and had not requested such while formulating the complaint.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to failing to offer appropriate goals as part of the IEP.
Rationale:-
– Proper assessments were conducted by school and the assessment reports were discussed in the IEP meeting in presence of all the relevant IEP team members. Based on the assessments, four goals were determined, in the areas of math, study skills and organization, career exploration, and college awareness.
– Each goal determined in the meeting had a baseline, short-term objectives, was measurable, identified school staff responsible for ensuring Student met the goal, and correlated to an area of identified need for Student. School also offered various accommodations to meet her goals. The appropriateness of goals was also supported by testimonies.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to failing to offer related services for physical therapy and adapted physical education.
Rationale:-
– No person who had interacted with student, other than Mother, reported any concerns that would warrant physical therapy services or adapted physical education.
– School examiner was qualified and experienced and after examining student in all relevant areas did not find her eligible for such services. School did not offer physical therapy services. However, it offered various accommodations to address Mother’s concerns.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to offer occupational therapy.
Rationale:-
– Student was properly assessed in all areas of suspected disability by qualified and experience assessors and she had no difficulty attending to self-care tasks or performing at school.
– Student displayed no deficit in any area that fell under the purview of occupational therapy. The school’s findings were consistent with Student’s ability to access her educational program, and high grades.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to offer a sufficiently intensive academic program.
Rationale:-
– IEP offered various accommodations with consent of parents, to support student in regular education classes, and a daily study skills class to assist her with assignment completion, organization, and math. With these accommodations, Student performed well in her regular education classes and earned passing to high grades in each course.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to find Student eligible for special education under the primary eligibility category autism, and the secondary eligibility category speech and language impairment.
Rationale:-
– Student was properly assessed in all areas of suspected disability by qualified and experience assessors and she was neither diagnosed with autism nor with speech and language impairment.
– the private examiner hired by parent totally relied on mother’s input without even observing student practically. Further, the private examiner and mother’s testimony did not corroborate with evidence on record.
– School DID NOT DENY student a FAPE by failing to consider parents’ requests.
Rationale:-
– The record of IEP team meetings as well as testimony of all the witnesses including parents confirmed that parents were involved throughout the process of evaluation as well as for devising her IEP goals. Further, school gave due consideration to parent’s requests and addressed all requests reasonably.
REMEDIES/ORDER:-
- All requests for relief are denied.