Student v. Roseville Joint Union High School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

V.

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2024050221

DECISION

September 11, 2024 On May 2, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Student, naming Roseville Joint Union High School District, called Roseville. On May 31, 2024, OAH granted Roseville’s request for continuance, setting the due process hearing to begin on July 9, 2024. Administrative Law Judge Ashok Pathi heard this matter via videoconference on July 9, 10, 16, and 17, 2024.

Attorney Ryan Song represented Student. Parent attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Student did not attend the hearing. Attorneys Heather Edwards and Cristina Quinonez represented Roseville. Craig Garabedian, Executive Director of Special Services, attended all hearing days on Roseville’s behalf.

Accessibility Modified

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to August 12, 2024, for the parties to submit written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on August 12, 2024.

ISSUES

1.

Did Roseville Joint Union High School District deny Student a free appropriate public education during the 2022-2023 school year by failing to assess Student in all areas of need, including:

2.

a.

functional behavior;

b.

assistive technology and augmentative communication; and c.

speech and language?

Did Roseville Joint Union High School District deny Student a free appropriate public education during the 2022-2023 school year by failing to provide:

a.

speech and language services;

b.

specialized transportation;

c.

a one-to-one aide;

d.

applied behavior analysis services; and e.

consultation between special education teachers and general education teachers about Student’s homework assignments?

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

3.

Did Roseville Joint Union High School District deny Student a free appropriate public education from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to assess Student in all suspected areas of need, including:

4.

a.

functional behavior;

b.

assistive technology and augmentative communication; and c.

speech and language?

Did Roseville Joint Union High School District deny Student a free appropriate public education from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide:

a.

home or hospital instruction;

b.

speech and language services;

c.

specialized transportation;

d.

a one-to-one aide;

e.

applied behavior analysis services; and f.

consultation between special education teachers and general education teachers about Student’s homework assignments?

STUDENT’S ATTEMPTED CHANGES TO ISSUES 1 AND 4

Student’s closing brief does not include arguments related to Issue 1c, regarding the allegation that Roseville failed to conduct a speech and language assessment during the 2022-2023 school year. Instead, Student’s closing brief for that section merely states “Withdrawn.” Student did not move to dismiss this issue at any time during the hearing, or otherwise file a separate motion seeking to dismiss this issue.

Accessibility Modified

As noted in N.R. v. Del Mar Unif. Sch. Dist., (S.D. Cal. 2023) 2023 WL 8532395, which is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, an administrative law judge cannot dismiss a case with prejudice for failing to prosecute once the hearing has begun. Rather, “the [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] states that a decision made by a hearing officer shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education.” (Ibid. at p. 3 [citing 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i)].)

In N.R., supra, 2023 WL 8532395, the District Court determined that an ALJ was required to issue a decision on the merits of the issues even when the parent refused to participate in the hearing after the third day. (Ibid. at *3.) Moreover, the District Court determined that the waiver doctrine did not circumvent the ALJ’s obligation to issue a decision under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). (Ibid.) By analogy, this principal applies to dismissing issues for failing to prosecute.

Student’s treatment of Issue 1c is akin to the parent in N.R. Student made no motion affirmatively seeking to dismiss Issue 1c. Student had multiple opportunities to dismiss this issue prior to the due process hearing. Student demonstrated his knowledge of this procedure by dismissing a different issue prior to the start of the hearing. Student also had the opportunity to file a motion during hearing or following the conclusion of the hearing. Nevertheless, Student never made a motion to dismiss Issue 1c. The undersigned does not interpret the entry in Student’s closing brief regarding Issue 1c as a motion to dismiss that issue. Therefore, Issue 1c is not dismissed and is fully decided in this Decision.

Accessibility Modified

Student’s closing brief describes Student’s Issue 4 as a claim for a denial of a free appropriate public education due to a failure to assess in certain areas, rather than a failure to provide Student the services listed in Issue 4, sub issues a through f, as stated in the July 9, 2024 Order Clarifying Issues for Hearing. A party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint unless the other party has consented. (20 USC section 1415(f)(3)(b); Ed. Code § 56502, subdivision (i). The issues decided in this case are limited to those stated in the July 9, 2024 Order Clarifying Issues.

