Student v. Garden Grove Unified School District (consolidated)

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Consolidated Matters of:

GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL

OAH Case No. 2018090236

DISTRICT,

v.

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

OAH Case No. 2018080781 v.

GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

DECISION

Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California, on August 21, 2018, naming Garden Grove Unified School District. Garden Grove filed its response to Student’s due process hearing request on August 31, 2018. (See M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.) Garden Grove filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, State of California, on September 7, 2018, naming Student. OAH consolidated the two cases on September 11, 2018.

Accessibility modified document

Administrative Law Judge Ted Mann heard this matter in Garden Grove, California, on October 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, and 24, 2018.

Parents appeared on behalf of Student. Alefia Mithaiwala, Attorney at Law, represented Garden Grove. Garden Grove’s Assistant Superintendent, Valerie Shedd attended each day of the hearing on behalf of Garden Grove.

At the request of the parties, OAH continued this matter until November 13, 2018, for written closing arguments. The record was closed on November 13, 2018, upon receipt of written closing arguments.

ISSUES 1

Student’s Issues 1.

Did Garden Grove deny Student a free appropriate public education during the 2017-2018 extended school year and 2018-2019 school year, by failing to appropriately assess Student and identify his unique needs?

2.

Did Garden Grove deny Student a FAPE during the 2018-2019 school year, by failing to offer appropriate and measurable goals and objectives, except in the area of adapted physical education?

3.

Did Garden Grove deny Student a FAPE during the 2018-2019 school year, by failing to offer appropriate (a) placement; (b) speech and language services; and (c) cognitive behavior therapy?

4.

Did Garden Grove deny Student a FAPE during the 2018-2019 school year,

At the hearing, the ALJ reviewed the hearing issues with the parties. Garden

Grove’s second issue has been rephrased and reorganized for clarity. The ALJ has authority to redefine a party’s issues, so long as no substantive changes are made. (J.W.

v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443.)

Accessibility modified document by failing to have high expectations for progress and to offer goals aligned with state content standards?

Garden Grove’s Issues 5.

Did Student’s May 25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 triennial individualized education program, as amended in August and September 2018, offer Student a FAPE? 6.

May Garden Grove complete its triennial assessment of Student without parental consent?

SUMMARY OF DECISION

Student contends that Garden Grove denied him a FAPE by failing to assess him appropriately prior to the May 25, 2018 individual educational program meeting. Garden Grove contends that it adequately assessed Student to the extent that Parents permitted, and that any inadequacy in the assessments arose from Parents’ obstruction of Garden Grove’s efforts. This Decision finds that Garden Grove adequately assessed Student despite the limitations on assessment imposed by Parents, and that given the adequacy of the assessments, Garden Grove does not have the right to complete its assessments over Parents’ objections.

Student also contends that Garden Grove denied him a FAPE in multiple ways in the May 25, 2018 IEP. Garden Grove contends that the May 25, 2018 IEP provided Student with an offer of FAPE in the least restrictive environment, including appropriate placement, services, goals, and high expectations for progress, and that Garden Grove should be allowed to implement the IEP. This Decision finds that Student did not meet his burden of proving that Garden Grove failed to offer a FAPE to Student for either the 2018 extended school year or the 2018-2019 school year. Rather, Garden Grove met its burden of establishing that its May 25, 2018 IEP offer met all procedural and substantive requirements and that Garden Grove may implement the May 25, 2018 IEP without parental consent if Student attends a Garden Grove school during the 2018-2019 school

Accessibility modified document year.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

1.

At the time of the hearing, Student was a 15-year-old boy eligible for special education under the primary category of autism and the secondary category of intellectual disability. Student resided within Garden Grove’s boundaries at all relevant times. Student became eligible for special education prior to his third birthday, and has continued in special education since that time.

APRIL 4, 2015 IEP

2.

Garden Grove held a triennial IEP team meeting for Student on April 4,

2015. Student was 12 years old and in the sixth grade. Student read at the late second grade level and wrote simple sentences with a topic sentence and supporting sentences with the help of a teacher-created thinking map and assistance from his one-to-one behavioral aide. He also had rote knowledge of math facts in addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Student generally completed assignments in class, but required extensive prompts from his aide for assistance and direction. Student had very mixed results in meeting goals from his prior IEP.

3.

Student worked well in both individual and group speech, but had marked deficits in expressive, receptive, and pragmatic speech, and continued to exhibit autisticlike characteristics in his communicative skills. He was easily distracted and largely prompt dependent. Despite his challenges, Student enjoyed interacting with peers in both the special education and general education settings, and enjoyed physical education. Student also continued to have significant deficits in gross and fine motor skills, although he managed basic personal needs, such as requesting the bathroom or a drink, and navigating among special education, general education, and related services. 4.

Garden Grove staff reviewed their psychoeducational, speech and

Accessibility modified document language, and occupational therapy assessments at the IEP. Student had very low cognitive scores and equivalently low academic achievement scores, along with high scores on the Gilliam Autism Rating Scales, and clinically significant scores on the Behavior Assessment Scales for Children in atypicality, withdrawal, and social skills. In speech and language, Student had very low scores on standardized assessments of expressive, receptive, and pragmatic speech. Student also had very low scores on standardized assessments completed by the Garden Grove’s occupational therapist. 5.

Garden Grove found that Student did not need assistive technology or low incidence services. To receive educational benefit, Student required goals in the areas of academics, social development, communication, fine motor, adaptive skills, physical education, and vocational skills, and a total of 12 goals were written in these areas. Garden Grove offered Student placement in a mild/moderate special day class with services in speech and language, occupational therapy, and behavioral intervention, along with a one-to-one behavioral aide. Parents gave signed partial consent to the April 4, 2015 IEP.

APRIL 28, 2016 IEP

6.

Garden Grove held an annual IEP team meeting for Student on April 28,

2016. Student was 13 years old and in the seventh grade. Student continued to read far below grade level, and required an alternative reading curriculum from that used by his class, while having extremely limited analytical or independent understanding of reading materials. Student wrote simple subject-verb sentences. In math, Student did rote arithmetic in isolation, but could not apply the skills to word problems, without great support by his aide and others.

7.

Student continued to work well in his speech sessions and with peers while putting forth a good effort. He continued to struggle with expressive and receptive language, but made some progress with functional communication. In occupational

Accessibility modified document therapy, Student made some progress in writing and typing, but continued to be very distractible and thus prompt dependent. Student participated well in his adapted physical education class, and took community walks with the group up to a total of 1.4 miles. Although he required prompts and redirection, he participated safely. He participated in daily living skill activities with significant prompting. 8.

Student’s IEP team did not find he needed assistive technology or low incidence services. To receive educational benefit, Student’s IEP contained 29 goals consisting of 12 academic goals, six speech and language goals, two adapted physical education goals, and nine occupational therapy goals. The draft IEP did not identify a proposed placement.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – MAY 4, 2016

9.

Garden Grove and Parents on behalf of Student entered into a settlement agreement on May 4, 2016. The agreement was intended to resolve all disputes between the parties at that time. The agreement covered all of Garden Grove’s educational obligations to Student through the end of the 2017-2018 school year. Pursuant to the agreement, Student completed the 2015-2016 school year in a Garden Grove public school. The agreement provided that for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, Student would attend the Center for Autism and Related Disorders from 8:00 a.m. to noon each day, and attend the Speech and Language Center from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. each day that the Speech Center was in session. The Center for Autism provided a one-to-one applied behavior analysis trained aide for Student while he was at the Speech Center. Student received individual speech and language, group speech and language, individual occupational therapy, and adapted physical therapy services from the Speech Center. The agreement also provided that Student would receive an extended school year program during summer 2016 and summer 2017. 10.

The settlement agreement contemplated Student would return to a

Accessibility modified document

Garden Grove public school campus after the end of the agreement. Garden Grove agreed to send a triennial assessment plan to Parents between March 1 and March 15, 2018, with Parents agreeing to consent to the assessment plan within 15 days of receipt. Garden Grove also agreed to hold Student’s triennial IEP team meeting on or before May 30, 2018, to allow it to make an offer of FAPE for summer 2018 and the 2018-2019 school year.

REVISION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – JUNE 29, 2016

11.

Garden Grove and Parents agreed to a modification of the settlement agreement on June 29, 2016. The modification added a paragraph to address the Center for Autism’s possible early termination of its contract, along with some minor programming changes. The Center for Autism notified Garden Grove in writing of its intention to discontinue services for Student as of November 11, 2016.

REVISION TO SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – JANUARY 3, 2017

12.

On January 3, 2017, the parties revised the settlement agreement. The revised agreement added an hour per day at the Speech Center for Student, and provided for him to receive home instruction by way of one-to-one tutoring. Student was provided with a one-to-one applied behavior analysis trained aide for three hours per day at the Speech Center for the remainder of the 2016-2017 school year, and two hours per day for the 2017-2018 school year. Student’s speech and language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education continued at the Speech Center. The revised agreement did not change the terms of the triennial assessment plan, its acceptance by Parents, and the timing of the triennial IEP.

STUDENT’S PROGRAM DURING PENDENCY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

13.

At the time of Student’s assessment by Garden Grove in spring 2018, he

Accessibility modified document was receiving special education services at the Speech Center for six hours per week, including adapted physical education, occupational therapy, and speech and language. Student also received behavioral intervention services through Autism Learning Partners, previously known as Proof Positive, as well as a one-to-one behavior aide at the Speech Center. Student also received in-home applied behavior analysis provided by Rays of Funshine, along with one-to-one academic tutoring.

TRIENNIAL ASSESSMENT PLAN – MARCH 1, 2018

14.

Garden Grove prepared a triennial assessment plan, dated March 1, 2018, and forwarded it by e-mail to Parents through counsel on March 5, 2018. The assessment plan spelled out assessments of Student in academic achievement, health, intellectual development, language/speech communication development, motor development, social/emotional behavior, adaptive behavior, post-secondary transition, assistive technology, and functional behavior. Most assessments were to be performed by Garden Grove personnel, including a school psychologist, special education teachers, a nurse, a speech-language pathologist, an adapted physical education specialist, a special education case manager, and an assistive technology specialist. Garden Grove hired an outside provider to conduct the occupational therapy assessment. 15.

Parents signed their consent and returned the assessment plan to Garden

Grove on March 19, 2018, including a note indicating their concerns about Student’s potential anxiety in response to undergoing assessments. Parents also sought to have Garden Grove identify the specific individuals who would be conducting the assessments, and the specifics of the assessment process.

TRIENNIAL IEP INVITATION – MARCH 7, 2018

16.

Garden Grove prepared an invitation and notice of an IEP team meeting for May 25, 2018, from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and sent it to Parents by e-mail through

Accessibility modified document counsel on March 7, 2018. Parents signed their consent and returned the invitation to the IEP team meeting on March 19, 2018.

ATTEMPTS TO ASSESS BY GARDEN GROVE IN APRIL AND MAY OF 2018

17.

Garden Grove sent release of information forms through counsel to

Parents on March 20, 2018, seeking a signed release for each current service provider, including medical professionals and/or expert consultants, involved in Student’s case. Parents refused to provide Garden Grove with a signed release for any of Student’s providers, indicating that they intended to be the only channel of information for Student and would forward to Garden Grove the information they considered appropriate. Parents felt that allowing Garden Grove to contact any current or past service provider of any kind was intrusive and unnecessary, and did not provide signed releases for any service provider.

18.

