CASE NO. 2023050319
Student v. YUBA CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Counsel for Student: Robert Burgermeister
Counsel for District: Dee Anna Hassanpour and Matejka Handley
Representative for District: Christy Taylor
ALJ: Penelope Pahl
Date of Decision: August 21, 2023
Significant areas of law: Only material failures to implement an IEP constitute violations of the IDEA.
- Did District deny Student a FAPE by assigning Student to distance learning without providing necessary services and accommodation as stated in her IEP?
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- Student was seven (07) years old and eligible for special education under the category of speech language impairment. Student contended that district denied her FAPE during distance learning.
- District DID NOT deny Student a FAPE by assigning Student to distance learning without providing necessary services and accommodation as stated in her IEP.
- Only material failures to implement an IEP constitute violations of the IDEA. A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services provided to a disabled child and those required by the IEP. (Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker School Dist. 5J, (9th Cir. 2007) 502 F.3d 811, 815.)
- Student failed to prove the amount of specialized academic instruction lost or the discrepancies between what was provided and the IEP requirements. Student also failed to prove how any loss of specialized academic instruction during the short distance learning period constituted more than a minor discrepancy with Student’s IEP.
- Student provided no evidence of any missed speech therapy sessions during distance learning and did not offer any evidence that Student had difficulty accessing online speech services.
- Student’s IEP included accommodations, specifically “visuals/icons for daily activities scheduled or choice board.” During the 30-minute distance learning sessions, visual schedules were used. All students completed activities together. Therefore, virtual learning did not allow for children to choose the order in which they preferred completing activities. Student offered no evidence that the lack of a choice board impeded Student’s ability to access the 30-minute distance learning sessions.
- Student did not prevail on any issues. All requested remedies are denied.