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, its regulations, and California statutes and regulations. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006) et seq.; Ed. Code, § 56000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA, are to ensure:

all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living, and the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1); See Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (a).)

The IDEA affords parents and local educational agencies the procedural protection of an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, assessment, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education, referred to as FAPE, to the child. (20 U.S.C.

Accessibility Modified

§ 1415(b)(6) & (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code, §§ 56501, 56502, and 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).) The party requesting the due process hearing has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 57-58, 62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) In this case, Student had the burden of proof. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).)

Student was 17 years old and a rising 12th grader at the time of hearing. Student resided within Roseville’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible under the category of other health impairment, due to characteristics of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an eligible child that meets state educational standards at no charge to the parent or guardian. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.) Parents and school personnel develop an individualized education program, referred to as an IEP, for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031,56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a) and 56363 subd. (a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501.)

Accessibility Modified

In general, a child eligible for special education must be provided access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit through an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. (Board of Education of the

Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204; Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].)

ISSUE 1a: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR?

Student argued that he required a functional behavior assessment during the 2022-2023 school year because he did not regularly arrive to school on time and did not complete assignments in his English class. Roseville argued that Parent did not request a functional behavior assessment, and that there was no other basis for conducting one. For a child who is already eligible for special education, the IDEA provides for reevaluations to be conducted no more frequently than once a year, but at least once every three years, unless the parents and the school district agree that it is unnecessary. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) The IDEA uses the term evaluation, while the (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

California Education Code uses the term assessment. The terms are interchangeable. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a); Ed. Code, § 56302.5.) In California, a school district is not required to reassess more often than every three years unless one of the following occurs:

a parent requested reassessment;

a teacher requested reassessment; or a school district or local educational agency determined the educational or related services needs of the child, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warrant a reassessment. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1),(2).)

Student’s last triennial review prior to the 2022-2023 school year, was conducted on October 16, 2020. Student’s next triennial review was due on or before October 16, 2023, during the 2023-2024 school year. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Thus, Student’s triennial reevaluation was not due during the 2022-2023 school year. In M.S. by and through Sartin v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (9th Cir. 2017) 678 Fed.Appx. 543 (nonpub. opn.)(M.S.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a district court decision regarding a school district’s obligation to assess between the mandated triennial assessments. The Ninth Circuit held that the local education agency “Lake Elsinore had no duty under 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(2) to conduct a reevaluation of M.S. because the local educational agency did not determine that reevaluation was necessary, M.S.’s parents did not request

Accessibility Modified a reevaluation (as M.S. concedes), M.S.’s teacher did not request a reevaluation, and fewer than three years had elapsed since [the previous] evaluation.” (M.S., supra, 678 Fed. Appx, at p. 544.)

The facts of Student’s case align with those in M.S., supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544. Parent conceded that she did not request a functional behavior assessment during the 2022-2023 school year. Student did not offer any evidence that any other member of Student’s IEP team requested such an assessment, or that Roseville determined such an assessment was necessary at any time during the 2022-2023 school year.

In addition to mandated initial and triennial evaluations, special education law requires school districts to conduct a functional behavior assessment in an additional circumstance related to the findings of a manifestation determination team. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(1)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1)(i)(2006).) Student did not argue that he was subject to a manifestation determination review. Thus, Roseville did not need to conduct a functional behavior assessment pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(1)(F) or 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1)(i).

Student failed to prove that Roseville had a duty to conduct a functional behavior assessment at any time during the 2022-2023 school year. Therefore, Student failed to prove that Roseville denied him a FAPE by not conducting a functional behavior assessment during the 2022-2023 school year.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1b: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF

ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION?