As the lead assessor for the triennial assessments, Garden Grove school psychologist LaTisha Vaicaro coordinated the initial scheduling of the assessment sessions with Parents. She communicated with Parents by e-mail beginning on March 26, 2018. She proposed one-hour assessment sessions over five consecutive Fridays from March 30, 2018, to May 4, 2018, at the Speech Center. The five assessment sessions included two with her, and one each with the speech-language pathologist (Lindsey Padgett), the occupational therapist (Anne Fleck), and the adapted physical education specialist (Marcia Bradbeer). Each session would include Student’s behavioral aide to ensure that Student was comfortable and had a familiar face in attendance. 19.

On March 26, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro mailed a Parent Input Questionnaire for the psychoeducational assessment, a Parent Input Questionnaire for the speech/language assessment and assistive technology assessment, Behavior Assessment System for Children-3 rating scales, Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-3 rating scales, and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 rating scales to Parents.

Accessibility modified document

20.

On March 29, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro sent a follow-up e-mail to Parents with an updated assessment schedule of nine, one-hour sessions on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from April 11, 2018, to April 30, 2018. A later email that same day added a 10th session. Ms. Vaicaro notified Parents that the assessors would likely observe Student during his regular occupational therapy and adapted physical education service sessions, and requested that Parents provide proposed dates and times for her and the speech-language pathologist to observe Student once or twice at home during his tutoring sessions. She also requested that Parents provide her with information about Student’s behaviors to support the functional behavior assessment that she was conducting. Parents responded that both the assessment sessions and any home observation were contingent on Student and any reaction by him to the assessments such as increased negative behaviors or anxiety.

21.

On March 30, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro mailed an Adaptive Behavior Assessment

System-3 rating scale to Parents.

22.

On April 9, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro sent an updated assessment schedule to

Parents adding an 11th session. Parents responded by reiterating their concerns regarding Student’s response to the proposed assessment schedule, and indicating that Parents would work over the next few weeks on forms sent home to them related to the assessment.

23.

On April 13, 2018, Parents wrote to Ms. Vaicaro that they wished to discontinue all remaining assessment sessions except for the three remaining Friday sessions. Parents asserted that Student’s behaviors at home had increased and that he was unable to sleep before or after the first session on April 11, 2018. Parents proposed possibly conducting a three to four-hour assessment session on May 4, 2018, to make up for the cancelled sessions. Ms. Vaicaro emailed Parents later that same day, to advise

Accessibility modified document them that her assessment session with Student had gone well; to request that Parents complete, by April 18, 2018, the questionnaires and rating scales that had been previously forwarded to them; and to acknowledge that no assessment session would occur on May 4, 2018.

24.

On April 13, 2018, Garden Grove speech–language pathologist Lindsey

Padgett emailed Parents introducing herself and requesting a release of information by Parents for Rays of Funshine, Student’s in-home tutor, allowing her to speak with the inhome provider. 25.

On April 15, 2018, Mother wrote to Ms. Vaicaro indicating that she had not yet looked at the questionnaires or scales, and advising that she would attempt to return the materials to Ms. Vaicaro by April 30, 2018. In response, on April 16, 2018, Garden Grove’s counsel, Alefia Mithaiwala, emailed Mother about proposals from Mother as to how to complete the assessments in time for the IEP team meeting given the delays that had already occurred. Parent responded that same day by asserting that the assessment schedule was endangering Student’s health, complaining that Garden Grove’s assessors were new to Student, and that Parents were offering possible assessment session dates of May 11, 2018, and May 18, 2018.

26.

On May 10, 2018, Garden Grove’s counsel wrote to Parents in an attempt to coordinate the remaining assessment sessions needed by Garden Grove to complete the triennial assessment of Student. She requested Parents schedule an additional seven to nine sessions to make up for the cancelled sessions and the unproductive four-hour session that had taken place on May 4, 2018, noting that Student appeared to work best in one-hour increments, and was unable to maintain attention and behavior during the attempted four-hour session. She also offered compensation by Garden Grove for any costs to Parents arising from having Rays of Funshine personnel fill out questionnaires or assessment scales. Garden Grove’s counsel also sought an extension of the timeline

Accessibility modified document to complete the IEP due to the delays that had occurred, and requested a response by May 14, 2018.

27.

On May 15, 2018, Ms. Mithaiwala wrote again to Parents, indicating that there had been no parental response to the May 10, 2018 letter. She indicated that Garden Grove would proceed with assessing Student in the remaining days in May during his regular hours at the Speech Center, and that the IEP team meeting would proceed on May 25, 2018, with a second session expected to be required to complete the review of Garden Grove’s delayed assessments.

28.

Parents responded to Ms. Mithaiwala’s May 10, 2018 correspondence on

May 18, 2018. Parents complained that Garden Grove had not moved expeditiously throughout the 60-day period to complete the assessments, and had put Student’s health at risk by subjecting him to assessments that spurred his anxiety and negative behaviors at home. Parents rejected any further assessment by Garden Grove, and reiterated their position that they had adequately answered assessment questionnaires, completed needed scales, and provided sufficient information for Garden Grove to complete the assessments. Parents also complained that Garden Grove should have allowed Parents to attend the assessment sessions along with Student, and that the use of unfamiliar assessors exacerbated Student’s anxiety problem. Parents also asserted that they had provided all necessary information to Garden Grove themselves and that the request for consent to contact Student’s providers, including medical providers, was unnecessary and intrusive.

TRIENNIAL ASSESSMENT

29.

Garden Grove conducted its multidisciplinary triennial assessment of

Student in March, April, and May of 2018. The triennial consisted of assessments in the areas of Student’s psychoeducational, social/emotional, speech and language, and health levels and needs. Garden Grove also assessed Student in occupational therapy,

Accessibility modified document assistive technology, adapted physical education and performed a functional behavioral assessment of Student.

GARDEN GROVE’S MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT – MAY 25, 2018

30.

School psychologist LaTisha Vaicaro led Garden Grove’s assessment team.

Ms. Vaicaro held a bachelor of science degree in psychology, a master of arts degree in educational psychology and as an educational specialist in school psychology. She obtained her Pupil Personnel Services credential in school psychology in 2007. She also received her Behavior Intervention Case Management certification in 2012. She was a member of the National, California, and Orange County Association of School Psychologists.

31.

Ms. Vaicaro worked as a school psychologist and behavior intervention case manager for Garden Grove since 2007. She regularly conducted psychoeducational assessments of students. She performed assessments in the areas of cognition, social/emotional, processing, and behavior. She routinely and regularly participated in IEP team meetings, student study team meetings, and student counseling. 32.

The psychoeducational portion of the multidisciplinary assessment utilized the following standardized components: Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal IntelligenceSecond Edition; Universal Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition; Test of Auditory Processing Skills-Third Edition; Woodcock-Johnson Tests of AchievementFourth Edition; Brigance Inventory of Early Development III; Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition; Multidimensional Anxiety Scale for Children-Second Edition; Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-Third Edition; and Adaptive Behavior Assessment SystemThird Edition. Because of the limited time to assess Student, along with Student’s behavioral issues, Ms. Vaicaro was unable to administer the Brigance and the Test of Auditory Processing. She was also unable to complete the test of nonverbal intelligence or the Woodcock-Johnson assessments.

Accessibility modified document

33.

The speech and language portion of the multidisciplinary assessment utilized the following standardized components: Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test; Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test; Oral and Written Language Scales-Second Edition; Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken LanguageSecond Edition; Language Sample; Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5Pragmatic Profile-SLP Input; and Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5Observational Rating Scale-Parent and BCBA Supervisor Input. A Double Interview and General Input from Parent, teacher, and the speech-language pathologist were also utilized.

34.

The assessors also utilized the following sources of information: a review of Student’s file, including prior assessments and independent educational evaluations 2; an interview of Parents and/or parent input; teacher interview and/or input, health and developmental history; and vision and hearing screening.

35.

Garden Grove had first assessed Student in 2006 to determine his eligibility for special education. Garden Grove thereafter assessed Student every three years, including 2009, 2012, and 2015, for his triennial IEPs. An IEP team meeting was also held in April 2016 to review an independent educational evaluation completed by Dr. Chris Davidson. Across all of the prior assessments, Student had displayed a pattern of very low cognitive scores, ranging from the 40s to the 70s for full scale IQ scores. Student additionally displayed autism-like behaviors and consistently scored in ranges consistent with autism on autism assessments. Student also consistently displayed problematic emotions and behaviors on assessments such as behavior assessment scales and the Connors, along with attentional issues on the behavior assessment scales

The terms “assessment” and “evaluation” are synonyms and used interchangeably by the parties and in this decision.

Accessibility modified document and other attentional assessments.

36.

Ms. Vaicaro observed Student during her testing on April 11, 13, and 20,

2018, and May 16, 2018, as well as three separate times at the Speech Center. During her testing, Student was cooperative and participatory during the first two sessions, and engaged in appropriate and on-topic conversation with the assessor, although he processed information slowly. During the second two sessions, Student was uncooperative and engaged in negative attention seeking behaviors, and Ms. Vaicaro could not redirect him. Because of his behaviors, the second two sessions did not result in useful assessment information, and Ms. Vaicaro discontinued both. 37.

On April 11, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro observed Student for approximately 30 minutes during his adapted physical education class at the Speech Center. Student followed teacher directions, appeared to be happy and enjoyed the activity, and interacted appropriately with his peers. He participated in the physical education activities without much aide support, and accommodated changes in class routine without difficulty.

38.

On May 2, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro observed Student for approximately 25 minutes during his speech/social group at the Speech Center. Student engaged in distinct attention seeking behavior, particularly with his aide, but also directed at others in the classroom. Student also would not cooperate with the teacher and did not provide appropriate verbal responses to questions or prompts, often referencing “poo poo” in his responses. Student’s aide could not redirect him either, and Student’s behavior caused disruption to other students as well as affecting Student’s ability to participate in class or make progress.

39.

On May 16, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro observed Student for approximately 30 minutes during his speech/social group at the Speech Center. Student was again disruptive, and engaged in inappropriate commenting. He also did not respond to

Accessibility modified document repeated attempts at redirection, and his aide had to bring him outside the classroom twice to take a break and deescalate.

40.

The Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Second Edition is a norm-referenced test that uses nonverbal formats to estimate the general intelligence of children whose performance on traditional intelligence tests might be adversely affected by impairments involving language or motor abilities. The test was administered to Student to determine his cognitive abilities. Student’s behavior during the test administration on April 11, 2018, was excellent, with Student working slowly and carefully, and appearing to put forth his best effort. Student scored below the first percentile, in the very poor range. Student’s scores were consistent with his previous results on the same testing instrument from prior testing, providing a heightened level of confidence in the results. 3 41.

The Woodcock Johnson test is an individually administered, standardized, norm-referenced achievement test measuring academic performance in areas such as reading, written language, and math. Ms. Vaicaro attempted two testing sessions with Student on April 13, 2018 and April 20, 2018. The first session, consisting of three subtests, was successful, and Student demonstrated good behavior and effort. The remaining subtests were attempted at the second session, but Student’s behavior significantly interfered with the testing, and testing could not be completed. Parents canceled or discontinued additional testing sessions. The tests therefore produced

Ms. Vaicaro also attempted to administer the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence

Test on May 16, 2018. This was a nonverbal assessment of intelligence, which had been used previously with Student with mixed success. Student was largely non-compliant and Ms. Vaicaro was unable to obtain meaningful results, or reschedule additional testing due to Parents’ discontinuation of assessments after May 18, 2018.

Accessibility modified document limited results of only three subtest scores, and the calculation of a brief achievement index as a composite screen of Student’s math, reading, and writing performance. Student scored well below the first percentile and in the below average range on the brief achievement index. Student’s subtest scores were below average, and at the second percentile or less.

42.

The Brigance Inventory is a comprehensive collection of developmental assessments for children through the developmental age of seven. Due to Parents’ cancellation of testing sessions, and cancellation of assessment after May 18, 2018, Ms. Vaicaro was unable to administer the assessment, and instead relied on progress reports from Autism Learning Partners and Rays of Funshine for March and April 2018 for information on Student’s academic abilities and skills. In March 2018, Autism Partners reported that Student read aloud at a rate of 80 words per minute at the fourth grade level. In April 2018, Student could expressively identify the main idea of simple twosentence paragraphs in 50 percent of opportunities. For April 2018, Rays of Funshine reported that Student was not working extensively on English language tasks with the one-to-one tutor as his language limitations and difficulties with comprehension of verbal passages required major program modifications and highly simplified task analysis. Student was more successful with concrete aspects of language rather than abstract language concepts such as inferencing or reading comprehension. In math, Student fared similarly as he had some success with concrete arithmetic operations, but struggled with applications such as word problems that required abstract thought. 43.

Ms. Vaicaro also assessed Student for behavior and social emotional functioning. Mother reported to her that Student was very sensitive to changes in staff, schedule, and routine, and that such changes could lead Student to display inappropriate behaviors. Autism Partners reported that Student demonstrated general regression in behaviors across all areas of his clinical program in April 2018, and that

Accessibility modified document there had been a consistent increase in behaviors beginning in approximately January 2018. In April 2018, Rays of Funshine reported that changes in Student’s staff, schedule, or expectations would result in his increased anxiety.

44.

Ms. Vaicaro used the Behavior Assessment System, the Multidimensional

Anxiety Scale, the Gilliam Autism Scale, and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System to obtain standardized assessment data for Student’s social emotional functioning. Each of these assessments consisted of rating scales completed by Parents, teachers, and/or service providers.

45.

Mother, Student’s speech center teacher, and the Autism Partners supervisor completed assessment scales for the Behavior Assessment System. Rays of Funshine personnel did not complete any of the scales, although Garden Grove made extensive efforts to obtain their input. The behavior assessment was a comprehensive measure of Student’s adaptive and problem behaviors in community and home settings. Scores are interpreted as a five-step range from very low to clinically significant. “Clinically significant” scores suggest a high level of maladjustment while the preceding scale of “at-risk” may identify a significant problem that needs careful monitoring. Both Mother and Autism Partner’s supervisor identified adaptive functioning as “clinically significant.” The supervisor also identified anxiety and atypicality as “clinically significant.” Student’s teacher noted clinically significant levels of withdrawal. 46.

Ms. Vaicaro gave Parents the multidimensional anxiety scales to complete.

The multidimensional anxiety scales were a comprehensive assessment of anxiety dimensions in children and adolescents aged eight to 19 years. The assessment was designed to provide more detailed and specific analysis of anxiety in Student than broader measures. Based on Parents’ ratings, Student scored in the average range. His anxiety probability score reflected that Student had a borderline probability of having one or more anxiety disorders. Student’s general anxiety index score was average, with

Accessibility modified document no generalized anxiety disorder problems indicated.

47.

Ms. Vaicaro gave Mother, the Autism Partners supervisor, and the Speech

Center teacher the Gilliam Autism Scales to complete. Rays of Funshine personnel did not complete any of the scales, although Garden Grove made extensive efforts to obtain their input. The Gilliam Scales were designed to collect information regarding the occurrence of autism- like behaviors that are derived from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual diagnostic criteria for autism. Parents’ scoring indicated the probability of autism as very likely and requiring substantial support. The Speech Center teacher and the supervisor ratings were consistent with Parents.

48.

Mother, the Autism Partners supervisor, and the Speech Center teacher were given the Adaptive Behavior Assessment scales to complete. The adaptive behavior scales were designed to compare Student’s adaptive skills to other students his age. Parents’ and the supervisor’s general adaptive composite scores for Student were within the one-tenth percentile. The Speech Center’s teacher’s general adaptive composite scores for Student was in the two-tenths percentile. Overall, Student’s adaptive skills were significantly delayed, and included difficulty with socialization, communication, and daily living skills.

49.

Garden Grove speech-language pathologist Lindsey Padgett conducted the speech-language assessment. Ms. Padgett held a bachelor of arts degree in speech and hearing, linguistics, and psychology and a master of arts degree in communicative sciences and disorders. She obtained her Certificate of Clinical Competence in 2011. 50.

Ms. Padgett worked as a speech-language pathologist since August 2012.

She regularly conducted speech-language assessments of students as part of her work as a speech language pathologist. She provided speech and language services to students in both individual and group settings. She also routinely and regularly participated in IEP team meetings.

Accessibility modified document

51.

Ms. Padgett reviewed Student’s assessment records, obtained information and input from Parents, observed Student in class and during assessment, and spoke to his speech-language therapist at the Speech Center. She also administered standardized assessment to Student.

52.

Parents made Student available for approximately four hours on May 4,

2018, for the speech-language assessments. Ms. Padgett held two testing sessions for two and one hours, respectively. During the two-hour session, his regular behavioral aide accompanied Student, and for the second session the board certified behavior analyst supervisor accompanied him. Due to behavioral issues and non-compliant behavior, particularly the inclusion of inappropriate or irrelevant words into his verbal responses, Ms. Padgett was only able to obtain approximately 75 minutes of useful assessment results during the three hours.

53.

Ms. Padgett reviewed educational and assessment records related to

Student’s speech and language abilities. Student was initially classified as an English language learner, as [student's first language redacted] was his first language. As of 2015, English was determined to be Student’s dominant language. As of October 2015, Student was classified at the beginning level on the California English Language Development Test, with his standardized assessments considered in that light. Student displayed pronounced deficits in both expressive and receptive language in his 2012 and 2015 triennial assessments in speech and language, scoring below the first percentile. In 2015, Student scored below the first percentile in social language development. 54.

Ms. Padgett was unable to obtain signed release forms from Parents to allow her to discuss Student’s strengths and weaknesses with Rays of Funshine, his inhome provider. She spoke with the speech-language pathologist from the Speech Center. The pathologist confirmed that Student could participate in a group, use appropriate eye contact, respond to questions, and shift his attention among group

Accessibility modified document members. Student had limited vocabulary, difficulty with visual inferences, and demonstrated overdependence and overreliance on others to direct conversation and/or prompt Student on what to say.

55.

Ms. Padgett obtained limited results from Student on the standardized test of receptive vocabulary and she was forced to break standardization to get some results. The results she obtained were consistent with Student’s prior standardized assessment in this area and suggested Student was limited to the vocabulary of a child of approximately seven years of age. Ms. Padgett was not able to complete enough of the assessment to obtain a standardized score or an age equivalent vocabulary score. On the test of expressive vocabulary, Ms. Padgett was unable to administer the assessment due to Parents’ cancellation of testing sessions and ultimate cancellation of assessments after May 18, 2018. For the same reasons, she was unable to obtain results to the Comprehensive Test of Spoken Language.

56.

Ms. Padgett obtained results on the Oral and Written Language Scales on the listening comprehension subtest. Student obtained a standardized score below the one-tenth percentile. She obtained a pragmatics profile from Student’s speechlanguage pathologist from the Speech Center on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals assessment. The results showed that Student was very low in pragmatics with a scaled score in the one-tenth percentile.

57.

Ms. Padgett used the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals observational scales to obtain additional data on areas in which Student displayed reduced language and pragmatic skills. The scales rated Student in four areas: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. She obtained completed scales from Parents and Student’s supervisor from Autism Partners. She was not able to get competed scales from either of Student’s Rays of Funshine providers. In each area, the raters’ input showed Student with significant difficulties with language and pragmatic skills.

Accessibility modified document

58.

Ms. Padgett observed Student for 30 minutes during his group speech and language session at the Speech Center on April 25, 2018. During the observation, Student showed that he had the ability to attend and participate in a group setting. He benefitted from visuals and demonstrated scripted conversations once he had practiced them sufficiently. He also demonstrated non-compliant and attention-seeking behavior on multiple occasions.

59.

Ms. Padgett conducted a double interview with Student that involved reciprocal interviewing. Student answered questions posed by the interviewer, but had great difficulty creating or asking questions of the interviewer, even with a modeled interview. Ms. Padgett also reviewed two videos provided by Parents of Student engaged in a one-on-one academic setting. She observed that Student had the ability to remember information that had been presented to him moments before. He also demonstrated the ability to decode information in a recently presented passage. He had difficulty describing the main idea of the passage, although once presented with the main idea and being allowed to practice the main idea sentence, he was able to identify the correct answer out of a field of three. Student did not appear to evidence independent understanding of the material.

60.

The multidimensional assessment found that Student appeared to meet the criteria for eligibility for special education as an individual demonstrating autisticlike characteristics. Ms. Vaicaro felt that Student fit the criteria for autism more closely than that for other health impairment due to anxiety. She concluded that Student’s anxiety was secondary to his autism and arose from external changes in routine and environment, rather than arising from an internal source. The assessment also found Student to be eligible under the categories of intellectual disability, and speechlanguage impairment. Ms. Vaicaro found that Student’s low intellectual functioning suggested that his learning problems were better explained by a speech-language

Accessibility modified document impairment than a specific learning disability.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT

61.

Anne Fleck of Russo, Fleck and Associates, conducted an occupational therapy assessment of Student in preparation for the triennial IEP. Ms. Fleck held a bachelor of science degree in occupational therapy. She worked as an occupational therapist since 1983, and has focused on occupational therapy for children and adolescents since 1985. She started her occupational therapy private practice in 1988. She was certified by the National Board of Occupational Therapy, and was licensed as an occupational therapist by the State of California. She also held a Sensory Integration Certification.

62.

At the time of her assessment of Student, he was attending the Speech

Center on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. to receive speech-language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education services. Student was then receiving two, 60-minute individual sessions of occupational therapy per week. Ms. Fleck observed Student on May 11, 2018, and May 18, 2018. She observed Student receiving occupational therapy during the first session, and she attempted to conduct her standardized assessments of Student during the second session. She was forced to discontinue assessment of Student due to Parents’ withdrawal of their permission to allow his continued assessment on May 18, 2018. Her occupational therapy report was dated May 22, 2018.

63.

During her observation of Student on May 11, 2018, Ms. Fleck observed

Student performing his regular occupational therapy routine, including swinging using a bolster swing, and then practicing typing. She observed him typing at 10 to 14 words per minute with an accuracy of 93 percent or higher. The session ended early when Student began perseverating on the phrases “pee pee” and “poo poo” and evidenced difficulty focusing.

Accessibility modified document

64.

During her work with Student on May 18, 2018, Ms. Fleck attempted to use the Beery-Buktenica standardized test of visual-motor integration. Student performed some warm-up activities, but began writing the phrases “pee pee” and “poo poo” during a shape replication exercise. Ms. Fleck then attempted the Beery test, but Student was unable to focus. He perseverated on the phrases “pee pee” and “poo poo”, and other inappropriate comments. Neither the behavioral therapist, nor Ms. Fleck was able to redirect Student, improve his behavior, or obtain his cooperation, so the assessment was terminated.