Student also argued that Roseville should have conducted assessments in the areas of assistive technology and what he called augmentative communication, to assist Student with communicating with peers and to assist him with his writing. Roseville contended that Parent did not request an assistive technology and augmentative communication assessment, and that there was no other basis for conducting them. The parties sometimes referred to augmentative communication as augmentative and alternative communication. At times, Student treated both assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication assessments interchangeably. Regardless of Student’s shifting terminology, Student failed to prove that Roseville was obligated to conduct either assessment during the 2022-2023 school year.

Parent conceded that she did not request an assistive technology or an augmentative and alternative communication assessment during the 2022-2023 school year, because she was not familiar with these types of assessment until the spring of 2024. Student offered no evidence that any Roseville member of Student’s IEP team or any other teacher requested either an assistive technology or augmentative communication assessment during the 2022-2023 school year. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1),(2); M.S., supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544.)

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to prove that Roseville had a duty to assess Student in the area of assistive technology and augmentative communication at any time during the 20222023 school year. Therefore, Student failed to prove that Roseville denied him a FAPE by not assessing Student in the area of assistive technology and augmentative communication during the 2022-2023 school year.

ISSUE 1c: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE?

Student argued that Parent expressed concerns about Student’s speech and language needs during the 2022-2023 school year, and that Roseville was therefore obligated to assess Student in that area. Specifically, Student argued that Parent raised concerns about Student’s social pragmatic skills at his annual review IEP team meeting on September 29, 2022.

Roseville argued that it recognized Parent’s concerns and convened a continuation of Student’s annual review on October 28, 2022. Although Student’s IEP did not include speech and language services, Roseville ensured that a speech pathologist, Aubrey Claunch, attended the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting to allow Parent to discuss her concerns.

Parent never requested a speech and language assessment. Parent testified that she “expressed concerns” but could not explain why Roseville should have assessed based on her comments. Instead, Parent repeatedly gave her conclusory, lay opinion that Student should have continued with speech and language services. Parent

Accessibility Modified attended both the September and October 2022 IEP team meetings, and Student attended the October 2022 IEP team meeting. Following the review of the speech and language assessment in October of 2022, and discussions with the Roseville IEP team members that included Student, Parent agreed with the team that no further information was needed to develop Student’s IEP.

In M.S. v. Lake Elsinore Unif. Sch. Dist. (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015) 2015 WL 4511947 (rev’d. sub. nom. M.S. by and through Sartin v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (9th Cir. 2017) 678 Fed.Appx. 543), the District Court determined that a school district was required to reassess a student because the parents expressed concerns with educational needs not addressed by that student’s IEP. (Ibid at p. 7.) However, the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the school district had no duty to assess under those circumstances, because neither the parents, nor the teachers asked for a reassessment, and the school district did not determine that a reassessment was necessary. (M.S., supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544.) Parent conceded she did not request a speech and language assessment at either the September or October 2022 IEP team meetings. Nor did Student offer any evidence that Parent requested an assessment at any other time during the 2022-2023 school year. There was no evidence that any Roseville member of Student’s IEP team or teacher requested a speech and language assessment at any time during the 2022-2023 school year. Absent a request for an assessment, or a determination by Roseville that Student required reassessment, Roseville did not have a duty to assess. (M.S., supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544.) Roseville did not determine that Student’s speech and language skills required reassessment.

Accessibility Modified

During the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting, Claunch, a properly licensed and credentialled speech and language pathologist, reviewed the results of the October 16, 2020 triennial speech and language assessment. Claunch did not conduct this assessment. Rather, it was conducted by staff at Roseville City School District, where Student attended middle school. That speech and language assessment stated that Student did not meet eligibility criteria for the category of speech and language impairment. The assessment further stated that Student no longer demonstrated communication deficits, including social pragmatic skills, which required speech and language services.

Based on Claunch’s observations of Student and interactions with him during the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting, Claunch did not have any concerns about Student’s communication skills. Her testimony was clear, comprehensive, and candid. Claunch readily provided thorough answers on both direct and cross examination, and asked clarifying questions when needed to ensure she understood the questions posed to her. Overall, her testimony was given great weight. The evidence established that, following the October 28, 2022 IEP team’s discussion with Claunch, nobody on the IEP team believed a speech and language assessment was necessary, nor requested an assessment. Student did not establish that any member of Student’s IEP team, including Parent, requested a speech and language assessment at any time during the 2022-2023 school year.

Student failed to prove that Roseville had a duty to assess Student in the area of speech and language at any time during the 2022-2023 school year. Therefore, Student failed to prove that Roseville denied him a FAPE by not assessing Student in the area of speech and language during the 2022-2023 school year.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2a: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

SERVICES?

Student argued that he had social pragmatic skills deficits in the 2022-2023 school year which adversely affected his educational performance. Student also argued that, because of these deficits, Roseville should have offered him speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year. Lastly, student argued that he required speech and language services to address his difficulties with writing essays in his English classes.

Roseville contends that Student’s unique needs did not require speech and language services. Further, Roseville contends that Student’s IEP team reviewed the existing information and recent assessment reports at the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting and determined that Student did not need speech and language services to receive a free appropriate public education.

The IEP must comprehensively describe the child’s educational needs and the corresponding special education and related services that meet those needs. (School

Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 368.) The IEP must identify the student’s special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, including program modifications or supports. (Ibid. at p. 368; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) Speech

Accessibility Modified and language services are a related service. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (b).) In California, related services are called “designated instruction and services.” (Ed. Code, § 56363, sub. (a).)

In developing the IEP, the IEP team shall consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the child’s education, the results of the most recent evaluation 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)(2017); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (a).)

The IEP must show a direct relationship between the present levels of performance, the goals, and the specific educational services to be provided. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040, subd. (c).) Therefore, a student must have a disability related need in an area before the school district is required to provide services in that area. An appropriate public education “does not mean the absolutely best or ‘potential-maximizing’ education for the individual child.” (Los Angeles Unified School District v. A.O. by and through Owens (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 1159 [quoting Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314].)

Student did not prove that he required speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year to receive a FAPE. As discussed previously, when Parent expressed concerns about Student’s pragmatic skills at the September 29, 2022 IEP team meeting, Roseville convened another IEP team meeting on October 28, 2022. That meeting included Speech Pathologist Claunch.

Accessibility Modified

Claunch reviewed the most recent triennial assessment of Student’s speech and language capabilities with the IEP team. The team discussed the fact that the prior assessment determined Student had no speech and language needs. Similarly, Student’s teachers and staff described him as “quiet and somewhat shy” but did not indicate concerns with Student’s social pragmatic skills. Claunch credibly explained that speech and language deficits did not generally affect a student’s ability to write. She explained that the brain processes for speaking and writing are different, and that children with speaking difficulties do not necessarily have writing difficulties. Student did not refute this testimony.

Student participated in the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting so Claunch also had the opportunity to interact with him. Based on that interaction and the prior assessment, Claunch’s opinion was that Student did not need a speech and language assessment or speech services. Student’s IEP team, including Parent, concurred. As a result, Roseville did not offer Student speech and language services. An IEP is evaluated in light of information available to the IEP team 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. at p. 1149, citing

Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Education (3rd Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041.) It must be evaluated in terms of what was objectively reasonable when the IEP was developed. (Ibid.) As the court noted in Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 399, crafting an IEP requires a prospective judgment, and judicial review of an IEP must recognize that the question is whether the IEP is reasonable, not whether it is regarded as ideal. The evidence established that, based on the information available to Student’s IEP team at the time of the September and October 2022 IEP team meetings, Student did not have a need for speech and language services.

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to meet his burden of proving that he required speech and language services to receive a FAPE at any other time during the 2022-2023 school year. Student offered no evidence that his situation had changed since the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting. Although Student called two witnesses to testify as to his speech and language needs, neither were credible.