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

65.

Garden Grove’s speech-language pathologist, Ms. Padgett, conducted an assistive technology assessment of Student and prepared a written report, dated May 25, 2018. To prepare her report, she used provider and Parent input, a review of Student’s current functioning in areas related to assistive technology, reviewed tools and accommodations in place, conducted observations for Student, and assessed possible assistive technology to assist Student with writing. She was not able to assess Student in person as Parents withdrew their permission to allow his continued assessment on May 18, 2018. Based upon the information that she considered, Ms. Padgett determined that Student might be a good candidate for the use of typing as a means of written expression, rather than pen and paper.

ADAPTED PHYSICAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

66.

Adapted physical education teacher Marcia Bradbeer conducted an adapted physical education assessment of Student. Ms. Bradbeer held a bachelor of arts degree in social science, a single subject teaching credential in physical education and a credential in adapted physical education.

67.

Ms. Bradbeer worked as an adapted physical education specialist with

Accessibility modified document

Garden Grove since 2008, and was most recently the department chair. In her current position, she headed the department and provided instruction and services to students with exceptional needs who require an adapted physical education program. She previously worked with Student when he attended Garden Grove public school prior to the settlement agreement. She also routinely and regularly participated in IEP team meetings.

68.

Ms. Bradbeer observed Student in class at the Speech Center on April 20,

2018. She also tested Student during her class at Garden Grove high school on May 4, 2018. She prepared a written report that she presented at the IEP team meeting. Student was functional in all areas tested and obtained his best mile time while joining Ms. Bradbeer’s adapted physical education students for their mile run. Student enjoyed the adapted physical education testing and was friendly and happy to see other students, some of whom he recognized from his previous public school attendance. Ms. Bradbeer recommended that Student continue to receive adapted physical education five times a week.

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

69.

Ms. Vaicaro conducted a functional behavior assessment of Student in preparation for the triennial IEP. Her written report of her findings was dated May 25, 2018. She assessed Student’s behavior through a review of records, multiple observations of Student in a variety of settings, a review of progress reports from Autism Partners and Rays of Funshine, and input received from Parents and Student’s teachers and/or providers. Parents did not consent to the release of information for the assessor to communicate directly with Rays of Funshine. Rather, they directed her to reports Rays of Funshine prepared.

70.

Ms. Vaicaro identified the following target behaviors: non-compliance;

negative attention seeking; physical stereotypy; oral stereotypy; vocal stereotypy; and

Accessibility modified document hilarity. She found that the behaviors that most significantly impacted Student’s educational progress were his non-compliance and negative attention seeking. She recommended a behavioral intervention plan, and drafted a behavior intervention plan to present at the triennial IEP team meeting.

COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY

71.

Student’s independent consultant, neuropsychologist Priscilla Armstrong, along with Student’s tutor and behaviorist Lella Hoang both recommended cognitive behavioral therapy for Student. Cognitive behavioral therapy was a therapeutic process to develop a subject’s self-knowledge and self-awareness, through exercises such as perspective-taking, that allow an individual to restructure behaviors away from the destructive/negative and towards the constructive/positive by managing their thoughts, behaviors, and feelings. Such therapy required an individual to have adequate cognitive function, self-awareness, and expressive language skills sufficient to be able to reflect, evaluate, and analyze one’s thoughts, behaviors, and feelings. The process was abstract, not concrete, and required the ability to intellectualize the emotional response process. 72.

Dr. Armstrong earned a doctorate in clinical psychology and was a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice since 2006. She had been a member of the American Board of Pediatric Neuropsychology since 2011. She had conducted a neuropsychological assessment of Student in 2009, and she had also prepared reports for Parents about Student in 2016 and 2017. She acknowledged that Student’s low cognition and very limited expressive communication skills would necessitate the use of a modified cognitive behavioral therapy program for Student.

73.

Ms. Hoang had a master’s degree in psychology, but did not have a doctorate in psychology, and was not a licensed psychologist. She was not a boardcertified behavioral analyst. She was hired by Parents to work on academics with Student using her applied behavioral analysis background. For Student’s in-home

Accessibility modified document program, she worked with him on a one-to-one basis, three times per week for two to three hours per session. She decided to use cognitive behavioral therapy after conducting an informal assessment of Student, and at the time of hearing had used what she considered a modified form of cognitive therapy with Student for about a year. In that year, she did not see any improvement in Student’s anxiety in response to change. She did not conduct any formal assessments of Student during her work with him.

74.

Ms. Vaicaro disputed the utility or efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for Student as he fell outside the required abilities to participate in the therapy due to his low cognition, communication challenges, and greatly limited self-awareness. Garden Grove’s board-certified behavioral analysis program supervisor, Andrea James-Rocha, concurred with Ms. Vaicaro that Student did not have the cognitive functioning, selfawareness, or language skills to benefit from cognitive behavioral therapy. She was experienced with cognitive behavioral therapy, and taught on the subject in her applied behavioral analysis classes at National University where she was an adjunct professor. She was not aware of any program or methodology of modified cognitive behavioral therapy, and stressed that cognitive behavioral therapy was not a form of talk therapy, but a process designed to provide replacement behaviors for negative behaviors.

MAY 25, 2018 AND JUNE 4, 2018 IEP TEAM MEETINGS

75.

Garden Grove held IEP team meetings for Student on May 25, 2018, and

June 4, 2018, collectively, comprising the triennial IEP team meeting for Student and resulting in an IEP offer to Student, dated May 25, 2018. The following people attended the May 25, 2018 IEP team meeting: Parents; Kelly Hewitt, Garden Grove special education program supervisor; Alefia Mithaiwala, Garden Grove attorney; Matthew Lambert, Garden Grove general education teacher; LaTisha Vaicaro, Garden Grove school psychologist; Lindsey Padgett, Garden Grove speech-language pathologist and

Accessibility modified document assistive technology specialist; Marcia Bradbeer, Garden Grove adapted physical education teacher; Anne Fleck, nNon-public agency occupational therapist; Samantha Benedicto, non-public agency board certified behavior analyst; Jennifer Zinn, Speech Center school program specialist; Jenny O’Grady, Speech Center special education teacher; Sara Jones, Speech Center speech-language pathologist; Michelle Banuelos, Speech Center adapted physical education teacher; and Jerry Lindquist, Speech Center occupational therapist. The following people attended the June 4, 2018 IEP team meeting: Parents; Kelly Hewitt; Alefia Mithaiwala; Leslie To, Garden Grove Special Education Teacher; Matthew Lambert, Garden Grove General Education Teacher; LaTisha Vaicaro; Lindsey Padgett; Anne Fleck; Samantha Benedicto; Andrea James-Rocha, Garden Grove board certified behavior analyst; and Laurel Mullally, Garden Grove nurse. Parents accepted a copy of special education Procedural Safeguards at the first meeting, and declined them at the second meeting. Parents declined an explanation of the Procedural Safeguards at both meetings.

76.

At the May 25, 2018 IEP team meeting, Ms. Bradbeer presented her adapted physical education assessment report, and Ms. Banuelos discussed Student’s present levels of performance and progress on his adapted physical education goals. Parents engaged in the discussion, asked questions, and offered their own thoughts on Student about his adaptive physical education needs.

77.

At the May 25, 2018 IEP team meeting, Ms. Fleck presented her occupational therapy assessment report, and was joined in the discussion by Mr. Lindquist regarding Student’s present levels of performance and progress on his occupational therapy goals. Parents engaged in the discussion, asked questions, and offered their own thoughts on Student regarding his occupational therapy needs. During the discussion, Mother reported that Student wanted to go to public high school in Garden Grove, and that she deferred to Student about school choices, including

Accessibility modified document whether to attend school at the Speech Center or stay home. She also reported that Student was assessed in-home by Easter Seals in February and March 2018, leading to occupational therapy through Kaiser and continued in-home applied behavioral analysis therapy through Behavioral Health Works. As of the IEP team meeting, Parents had not shared the Easter Seals report with Garden Grove. The IEP team, including Ms. Benedicto and Ms. O’Grady also engaged in a detailed discussion of Student’s behaviors and behavioral issues. The meeting was thereafter adjourned.

78.

Student’s IEP team reconvened on June 4, 2018. At this meeting, Garden

Grove presented the remaining assessments. Ms. Vaicaro led a detailed discussion of the multidisciplinary assessment report. Parents engaged significantly in the discussion, asked questions, and offered their own thoughts on Student regarding his psychoeducational needs, including those related to academics, social-emotional skills, behavior, and possible anxiety disorder. There was an extensive discussion of the results of the multidimensional anxiety scale assessment, along with Ms. Vaicaro’s conclusion that Student’s anxiety was a product of his autism and was not a separate endogenous condition. Mother explained that she did not complete one of the behavioral scales sent to her because she did not think it was relevant to Student and her idea of what his issues were.

79.

At the June 4, 2018 meeting, Ms. Padgett reviewed the results of her speech-language assessment of Student. Ms. Jones also provided input regarding Student’s present levels and speech-language needs. Parents engaged in the discussion and offered their own thoughts on Student regarding his speech-language needs. Ms. Padgett also presented her assistive technology assessment results, including the possibility of using typing and/or voice-to-text to assist speech, but reported that Parents’ refusal of in-home observations limited the assessment. Ms. Vaicaro presented her functional behavioral analysis report and the accompanying behavior intervention

Accessibility modified document plan. She identified escape/avoidance and attention seeking as the functions of the observed behaviors. Parents also participated in this portion of the meeting, but did not ask any questions or offer input.

80.

On June 4, 2018 the IEP team discussed Student’s eligibility for special education. The IEP team determined Student continued to meet eligibility criteria for autism. The team also discussed potential eligibility under the categories of other health impairment, intellectual disability, specific learning disability, and speech-language impairment.

81.

The IEP team prepared a transition plan for Student, as he would be 16 years old before the next scheduled annual IEP team meeting. Ms. To presented the individual transition plan, and a discussion was held on Student’s post-secondary goals, as well as a discussion of the diploma track and certificate of completion programs. The team discussed differences between accommodations and modifications with Parents in the context of a special education student earning a diploma or receiving a certificate of completion and continuing in special education until the age of 22. 82.

The IEP team discussed Student’s academic achievement, assessment results, present levels of performance, and health information leading to 18 written proposed goals in academics, social/emotional/behavior, vocational, speech/language, adapted physical education, and occupational therapy. The proposed goals included baseline data, and measurable one-year goals, along with progressive short-term objectives. Each annual goal was to be completed by May 24, 2019, at the time of the next scheduled IEP. Parents requested that Garden Grove forego presentation and discussion of the proposed goals in the interest of time, and requested that only the categories of the various goals be identified.

83.

Student’s first goal was in the area of functional academics, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to read a novel text or story and independently

Accessibility modified document answer “wh” questions about the text. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in analyzing the content of texts and answering “wh” questions. The goal was tied to the state standard FA 3.17.2, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as transition post-special education. The goal provided that Student would, after reading a novel story or text, independently answer five “wh” questions about the material on an open-ended worksheet by providing one or two written sentences per “wh” question with at least 80 percent accuracy as measured by teacher-charted observation and data in four of five trial days. 84.

Student’s second goal was in the area of functional academics, and was predicated on Student’s need to recognize and identify the main idea of a text. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in identifying and analyzing the main idea of a text and composing a written answer about the main idea. The goal was tied to the state standard FA 6.4.5, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as transition. The goal provided that Student would, after reading a text and with the use of a graphic organizer, write one to two paragraphs about the main idea of the text in four out of five consecutive trials, as measured by teachercharted observation and data. 85.

Student’s third goal was in the area of functional academics, and was predicated on Student’s need to solve word problems involving basic addition and subtraction. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in understanding and analyzing word problem language to determine the type of math operation to use. The goal was tied to the state standard FPI 18.6, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as transition. The goal provided that Student would, when given a word problem involving basic addition or subtraction facts (1-20) and with the use of manipulatives, solve 10 word problems with at least 80 percent accuracy in four out of five trials as measured by data probes.

Accessibility modified document

86.

Student’s fourth goal was in the area of social/emotional/behavioral, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to initiate peer interactions. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in inviting others to participate in activities with him. The goal was tied to the state standard R 3.7.1, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as transition. The goal provided that Student would independently invite peers and/or staff to participate in activities with him such as board games, computer games, or other group activities as measured by teacher-charted observation and data in four out of five trials. 87.

Student’s fifth goal was in the area of adaptive/daily living skills, and was predicated on Student’s need to independently solve non-social problems in the natural environment. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in addressing nonsocial problems in the natural environment without prompting. The goal was tied to Student’s transition and independent living needs. The goal provided that Student would, when presented with a non-social problem in a novel situation (e.g. he attempts to make a purchase, but does not have enough money), functionally communicate that he needs help or that something is wrong in four out of five trials consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection.

88.

Student’s sixth goal was in the area of adaptive/daily living skills, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to use visual information to independently infer and judge whether a scene is safe or unsafe. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in using visual information to determine whether a functional scene is safe or unsafe. The goal was tied to the state standard C 2.8.1, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as his transition needs. The goal provided that Student would, in contrived situations and/or when given a visual representation of a functional scene, accurately determine if a situation was safe or unsafe in four out of five consecutive trials as measured by data collection.

Accessibility modified document

89.

Student’s seventh goal was in the area of vocational skills, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to write pertinent personal information on a job application. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in being able to fill out a job application with requested information. The goal was tied to the state standard V 2.18.1, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability, as well as his transition needs. The goal provided that Student would accurately write his name, complete address (including house number, street name, city, state, and ZIP code), and phone number on a job application in four out of five consecutive trials as measured by the special education teacher via data collection and/or work samples.

90.

Student’s eighth goal was in the area of communication development, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to label and describe familiar functional objects. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in expressive vocabulary and the ability to describe familiar objects with multiple descriptors. The goal was tied to the state standard L 9-10.4, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability. The goal provided that Student would, when given a structured setting and a graphic organizer, independently describe a familiar functional object using at least three characteristics (e.g. category, function, location, associations part/whole, descriptors) in four out of five trials as measured by data collection. 91.

Student’s ninth goal was in the area of communication development, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to develop inferential thinking and understanding of functional scenes. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in developing inferences about what is occurring in a scene including individual’s emotional status and what might happen next. The goal was tied to the state standard L 9-10.5, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability. The goal provided that Student would, when given a picture of a functional scene,

Accessibility modified document accurately answer one open-ended inferencing question about the scene with no more than one verbal prompt in eight out of 10 consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection.

92.

Student’s 10th goal was in the area of communication development, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to respond to questions and ask clarifying questions during conversation. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in pragmatic speech and developing the ability to maintain a conversation. The goal was tied to the state standard SL 9-10.1, and also addressed other educational needs resulting from Student’s disability. The goal provided that Student would, when in a conversation with a peer and given a verbal prompt, formulate a relevant follow-up question related to the peer’s last statement (e.g. What movie did you go see?) in four out of five consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection. 93.

Student’s 11th goal was in the area of gross motor skills, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to engage in a physical exercise program independently. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in engaging in a physical education exercise schedule with a heightened level of independence. The goal was tied to the high school course 1-2.2 for physical education and participation in activities that develop and maintain the components of physical fitness. The goal provided that Student would follow an exercise schedule with words and pictures indicating between three and six familiar activities and the repetitions for each (e.g. walk five minutes on the treadmill, walk three laps, perform 20 curl-ups, etc.), using a timer as needed and marking-off each activity as completed with no more than one verbal prompt in four out of five trials over a two-week period, as measured by observation and data collection.

94.

Student’s 12th goal was in the area of gross motor skills, and was predicated on Student’s need to be able to exercise object control and react to an

Accessibility modified document object outside his immediate reach. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress of engaging in physical education involving balls or other projectiles used in sports. The goal was tied to the high school course 1-2.2 for physical education and participation in activities that develop and maintain proficient movement skills. The goal provided that Student would move his body position in response to the anticipated flight of a ball coming toward him at slow to medium speed (depending on the sport/activity) within five feet of his position and would catch, kick, or strike the ball with one modeled prompt in four out of five trials over a two-week period as measured by observation and/or data collection.

95.

Student’s 13th goal was in the area of vocational skills, and was predicated on Student’s ability to type on a keyboard. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in typing by improving his use of all four fingers to type. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student would demonstrate improved functional typing skills by typing his personal information, including first and last name, complete address, and home phone number, from memory with 100 percent accuracy in four out of five trials as measured by work samples.

96.

Student’s 14th goal was in the area of adaptive/daily living skills, and was predicated on Student’s ability to fasten snaps. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in self-care and independent living skills. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student would improve his self-care skills by independently fastening snaps on clothing that he is wearing with no physical prompts in four out of five trials as measured by observation and data collection. 97.

Student’s 15th goal was in the area of adaptive/daily living skills, and was predicated on Student’s ability to open food packaging. The goal focused on Student’s

Accessibility modified document continued progress in self-care and independent living skills. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student will improve his self-care skills by independently opening food packaging or containers in four out of five trials as measured by observation and data collection.

98.

Student’s 16th goal was in the area of adaptive/daily living skills, and was predicated on Student’s ability to tie his shoelaces. The goal focused on Student’s continued progress in self-care and independent living skills. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student would improve his self-care skills by tying his shoelaces with no more than two physical prompts for finger placement on the shoelaces in four out of five trials as measured by observation and data collection.

99.

Student’s 17th goal was in the area of social/emotional/behavioral, and was predicated on Student’s need to develop methods to seek out appropriate attention from others. The goal focused on replacing Student’s negative attention seeking with methods to seek out appropriate attention from others. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student would appropriately seek attention from others by either raising his hand (within a classroom setting) or by using a socially acceptable form of greeting (e.g. excuse me, hey, etc.) when attempting to garner attention in an unstructured or informal setting such as lunch time without prompting in four out of five consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection. 100.

Student’s 18th goal was in the area of social/emotional/behavioral, and was predicated on Student’s need to develop compliance in the face of demands or directives from educators or service providers. The goal focused on replacing Student’s

Accessibility modified document negative or maladaptive behaviors with socially appropriate reactions or responses. The goal was tied to educational needs resulting from Student’s disability other than those tied directly to a state academic standard. The goal provided that Student would, when presented with a directive from a staff member, comply with the directive, without engaging in maladaptive behaviors, such as off-topic response and/or repetitive comments, by either following through with the directive or requesting a break within 10 seconds of the demand being issued, without prompting, in four out of five consecutive opportunities as measured by data collection.

101.

The IEP team, including Parents discussed placement, services, accommodations, and supports, and discussed a continuum of service options for Student, taking into account Student’s unique needs and the least restrictive environment for Student. Garden Grove proposed specialized academic instruction in a moderate/severe classroom for five periods per day, including functional English language arts, functional math, life skills block (two periods), and career/vocational. Student would also participate in community-based instruction approximately once per week. The proposed IEP also included a behavior intervention plan designed to assist Student with his targeted behaviors. Student would work toward a certificate of completion. Student would spend 86 percent of his day outside the general education setting, and 14 percent in the regular classroom, including extracurricular and nonacademic activities. 102.

The Garden Grove members of the IEP team also proposed school-based speech/language services one time per week for 30 minutes in a group setting, and one time per week for 30 minutes in an individual setting. Garden Grove also proposed that Student would receive behavioral intervention services including one-to-one behavioral support throughout the school day, two hours of supervision per week, and team/clinic meetings for 60 minutes per month. School-based occupational therapy was proposed

Accessibility modified document for Student for two sessions per week of 60 minutes on an individual basis with one session pull-out and the other push-in. The team additionally proposed that Student receive adapted physical education in a group setting for one school period per day. 103.

Garden Grove proposed specific accommodations and supports tailored to

Student’s unique needs including: notes, outlines, and instructions; visual cues; calculation devices; graphic organizer; scribe; visual organizers; option to demonstrate knowledge orally instead of in writing; extended time; multiple or frequent breaks; use of sensory strategies, such as sensory cushion, weighted vest, Theraband, and/or squeeze ball; priming before tasks and transitions; reduction of distractions; alternate response options in reading writing, and listening; and calculator. The IEP team also proposed that Student would receive special education transportation and would attend a summer extended school year program.

104.

The IEP team discussed a transition back to school plan for Student designed to return him to school from his combined in-home and non-public school based program. The team proposed that the extended school year program would begin the transition back to school for Student. The extended school year program would include all day, one-to-one behavior aide support with 60 minutes per week of supervision. Student’s non-public agency behavior aide would be faded over the first three weeks of the extended school year program with Garden Grove’s shadowing the non-public agency aide for the first week, the two splitting the day for the second week, and the Garden Grove aide being shadowed by the non-public agency aide for the third week. In the event the return to school was delayed until the start of the regular 20182019 school year, the aide transition plan would be based on a six-period school day, with the second week featuring the two aides splitting primary responsibility for the school day between the first three and last three school periods.

Accessibility modified document

PARENTS’ RESPONSE TO MAY 25, 2018 IEP OFFER

105.

Parents rejected the IEP team FAPE offer at the June 4, 2018 IEP team meeting. Parents indicated that they would unilaterally place Student in an exclusive inhome program, partly due to Student’s wishes, and would not allow Student to attend the extended school year program. Parents did not sign to consent for any aspect of the proposed program.

106.

On August 27, 2018, Parents sent detailed correspondence to Ms. Hewitt and Ms. Mithaiwala, specifying their concerns with the IEP offer, and identifying their limited areas of agreement with the offer, including existing IEP goals, Student’s return to school in a moderate/severe SDC classroom, and the implementation of services, including behavioral services. Parents requested that Student start his transition back to public school by attending for three hours per day, from 11:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. each school day.

107.

Parents’ disagreement with the May 25, 2018 offer was based on their concerns about Student transitioning back to a public school environment and Garden Grove’s analysis of the basis for Student’s negative attention seeking and non-compliant behavior. Parents believed that Student had an anxiety disorder and that changes in environment, service provider, or routine would exacerbate the anxiety disorder and precipitate behavioral, toileting, and sleep issues at home. Parents disputed the conclusions of the Garden Grove assessors that Student’s anxiety arose from his autism and his behaviors were principally escape behaviors designed to avoid non-preferred activities or demands. Parents preferred placement was a continuation of his in-home program while seeking to eliminate change, variation, or demands on Student. Parents also sought the use of cognitive behavioral therapy to address Student’s behavioral issues.

Accessibility modified document

GARDEN GROVE’S RESPONSE TO PARENTS

108.