Student offered the testimony of Dr. Abbe Irshay, Ed.D, in support of his argument that he required speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year. However, Irshay’s testimony was neither persuasive nor credible. Although Irshay had experience in the field of education, Irshay did not hold any special education credentials or degrees. Nor was she a licensed or credentialed speech and language pathologist. Irshay is a former school administrator and held a teaching credential for mathematics and business. Her experience with IEP team meetings and the IEP process was limited to “sitting at the table” at IEP team meetings as a school administrator. Irshay did not have direct knowledge of Student’s educational needs. Irshay had never spoken to Roseville staff regarding Student or his needs. Irshay had never attended any of Student’s IEP team meetings, and never observed Student in an educational environment. Instead, Irshay based her opinions on an hour-long interview with Parent, which occurred after the beginning of the due process hearing, and just one day prior to Irshay’s testimony; as well as documents provided by Student’s counsel. Overall, Irshay’s opinions regarding Student’s special education needs or Roseville’s obligations to Student were given no weight and did not establish that Student had a need for speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year.

Accessibility Modified

Student also offered the testimony of Dr. Sookyung Shin, Ph.D. However, Shin’s testimony was neither persuasive nor credible. Shin’s experience in special education is limited. She is currently employed as a Certified Nurse Aide and Certified Medication Aide at an assisted living facility in Kansas. While Shin holds a recently acquired doctorate and a master’s degree in special education, Shin does not have a teaching credential or any special education credential. She does not have any experience teaching in California schools. She had minimal teaching experience as a teaching assistant in classes designed for educational professionals and not children in public school. She was not a licensed or credentialed speech and language pathologist. Rather, her professional background was that of an educational advocate and consultant to families with children in special education since 2010. However, her experience focused on grant writing, and helping parents navigate the IEP process and disagreements with their child’s school. In addition to her lack of experience in the special education field, Shin had little interaction with Student and no direct information about his educational circumstances. Shin had never spoken to Roseville staff regarding Student or needs. Rather, she based her opinions on an hour and a half-long interview with Parent, which occurred just two days before her testimony; a half-hour interview with Student on the same day she interviewed Parent and during which time Parent was present; and documents provided by Student’s counsel. She had never attended any of Student’s IEP team meetings or observed Student in an educational environment. Thus, her opinions were based on incomplete information.

As a result of her minimal information about Student’s needs and circumstances, Shin often described hypotheticals rather than direct opinions regarding Student’s program. Several of her opinions were given as conclusory statements with inadequate

Accessibility Modified explanation of her reasoning. As such, her opinions regarding Student’s special education needs or Roseville’s obligations to Student were given no weight. Shin’s testimony was also not credible. Shin presented as being significantly coached or rehearsed, rather than candid in response to the questions asked of her. She also repeatedly answered discrete, straightforward questions with long and rambling monologues.

During her testimony, Shin made numerous suggestions regarding supports Roseville could have offered Student. However, Shin failed to explain whether or why Roseville was legally obligated to provide any of her suggested supports. Shin did not establish that Student required speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he required speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year to receive a FAPE. Student failed to prove that he had pragmatic speech deficits that impeded his ability to access his education or that speech and language services would improve his writing skills.

Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year when Roseville did not provide him speech and language services.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2b: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING

THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE SPECIALIZED

TRANSPORTATION?

Student argued that he had disability-related needs which required Roseville to provide him with special education transportation services, also called specialized transportation services, in the form of a bus between home and school. Student further argued that he was repeatedly late to school because he could not get to school on time without this service.

Roseville argued that Student’s unique needs did not require specialized transportation services, and that Student’s IEP team discussed Student’s need for those services and determined he did not require them to receive a FAPE. Roseville also argued that Student rides his bicycle to school and his disability does not prevent him from arriving to school in a timely manner.

The IDEA defines special education transportation as a related service. (34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(16)(2006).) Designated instruction and services include transportation as may be required to assist the child in benefiting from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a).)

A student may require transportation as a related service because his or her disabilities “create unique needs that make it especially problematic to get the child to school in the same manner that a nondisabled child would get to school in the same circumstances.” Letter to Hamilton (OSEP 1996) 25 IDELR 520. A child’s need for transportation does not have to be directly linked to the child’s disability as a

Accessibility Modified precondition to being provided as a related service. (Donald B. by and through Christine

B. v. Board of Sch. Commissioners of Mobile County, Alabama, (11th Cir. 1997) 117 F.3d 1371, 1375.) However, the IDEA requires transportation of a disabled child only to address their educational needs, not to accommodate a parent’s convenience or preference. (Fick v. Sioux Falls School District 49-5 (8th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 968, 970.) Education Code section 41850, subdivision (d), subsections (1) and (2), define special education transportation as the transportation of severely disabled day class pupils and orthopedically impaired pupils. (See also, 34 C.F.R. § 300.34(c)(16)(2006).) However, subsection (5), of subdivision (b), Education Code section 41850, states “home-to-school transportation services” is transportation for pupils with exceptional needs as specified in their IEP, who do not receive special education transportation as defined in subdivision (d). (See also, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).) The California Department of Education, Special Education Division, listed examples that IEP teams may consider under subsection (5) of subdivision (b), in determining whether a pupil requires home-to-school transportation services as a related service. This included considering a student’s “general ability and/or strength to ambulate/wheel” and “[the] approximate distance from school or the distance needed to walk or wheel oneself to the school.” (Special Education Transportation Guidelines, California Department of Education, Laws, Regulations & Policies (Last Reviewed July 19, 2024).)

Student did not prove that he required specialized transportation as a service through his IEP during the 2022-2023 school year. Student’s argument that Roseville should have offered specialized transportation as a related service relied on Student’s history of being tardy 31 times to his first period class. However, Student did not prove

Accessibility Modified that his tardies were related to him being unable to travel to school on time, or otherwise due to his disability-related educational needs. Parent conceded that Student was late for school in part due to leaving home too late or wanting to get a ride to school from his parents rather than ride his bicycle.

Nor did Student present any persuasive medical or other evidence of any gross motor delay or physical impediment that impacted Student’s ability to travel from home to school. While Parent and Student’s experts repeatedly claimed that his diagnosis of X-Linked Hypophosphatemia might have an impact on his ability to walk or otherwise travel from home to school, that assertion was never proved. Similarly, Student argued that he had bowed legs but did not establish that condition impacted his ability to travel to school. Rather, Student conceded, and the evidence otherwise established, that Student’s bowed legs did not prevent him from riding his bicycle to school. Student solicited opinions from Irshay and Shin. However, neither of their opinions were persuasive or credible for the reasons discussed previously. Neither Irshay nor Shin were familiar with Roseville’s transportation policies or had any personal knowledge regarding Student’s transportation situation, other than that received second hand through Parent and Student’s counsel. Moreover, Shin’s opinion that Roseville should have provided Student with specialized transportation was due to her belief that Parent’s request for specialized transportation was sufficient to trigger Roseville’s duty to provide that service. Shin’s opinion is not consistent with the law. Transportation is provided to special education students who demonstrate the service is needed for them to access their education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a).)

Accessibility Modified

School Psychologist Shelly Davis testified that she had not observed Student to demonstrate any physical disabilities that made him walk slower than other students. She also explained that Student received passing grades in his physical education classes and other physical activity classes. For example, Student earned As and Bs in his physical education classes during the 2022-2023 school year. While grades are not dispositive of a child’s performance in any given class, Student did not challenge or otherwise refute these grades.

Davis credibly testified that Student’s tardiness to school had declined during the 2022-2023 school year when he began riding his bicycle to school. During the 20212022 school year, Student was tardy to his first period 72 times. Once Student began riding his bicycle during the fall of 2022, these tardies dropped by nearly 60 percent. A significant amount of Student’s tardies during the 2022-2023 school year occurred during the later fall and winter months, when Parent conceded Student would intentionally leave the house late in an attempt to get a ride to school from one of his parents. Overall, Student did not refute the significant evidence that Student could successfully ride his bicycle to school.