On August 29, 2018, Ms. Mithaiwala wrote to Parents on behalf of Garden

Grove. She proposed that Student return to school for periods four, five, and six daily, running from 11:11 a.m. to 2:45 p.m., including one period of life skills, one period of career/vocational skills, and one period of adapted physical education. The first period of the day for Student would be one of his preferred activities, adapted physical education. The behavioral aide transition would return to the extended school year model for a three-week aide transition. Garden Grove proposed to provide all proposed services in speech/language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education during the three hours per day program. Garden Grove also proposed an additional goal in social/emotional/behavioral skills related to Student adapting to change. A 30day IEP would be held to review Student’s performance back at school.

MS. MCGUIRE’S TESTIMONY

109.

The teacher proposed for Student’s 2018-2019 school year was Lisa

McGuire. She held a bachelor and master degree in Education,a special education credential, and taught a moderate/severe classroom on the public high school campus. She had taught many students with autism and/or intellectual disability in her eight years as a special education teacher. She was one of four special education teachers for ninth to 12th grade with moderate/severe classrooms. Students would typically stay with one teacher for the four years unless they changed to a less restrictive placement. She believed her classroom was very well suited to Student.

110.

The special day class classroom proposed for Student was a self-contained classroom. Ms. McGuire had a very structured and organized classroom containing a lot of hands on learning, visuals, and a break area. She used visuals and graphic organizers for all her lessons. The school day consisted of six periods and included a period each in

Accessibility modified document functional math, functional English, and living skills, and two periods of life skills. Students would take adapted physical education during her preparation period, if applicable.

111.

Ms. McGuire’s classroom featured a program called “Unique Learning

Skills’ designed for students with intellectual disabilities, aligned with State standards, and utilizing assistive technology as appropriate. Each student also had access to a Chromebook. The classroom typically had two to four adults for the eight to 14 students. For the 2018-2019 school year, the class would have 13 students, including Student, and six adults, including Student’s one-to-one behavioral aide. Applied behavioral analysis methodology was built into the classroom, and tailored to each student. Curriculum was broken down into small pieces and modeled, repeated, and checked for understanding.

LEGAL AUTHORITIES AND CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION: LEGAL FRAMEWORK UNDER THE IDEA 4

1.

This hearing was held under the IDEA, its regulations, and California statutes and regulations intended to implement it. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006) et seq., 5 Ed. Code, § 56000, et seq.; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the IDEA are: (1) to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services

Unless otherwise indicated, the legal citations in the introduction are incorporated by reference into the analysis of each issue decided below.

All references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 edition, unless otherwise indicated.

Accessibility modified document designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for employment and independent living, and (2) to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1); see Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (a).) 2.

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an eligible child at no charge to the parent or guardian, meet state educational standards, and conform to the child’s IEP. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17) “Special education” is instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); 34 C.F.R. § 300.39; Ed. Code, § 56031.) “Related services” are transportation and other developmental, corrective, and supportive services that are required to assist the child in benefiting from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34; Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a) [In California, related services are also called designated instruction and services].) In general, an IEP is a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed under the IDEA’s procedures with the participation of parents and school personnel that describes the child’s needs, academic and functional goals related to those needs, and a statement of the special education, related services, and program modifications and accommodations that will be provided for the child to advance in attaining the goals, make progress in the general education curriculum, and participate in education with disabled and nondisabled peers. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1)(A); Ed. Code, §§ 56032, 56345, subd. (a).)

3.

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court rendered the seminal and guiding decision in special education law. (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson

Central School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176 [102 S.Ct. 3034; 73 L.Ed.2d 690] (Rowley).) In the decision, the Supreme Court noted that the predecessor statute of the IDEA did not contain any substantive standard prescribing the level of education that a handicapped child must receive. (Id. at p. 189.) Instead, the Court determined that, in the

Accessibility modified document

Act, Congress established procedures to guarantee disabled children access and opportunities, not substantive outcomes. (Id. at p. 192.) If a school district acts in compliance with the procedures set forth in the IDEA, especially as regards the development of the child’s IEP, then the assumption is that the child’s program is appropriate. (Id. at p. 206.) Accordingly, the Court determined that an educational agency must provide the disabled child with a “basic floor of opportunity.” (Id. at p. 200.) The Court further noted that an appropriate education under the Act does not mean a “potential-maximizing education.” (Id. at p. 197, fn. 21.) Stated otherwise, the educational agency must offer a program that “confers some educational benefit upon the handicapped child.” (Id. at p. 200.)

4.

The Supreme Court clarified its ruling in Rowley in the recent case of

Endrew F. ex rel., Joseph F. v. Douglas County School Dist. (2017) 580 U.S. __ [137 S.Ct. 988, 996] (Endrew F.). The Court clarified that “[f]or a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an IEP typically should, as Rowley put it, be ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade.’” (Id. at 999 (citing

Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 203-04).) The Court went on to say that the Rowley opinion did not “need to provide concrete guidance with respect to a child who is not fully integrated in the regular classroom and not able to achieve on grade level.” (Id. at 1000.) For a case in which the student cannot be reasonably expected to “progress smoothly through the regular curriculum,” the child’s educational program must be “appropriately ambitious in light of [the child’s] circumstances . . . .” (Ibid.) The IDEA requires “an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” (Id. at 1001.) Importantly, “[t]he adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” (Ibid.)

5.

The IDEA affords parents and local educational agencies the procedural

Accessibility modified document protection of an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) & (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code, §§ 56501, 56502, 56505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082.) The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) Subject to limited exceptions, a request for a due process hearing must be filed within two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis for the request. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C), (D); Ed. Code, 56505, subd. (l).)

6.

At the hearing, the party filing the complaint has the burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 56-62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) [standard of review for IDEA administrative hearing decision is preponderance of the evidence].) In this matter, Student, as the complaining party for Student’s issues, bears the burden of proof with regard to those issues. For Garden Grove’s issues, Garden Grove is the complaining party, and thus bears the burden of proof with regard to those issues.

STUDENT’S ISSUE 1: FAILURE TO APPROPRIATELY ASSESS

7.

Student contends that Garden Grove denied him a FAPE by failing to appropriately assess him in preparation for the May 25, 2018 IEP by failing to consider Parents’ input, and failing to appropriately characterize the antecedents for Student’s behavior. Garden Grove contends that it appropriately assessed Student, considered Parents’ input, and appropriately assessed Student’s behavior, and if not, that any inadequacy arose as the result of Parents’ non-cooperation.

8.

Assessments are required to determine eligibility for special education, and what type, frequency, and duration of specialized instruction and related services are required. In evaluating a child for special education eligibility and prior to the

Accessibility modified document development of an IEP, a district must assess him in all areas related to a suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (f).) The IDEA provides for periodic reevaluations to be conducted not more frequently than once a year unless the parents and district agree otherwise, but at least once every three years unless the parent and district agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2).) A reassessment may also be performed if warranted by the child’s educational or related service needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a)(1); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1).) 9.

In California, a district assessing a student’s eligibility for special education must use tests and other tools tailored to assessing specific areas of educational need, and must ensure that a child is assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability. (Ed. Code, § 56320, subds. (c), (f); see also, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B).) A school district must conduct assessments in a way that: 1) uses a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information, including information provided by the parent; 2) does not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability; and 3) uses technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors. The assessments used must be: 1) selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis; 2) provided in a language and form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can do academically, developmentally, and functionally; 3) used for purposes for which the assessments are valid and reliable; 4) administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and 5) administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of such assessments. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b) & (c)(5); Ed. Code, §§ 56320, subds. (a) & (b), 56381, subd. (h).)

Accessibility modified document

10.

Individuals who are both “knowledgeable of the student’s disability” and “competent to perform the assessment, as determined by the school district, county office, or special education local plan area” must conduct assessments of students’ suspected disabilities. (Ed. Code §§ 56320, subd. (g); 56322; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B)(ii).) The determination of what tests are required is made based on information known at the time. (See Vasheresse v. Laguna Salada Union School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2001) 211 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1157-1158 [assessment adequate despite not including speech/language testing where concern prompting assessment was deficit in reading skills].)

11.

Under California law, autism is a developmental disability that significantly affects verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, which adversely affects a child's educational performance. Characteristics often associated with autism are repetitive activities, stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(1).) 12.

A disability is “suspected,” and a child must be assessed, when the district is on notice that the child has displayed symptoms of that disability or that the child may have a particular disorder. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1120-21 (Timothy O.).) That notice may come in the form of concerns expressed by parents about a child’s symptoms, opinions expressed by informed professionals, or other less formal indicators, such as the child’s behavior. (Id. at p. 13 [citing Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa (9th Cir. 1996) 103 F.3d 796, and

N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School Dist. (9th Cir. 2008) 541 F.3d 1202].) 13.

A school district’s failure to conduct appropriate assessments or to assess in all areas of suspected disability may constitute a procedural denial of a FAPE. (Park, ex rel. Park v. Anaheim Union High School Dist., 464 F.3d, 1025, pp. 1032-1033; Timothy O.,

Accessibility modified document supra, 822 F.3d at pp. 1120-22.) A procedural violation results in a denial of a FAPE only if the violation: (1) impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process; or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2) & (j); Target Range, supra, 960 F.2d at p. 1484, superseded in part by statute on other grounds [“. . . procedural inadequacies that result in the loss of educational opportunity, [citation], or seriously infringe the parents’ opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process, [citations], clearly result in the denial of a FAPE.”].) The hearing officer “shall not base a decision solely on nonsubstantive procedural errors, unless the hearing officer finds that the nonsubstantive procedural errors resulted in the loss of an educational opportunity to the pupil or interfered with the opportunity of the parent or guardian of the pupil to participate in the formulation process of the individualized education program.” (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (j).) While a student is entitled to both the procedural and substantive protections of the IDEA, not every procedural violation is sufficient to support a finding that a student was denied a FAPE. (Amanda J. v. Clark County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 877, 892.) In the autism context, parental participation is imperative, and absent meaningful participation by parents, the “provision of a free appropriate public education is ‘impossible’ when the IEP team fails to obtain information that might show a child is autistic.” (Timothy O., supra, 822 F.3d at pp. 1120-22.)

14.

“Every court to consider the [Individuals with Disabilities Act’s]

reevaluation requirements has concluded that “if a student's parents want him to receive special education under IDEA, they must allow the school itself to reevaluate the student . . . ” (M.T.V. v. DeKalb County School Dist. (11th Cir. 2006) 446F.3d 1153, 1160, quoting

Andress v. Cleveland Indep. Sch. Dist. (5th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 176,178-79.) The Ninth Circuit has held that “if the parents want [their child] to receive special education

Accessibility modified document services under the [IDEA], they are obliged to permit [re-assessment] testing.” (See

Gregory K. v. Longview School Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1315.) 15.

Parents who do not permit a school district to perform its duties in relation to the preparation of an IEP cannot claim relief from the consequences of the obstruction. (C.H. v. Cape Henlopen School Dist. (3rd Cir. 2010) 606 F.3d 59, 69; C.G. v.

Five Town Community School (1st Cir. 2008) 513 F.3d 281, 286-288; MM v. School Dist. Of Greenville County (4th Cir. 2002) 303 F.3d 523, 535-536.)

16.

If parents do not consent to a reassessment plan, a school district may conduct the reassessment by showing, at a due process hearing, that it needs to reassess the student and it is lawfully entitled to do so. However, the school district is not required to pursue the consent override procedures. A school district does not violate its child find obligations, its assessment and reassessment obligations, or its obligations to determine eligibility when it has made reasonable attempts to obtain consent and the parent fails to respond. A school district must document its attempts to obtain parental consent to meet the reasonable efforts requirements, by keeping copies of correspondence it sends to parent and copies of responses received, as well as records of telephone conversations with the parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c)(ii), (c)(iii), (2)(i), (ii), (d)(5); Ed. Code, §§ 56381, subd. (f)(3), 56501, subd. (a)(3).) 17.