Student did not meet his burden of proving that he required specialized transportation during the 2022-2023 school year to receive a FAPE. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year when Roseville did not provide him specialized transportation services.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2c: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE? Student argued that he would have benefitted from a one-to-one aide to assist him with beginning and completing tasks, especially those involving writing. Roseville argued that none of Student’s needs required the support of a one-to-one aide, and that none of Student’s IEP team members suggested that Student required such an aide. The IEP must identify the child’s special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, including program modifications or supports. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) A one-to-one aide is a type of supplementary aid and service. (D.R. v. Redondo Beach

Unified School District (9th Cir. 2022) 56 F.4th 636, 646; 34 C.F.R. § 300.42.) Student did not prove that he required a one-to-one aide during the 2022-2023 school year. Student offered no persuasive evidence of a need for a one-to-one aide during the 2022-2023 school year. Parent conceded that a one-to-one aide was not necessary during the 2022-2023 school year. Even Student’s expert Shin testified that this level of support was not needed.

In contrast, Roseville staff universally believed that Student did not require a oneto-one aide. For example, School Psychologist Davis credibly explained that Student could successfully access the general education environment without one-to-one support. When asked if she felt that Student needed this level of support, she replied “absolutely not.” She then explained that Student had the required level of cognitive, processing, and academic skills necessary to function independently at school.

Accessibility Modified

Student did not meet his burden of proving that he required a one-to-one aide to receive a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year when Roseville did not provide him with a one-to-one aide.

ISSUE 2d: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE APPLIED BEHAVIOR

ANALYSIS SERVICES?

Student argued that he had behavior difficulties which Roseville needed to address through applied behavior analysis services. These behaviors included being tardy to school and not turning in assignments in his English classes. Roseville argued that Student did not demonstrate any behaviors which would require applied behavior analysis services.

In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, the IEP team must consider, when appropriate, “the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior.” (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i)(2017); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (b)(1).) Areas of educational need are to be broadly construed to include the child’s academic, social, health, emotional, communicative, physical, and vocational needs. (Seattle Sch.

Dist. No. 1 v. B.S. (9th Cir. 1996) 82 F.3d 1493, 1500 [citing H.R. Rep. No. 410, 1983 (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

U.S.C.C.A.N. 2088, 2106].) An IEP that does not appropriately address behavior that impedes a child’s learning denies a student a FAPE. (Neosho R-V School Dist. v. Clark (8th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 1022, 1028-1030.)

Student did not prove that he had behavior needs which could be supported by applied behavior analysis services. Parent was unable to state why she thought Student needed applied behavior analysis. When asked about why she believed Student needed applied behavior analysis services to receive a FAPE, Parent conceded that she was not familiar with applied behavior analysis and was unsure how they could help Student. While Student’s experts vaguely supported the idea that Student could possibly have benefited from applied behavior analysis, their opinions lacked credibility for the reasons already discussed. Additionally, neither Irshay nor Shin were board-certified behavior analysts. Neither proved that applied behavior analysis would have addressed Student’s tardiness to school or inconsistencies with turning in work. Student offered no persuasive evidence that he required applied behavior analysis services to receive a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year. Therefore, Student did not meet his burden of proving that he was denied a FAPE during the 20222023 school year when Roseville did not provide him with applied behavior analysis services.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2e: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION DURING THE 20222023 SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO PROVIDE CONSULTATION BETWEEN

SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS AND GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

ABOUT STUDENT’S HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS?

The IEP must identify the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, including program modifications, accommodations, or supports. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV) and (VI)(aa); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4) and (6)(A).)

Student addressed this issue in a single paragraph in his closing brief, citing no legal authority or admitted evidence. Rather, Student made a general assertion that Student had communication difficulties which resulted in him being unable to utilize academic supports at school. Student asserted that an “indirect consultation service” would have addressed this need but did not explain that assertion. Student offered no persuasive evidence that he was unable to access information about his homework obligations at school, or through the electronic means available to him. Nor did Student offer evidence that missed homework assignments or failed to understand homework assignments because of a lack of consultation between his special education or general education teachers about his homework assignments. Student offered no evidence that Parent ever sought consultation between his general education and special education teachers regarding Student’s homework. Nor did Student offer any evidence that any teacher recommended that support. Student offered no persuasive evidence establishing that consultation between his general

Accessibility Modified education and special education teachers was necessary for him to be able to access his special education or general education. Student did not meet his burden of proof on this issue.