Here, Parents initially consented to Garden Grove’s assessment plan.

Thereafter, Parents began to modify, limit, and ultimately withdraw their cooperation with Garden Grove’s personnel with regard to implementing the assessment plan. Parents refused to sign any release of information forms to allow Garden Grove to obtain either service provider or other relevant medical records, or simply discuss Student’s circumstances with either a service provider or a relevant medical provider for Student. Instead, Parents sought to filter any available information exclusively through themselves by way of their reporting of their understanding of information to Garden

Accessibility modified document

Grove, or simply reporting what they thought was important from their perspective. While Parents may have had concerns about the sensitivity of the requested information, such information relevant to an assessment is consistently obtained by school districts both to acquire the breadth and wealth of information needed to conduct an assessment, and to obtain the information from the very experts who gathered the information or generated the expert opinions about Student. 18.

Parents questioned the necessity of the assessment tools utilized by

Garden Grove’s assessors, particularly questionnaires and scales sent to them to be filled out. Ultimately, Garden Grove was unable to obtain any significant objective information from Rays of Funshine, the primary provider of in-home services to Student for his inhome program. Notably, the behavioral, attentional, and anxiety scales sought by Garden Grove from Rays of Funshine’s personnel were never completed, despite Garden Grove’s extensive efforts to accommodate Parents’ concerns. Parents also found some of the scales boring and not reflective of the information that they sought to convey to Garden Grove about their child, so Parents did not complete the scales. Again, although Parents may have had worries about adequately presenting their concerns about their child to Garden Grove, such worries did not justify failing to complete or failing to acquire completed scales for standardized assessment, assessments that were selected by Garden Grove to provide critical objective, scientific information about Student and his needs.

19.

Parents further blocked Garden Grove’s attempts to obtain assessment information by first severely limiting the availability of Student to Garden Grove’s assessors, and then simply withdrawing their consent to assess Student on May 18, 2018. Parents did have concerns about Student’s heightened anxiety in response to assessment, but it is notable that even in the limited assessment sessions held by Garden Grove’s assessors, they were able to obtain some useful data, even in the face of

Accessibility modified document

Student’s frequent lapses into non-compliance or avoidance behaviors. Parents’ requests for assessors previously known to Student were markedly unrealistic, as were their requests to attend the assessment sessions, as such attendance can often violate testing protocols or otherwise affect Student’s performance. Similarly, Parents’ attempt to force Garden Grove to perform a four-hour assessment on May 4, 2018 was unreasonable as Student was utterly unprepared to sit for such a long period of assessment.

20.

Ultimately, Parents’ non-compliance with Garden Grove’s reasonable attempts to conduct a broad, thorough investigation of Student’s abilities and needs are the source of any deficiencies complained of by Parents with regard to Garden Grove’s assessments. As noted above, decisional law relieving districts of the consequences of parents’ obstruction of districts’ efforts when subsequently sued by parents for those consequences is directly applicable here. It is found that any deficiencies in Garden Grove’s assessment of Student arose directly from Parents’ non-cooperation and obstruction of Garden Grove’s assessment, and Parents cannot now be heard to complain about the assessment.

21.

Notwithstanding Parents’ interference with Garden Grove’s conduct of the triennial assessments, Garden Grove obtained sufficient information to meet the statutory requirements for assessments. Garden Grove assessed Student in all areas of suspected disability in a neutral, non-biased, non-discriminatory way, and used a variety of information including observation, standardized assessments, record review, and Parents’ input to obtain an understanding of Student’s abilities and needs. Parents’ assertion that Garden Grove did not assess Student in all areas of suspected disability reflected Parents’ disagreement with the findings of the assessment and the weight accorded to the information obtained for the assessments, not Garden Grove’s failure to cast a sufficiently wide net. Parents’ belief that Student had an endogenous anxiety

Accessibility modified document disorder, rather than anxiety arising from his environment lay at the heart of their disagreement, but was thoroughly addressed in the assessments. It is found, despite Parents’ disagreement with the assessment data and resulting conclusions, that they failed to meet their burden of proof on this issue.

STUDENT’S ISSUE 2: ADEQUACY OF GOALS IN MAY 25, 2018 AND JUNE 4, 2018

FAPE OFFER

22.

Student contends that Garden Grove denied him a FAPE by failing to make him an appropriate offer in the May 24, 2018 and June 4, 2018 IEP because the offer failed to include appropriate and measurable goals and objectives. Garden Grove contends that the goals and objectives in the IEP were adequately measurable and provided Student with a FAPE.

23.

An annual IEP must contain a statement of measurable annual goals designed to: (1) meet the individual’s needs that result from the individual’s disability to enable the pupil to be involved in and make progress in the general curriculum; and (2) meet each of the pupil’s other educational needs that result from the individual’s disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).)

24.

The purpose of goals is to permit the IEP team to determine whether the pupil is making progress in an area of need. (Ed. Code, § 56345.) In developing the IEP, the IEP team shall consider the strengths of the child; the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; the results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation of the child; and the academic, functional, and developmental needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A).) For each area in which a special education student has an identified need, the IEP team must develop measurable annual goals that are based upon the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, and which the child has a reasonable chance of attaining within a year. (Ed. Code, §

Accessibility modified document

56345; Letter to Butler, 213 IDELR 118 (OSERS 1998).) There is no requirement that an IEP include baselines for the goals, other than addressing a student’s present level of performance. (Student v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2011) Cal.Offc.Admin.Hrngs Case No. 2011080459, at pp. 10-11.)

25.

The IEP team need not draft IEP goals in a manner that the parents find optimal, as long as the goals are objectively measurable. (Bridges v. Spartanburg County

Sch. Dist. Two, 57 IDELR 128 (D.S.C. 2011) (the use of percentages tied to the completion of discrete tasks is an appropriate way to measure student progress).) 26.

A failure to offer an appropriate goal is a procedural violation of the IDEA.

However, as explained above, a procedural error does not automatically require a finding that a FAPE was denied.

27.

Here, Student did not meet his burden of proof to show that Garden

Grove failed to offer him appropriate goals. Student’s 18 goals were designed to address his unique needs and to allow him to make progress at school. The goals were tailored to assist Student with specific skills in functional academics, speech/language, occupational therapy, and with social/emotional/behavioral needs, and were designed to assist Student in developing the next level of independence and functional skills to allow him to continue to progress with his education.

28.

Student exhibited significant deficits in expressive, receptive, and functional communication. The communication goals proposed for Student, both explicit and as embedded in other goals, were designed to address these needs in a number of different ways across a number of different settings. Student’s academic goals sought to reinforce and expand on Student’s present levels of performance, and to facilitate Student’s generalization of concepts and progression from rote skills to broader understanding. Student’s social/emotional/behavioral goals were designed to increase Student’s ability to function safely, independently, and successfully in a variety

Accessibility modified document of settings including the classroom, the general school environment, and in the world at large. Taken in aggregate, the goals proposed for Student were designed to allow him to make substantial progress in important areas of need in a holistic and challenging way.

STUDENT’S ISSUE 3: INADEQUATE PLACEMENT, SERVICES, AND THERAPY IN MAY

24, 2018 AND JUNE 4, 2018 FAPE OFFER

29.

Student contends that Garden Grove denied him a FAPE by failing to make him an appropriate offer in the May 25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 IEP because the offer failed to include an adequate placement, sufficient speech and language services, and cognitive behavior therapy. Garden Grove contends that the offer in the May 25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 IEP was one of a FAPE.

30.

In developing the IEP, the IEP team must consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the child’s education, the results of the most recent evaluations of the child, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.324 (a).) 31.

In resolving the question of whether a school district has offered a FAPE, the focus is on the adequacy of the school district’s proposed program. (See Gregory K., supra, 811 F.2d at p. 1314.) A school district is not required to place a student in a program preferred by a parent, even if that program will result in greater educational benefit to the student. (Ibid.) An IEP is evaluated in light of information available at the time it was developed; it is not judged in hindsight. (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149.) An IEP is “a snapshot, not a retrospective.” (Ibid., citing

Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d at p. 1041.) It must be evaluated in terms of what was objectively reasonable when the IEP was developed. (Id.)

32.

Here, it is found that Student failed to meet his burden of proof that the program, services, and therapy offered by Garden Grove did not provide Student with a

Accessibility modified document

FAPE. Garden Grove conducted an IEP team meeting over two days to discuss Student’s needs and circumstances and to draft a FAPE offer. Parents attended both IEP team meetings and participated fully in both meetings. Garden Grove based its FAPE offer on their assessments of Student, along with a continuum of earlier assessments and earlier IEPs.

Student’s Issue 3(a): Inappropriate Placement 33.

Garden Grove took into account the needs presented by Student in proposing a self-contained moderate/severe special day class that would provide Student with structure, consistency, routine, and an opportunity to progress with both academic and functional skills. Garden Grove addressed Student’s behavioral needs by proposing a one-to-one behavioral aide with adequate supervision and the opportunity for periodic team coordination on behavioral issues. Additionally, Garden Grove proposed a long list of accommodations designed to address Student’s unique needs and facilitate his ability to access his education.

34.

Garden Grove proposed a group of services, including speech/language, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education designed to address Student’s unique needs and areas where specialized services would allow Student to access his education and make reasonable progress in light of his circumstances. The services were of sufficient quantity and breadth to assist Student in overcoming his disabilities and make progress. Speech/language, in particular, was also supported in the classroom, and integrated into the class structure and curriculum.

35.

Parents asserted that Student could only continue in the in-home program due to his anxiety, and that he did not want to continue attending the Speech Center going forward. Their argument that a static program devoid of stressors, deviations, or change was not supported by the testimony at hearing. Parent did not meet their burden of proof on their desired in-home placement for Student, or any deficiency in

Accessibility modified document

Garden Grove’s proposed program.

Student’s Issue 3(b): Insufficient Speech/Language Services 36.

Student alleges that Garden Grove failed to offer sufficient speech and language services to provide him with a FAPE. Garden Grove denies Student’s allegations, and alleges that it offered Student the appropriate speech and language services to provide him with a FAPE and make meaningful progress on his education. Student had significant needs in expressive, receptive, and functional communication. Those needs were addressed through the use of a self-contained classroom, along with services on a weekly basis in both group and individual settings. 37.

Student failed to meet his burden of proof that Garden Grove’s offer of speech and language services denied him a FAPE. Garden Grove conducted a speech/language assessment by a qualified assessor, the assessment found that Student was in need of speech/language services to make progress in his education, and recommended that Student receive such services. Garden Grove’s proposed services were reasonably calculated to assist Student in making progress, and Student provided no persuasive evidence that Garden Grove’s determination was incorrect, or that Student required more speech and language services to access his education. Student’s Issue 3(c): Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 38.

Student also alleged that Garden Grove should have offered cognitive behavioral therapy in the IEP to address Student’s anxiety and the resultant behaviors. Garden Grove alleged that Student was not a candidate for such service as his underlying intellectual disability, along with his communication issues, undercut any ability for him to generate the self-awareness and self-reflection necessary for cognitive behavioral therapy to benefit Student.

39.

There is a conflict between the testimony of Garden Grove’s experts, Ms.

Accessibility modified document

Vaicaro and Ms. James-Rocha, and Student’s experts, Dr. Armstrong and Ms. Hoang. In resolving the conflicting testimony, it is found that Garden Grove’s witnesses were the more credible and more well-reasoned. Garden Grove’s argument that Student’s low cognitive levels, combined with his lack of self-awareness/reflection and challenges with communication render him an unsuitable candidate for cognitive behavioral therapy was simply not refuted by Student. Student’s experts’ suggestions that a modified cognitive behavioral therapy methodology would be of benefit to Student lacked evidentiary support.

40.

Here, it is found that Student failed to meet his burden of proof that

Garden Grove’s decision not to offer Student cognitive behavioral therapy denied him a FAPE. In fact, Garden Grove was persuasive in arguing that Student’s low cognitive functioning, lack of ability to self-regulate or self-reflect, and deficits in communication rendered him an unsuitable candidate for cognitive behavioral therapy.

STUDENT’S ISSUE 4: INSUFFICIENT EXPECTATIONS AND/OR ALIGNMENT WITH STATE

CONTENT STANDARDS

41. Student contends that Garden Grove failed to offer a program with sufficient expectations for Student or one that aligned with State content standards. Garden Grove contends that its IEP offer provided sufficient expectations, along with alignment of State content standards to provide Student with a FAPE.

42. Here, it is found that Student failed to meet his burden of proof that Garden Grove’s FAPE offer contained insufficient expectations for Student or that the offer did not align with State content standards. Taken in the aggregate, Garden Grove’s proposed goals for Student were based upon high expectations for him. Student was returning to public high school from a program sought by Parents and based on a restrictive, circumscribed environment. Garden Grove’s goals challenged Student to become less prompt and aide dependent and more independent. The goals also called

Accessibility modified document for much more than the rote recitation of information, and required Student to begin to synthesize and apply the facts he knew to be able to analyze information, not simply regurgitate it.

43. Student presented with significant deficits in social skills, social-emotional awareness, and ability to interact, converse with, and communicate with his peers, as well as adults. The goals proposed by Garden Grove challenged Student to grow and progress in these areas, and had high expectations for Student’s progress over the 2018-2019 school year.

44. A review of the proposed goals also indicates that they were largely aligned with State content standards. The goals also supported Student’s pragmatic needs in a certificate of completion track program, and aligned with the content and skills that Student would need to navigate a post high school world with safety and independence.

GARDEN GROVE’S ISSUE 1: ADEQUACY OF MAY 25, 2018 AND JUNE 4, 2018

FAPE OFFER

45.

Garden Grove contends that the May 25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 triennial

IEP offer, as amended in August and September 2018, provided Student with a FAPE. Student contends that the IEP offer failed to offer Student a FAPE. 46.

If the parent or guardian of a child who is an individual with exceptional needs refuses all services in the IEP after having consented to those services in the past, the local educational agency shall file a request for a due process hearing. (Ed. Code, § 56346, subd. (d).) I.R. v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2015) 805 F.3d 1164. 47.

There are two parts to the legal analysis of a school district's compliance with the IDEA. First, the tribunal must determine whether the district has complied with the procedures set forth in the IDEA. (Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 206-207.) Second, the tribunal must decide whether the IEP developed through those procedures was designed to meet the child's unique needs, and reasonably calculated to enable the

Accessibility modified document child to receive educational benefit and make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. (Ibid.)

48.

The IEP team is required to include one or both of the student’s parents or their representative; a regular education teacher if a student is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment; a special education teacher; and a representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities, is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and is knowledgeable about available resources. (34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a).) The IEP team is also required to include an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of assessment results, and, at the discretion of the parent or school district, include other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a).) Finally, whenever appropriate, the child with the disability should be present. (34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a).) 49.

The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child; and the provision of FAPE to the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a); Ed. Code, § 56500.4.) A parent has meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when he or she is informed of the child’s problems, attends the IEP team meeting, expresses disagreement regarding the IEP team’s conclusions, and requests revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox County Schools (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693; Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d at p. 1036.) ([parent who has an opportunity to discuss a proposed IEP and whose concerns are considered by the IEP team has participated in the IEP process in a meaningful way].) School districts are legally required to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents whose native language is other than English. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322 (e).)

Accessibility modified document

50.

An IEP should include: a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum; and a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320.) An IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, that will be provided to the student. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) The IEP must include a projected start date for services and modifications, as well as the anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VII); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(7); Ed. Code § 56345, subd. (a)(7).) The IEP need only include the information set forth in title 20 United States Code section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i), and the required information need only be set forth once. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(d); Ed. Code § 56345, subds. (h) and (i).)

51.

In developing the IEP, the IEP team must consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the child’s education, the results of the most recent evaluations of the child, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.324 (a).) 52.

Federal and state laws require school districts to provide a program in the least restrictive environment to each special education student. (Ed. Code, §§56031; 56033.5; 34 C.F.R. § 300.114.) A special education student must be educated with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate and may be removed from the regular education environment only when the use of supplementary aids and services

Accessibility modified document cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2).) To determine whether a special education student could be satisfactorily educated in a regular education environment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has balanced the following factors: 1) “the educational benefits of placement full-time in a regular class”; 2) “the non-academic benefits of such placement”; 3) the effect [the student] had on the teacher and children in the regular class”; and 4) “the costs of mainstreaming [the student].” (Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Rachel H. (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398, 1404 (Rachel H.) [adopting factors identified in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (5th Cir. 1989) 874 F.2d 1036, 1048-1050 (Daniel R.R.)]; see also Clyde K. v. Puyallup

School Dist. No. 3 (9th Cir. 1994) 35 F.3d 1396, 1401-1402 [applying Rachel H. factors to determine that self-contained placement outside of a general education environment was the least restrictive environment for an aggressive and disruptive student with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and Tourette’s syndrome].) 53.

If it is determined that a child cannot be educated in a general education environment, then the analysis requires determining whether the child has been mainstreamed to the maximum extent that is appropriate in light of the continuum of program options. (Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education, supra, 874 F.2d at p. 1050.) The continuum of program options includes, but is not limited to: regular education; resource specialist programs; designated instruction and services; special classes; nonpublic, nonsectarian schools; state special schools; specially designed instruction in settings other than classrooms; itinerant instruction in settings other than classrooms; and instruction using telecommunication instruction in the home or instructions in hospitals or institutions. (Ed. Code, § 56361.)

54.

Here, Garden Grove conducted appropriate assessments of Student as a predicate to conducting the IEP process. Garden Grove’s assessments met the applicable legal standards and provided reliable and detailed information on Student’s needs.

Accessibility modified document

Although Garden Grove was limited in its ability to assess Student compared to the breadth of assessment it sought, the assessments that were performed, along with the detailed historical and reported information, were sufficient for Garden Grove to have an adequate picture of Student’s abilities and needs.

55.

Garden Grove’s attendees fulfilled the statutory requirements in the breadth of personnel in attendance. Parents were afforded the opportunity to participate in both of the IEP team meetings, and they did, in fact, meaningfully participate in the IEP team meetings by asking questions, raising concerns and issues, and challenging Garden Grove’s analysis and assessment reports. The IEP team appropriately considered Student’s strengths and weaknesses, Parents’ concerns, the results of Garden Grove’s most recent assessments, and Student’s unique academic, developmental, and functional needs.

56.

The IEP document itself consisted of the statutorily appropriate items including present levels of academic achievement and functional performance for Student; an analysis of how Student’s disability affects his involvement and progress in the educational setting; a statement of 18 measurable annual goals designed to meet Student’s unique needs arising from his disability and make progress in his education; a statement of how Student’s performance on his goals will be measured and reported to Parents; a statement of special education and services to be provided to Student, along with projected start dates ,duration, frequency, location of services, supports, and accommodations.

57.

Garden Grove’s offer of placement, program, and services in Student’s May

25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 IEP met the applicable substantive requirements and constituted an offer of a FAPE. Garden Grove offered accommodations tailored to Student’s unique needs. The goals included in the IEP were tailored to Student’s unique needs, and focused on the development of needed academic skills, combined with the

Accessibility modified document attentional and organizational tools needed for Student to progress in his education. 58.

The IEP offer was reasonably calculated to constitute the least restrictive environment for Student by having him in a special education setting for 86 percent of the school day, but reserving 14 percent of the school day for opportunities for Student to engage with neuro-typical peers. There was no disagreement between the parties that Student was not a candidate for a general education classroom. Rather, Student required a smaller, more structured, and more managed classroom setting to make progress in his education. Although Parents argued for a continuation of the in-home program, such a program was unduly restrictive of Student, and effectively isolated him from the outside world. Garden Grove’s offer met Student’s needs for supervision, structure, consistency, and small-size, while maximizing Student’s access to other students throughout the school day, and promoting Student’s progress in socialization, social-emotional growth, and functional behavior and communication with peers and others.

59.

Following Parents’ rejection of the IEP offer, Garden Grove moved promptly to respond to Parents’ demands, and then promptly filed for due process. 60.

In sum, Garden Grove established by a preponderance of the evidence that it met all the procedural and substantive requirements for establishing that the proffered special education program and services were reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress appropriate in light of Student’s circumstances. As Garden Grove has met the applicable legal requirements, and timely moved for a due process review of the appropriateness of the FAPE offer, Garden Grove may, over Parents’ objection, implement the May 25, 2018 IEP if Student is enrolled in Garden Grove during the 2018-2019 school year.

GARDEN GROVE’S ISSUE 2: ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT OVER PARENTAL OBJECTION

61.

Garden Grove contends that it is entitled to complete the assessments

Accessibility modified document from the assessment plan of March 1, 2018. Student contends that Garden Grove should not be permitted to continue with the assessments due to their anxiety-inducing effects on Student.

62.

As discussed above, Parents significantly limited Garden Grove’s ability to conduct the assessments agreed to between the parties in the assessment plan dated March 1, 2018, and signed by Parents on or around March 19, 2018. 63.

Despite Parents’ obstruction of Garden Grove’s attempts to gather information for the triennial assessments, Garden Grove was able to conduct assessments sufficient to hold the IEP and make a FAPE offer, as discussed above. It could be argued that each of the assessments could have been done better or more thoroughly absent Parental encumbrances, but that is not the applicable legal standard here.

64.

It is found, pursuant to the authorities cited above, that Garden Grove has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that it is necessary for the planned portions of each assessment that were not completed be completed at this time, or that an order be issued to that effect.

ORDER

1.

All Student’s requests for relief are denied.

2.

Garden Grove’s requests for relief are granted in part, and denied in part.

3.

The IEP offer of May 25, 2018 and June 4, 2018 provided Student a FAPE, and Garden Grove may implement that IEP without Parents’ consent if Student attends a Garden Grove school in the 2018-2019 school year, and if Parents wish Student to receive special education and related services from Garden Grove. 4.

Garden Grove’s request to complete the assessments of Student is denied.

Accessibility modified document

PREVAILING PARTY

Pursuant to California Education Code section 56507, subdivision (d), the hearing decision must indicate the extent to which each party has prevailed on each issue heard and decided. Garden Grove prevailed on Student’s Issues 1, 2, 3 (a) (b) (c) and 4, and on Garden Grove’s Issue 1. Student prevailed Garden Grove’s Issue 2.

RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION

This is a final administrative decision, and all parties are bound by it. Pursuant to Education Code section 56506, subdivision (k), any party may appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt.

DATE: December 17, 2018

/s/

TED MANN

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility modified document