Student offered no persuasive evidence that he required consultation between special education teachers and general education teachers about his homework assignments to receive a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year when Roseville did not provide him this consultation support.

ISSUE 3a: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM

THE BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2,

2024, BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF FUNCTIONAL

BEHAVIOR?

Student argued that his tardiness to school and failure to turn in assignments in his English classes triggered Roseville’s duty to conduct a functional behavior assessment. Roseville argued that neither Parent nor Roseville staff requested a functional behavior assessment. Roseville further argued that neither Student’s tardiness nor his failure to turn in assignments in his English class were significant behaviors which could be targeted by a functional behavior assessment, and that these behaviors were not related to Student’s disability.

Accessibility Modified

School district evaluations of students with disabilities under the IDEA serve two purposes:

1.

identifying students who need specialized instruction and related services because of an IDEA-eligible disability, and

2.

helping IEP teams identify the special education and related services the student requires. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.301 (2007), 300.303 (2006); Ed. Code, § 56043.)

Reassessments must be conducted at least once every three years, to evaluate Student’s continued eligibility and the necessity and adequacy of special education and related services being provided to the student unless both the parent and the school district agree that there is no need for the assessments. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Student’s triennial review was due no later than October 16, 2023. Just like the initial evaluation, a reevaluation must be “sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.” (Newport-Mesa

Unified School District v. D.A. (C.D. Cal., Apr. 3, 2023, No. 820CV01857SPGJEM) 2023 WL 2977500, at *13 [citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(6)]; aff'd (9th Cir., Apr. 1, 2024, No. 2355351) 2024 WL 1367170.) Student did not offer persuasive evidence that Roseville was required to conduct a functional behavior assessment in order to complete a comprehensive triennial reassessment of Student’s need for special education and related services.

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to offer persuasive evidence that his tardiness to school or failure to turn in assignments in his English classes was a continuing issue during the 20232024 school year. Rather, Student’s first period tardies had decreased from 31 in the 2022-2023 school year to 11 during the 2023-2024 school year without a functional behavior assessment having been conducted. Moreover, Student had increased his homework completion rate to between 80% and 90% without any additional special education support. Student did not present persuasive evidence that a functional behavior assessment would have provided insight into these problems even if Student had proved their existence.

Student’s experts failed to offer convincing evidence that a functional behavior assessment was required during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Irshay gave a conclusory opinion that a functional behavior assessment would have been helpful in determining whether Student’s tendency to not turn in work in English class or engage in work was a behavior issue or disability issue but did not explain how this assessment would have provided insight into these concerns. However, Irshay did not hold any licenses or credentials in special education, including those relevant to conducting functional behavior assessments. Therefore, her testimony was not persuasive and given no weight.

Shin’s testimony also failed to support the need for a functional behavior assessment. Shin gave a conclusory opinion that Student could have benefitted from a functional behavior assessment. However, Shin’s testimony was not persuasive because she did not hold any licenses or credentials in special education, including those relevant to conducting functional behavior assessments. Student did not offer

Accessibility Modified evidence that Shin had ever conducted a functional behavior assessment. Her testimony regarding Student’s need for a functional behavior assessment was not persuasive and was given no weight.

Student also failed to prove that Roseville had a duty to conduct a functional behavior assessment at any time following his triennial review. Without additional special education supports or services, Student’s behaviors improved over the course of the 2023-2024 school year. At no time following the triennial assessment through May 2, 2024, did Parent request a functional behavior assessment. Nor was evidence offered that a teacher requested one after the triennial assessment was completed, or that circumstances would have led Roseville to believe conducting a functional behavior assessment was necessary to evaluate how to improve Student’s academic achievement or functional performance. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2); 34 C.F.R § 300.303.) Finally, Student was not subject to disciplinary procedures for a violation of the code of student conduct which required a manifestation determination review at any point during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Thus, Roseville was not obligated to conduct a functional behavior assessment pursuant to the findings of the manifestation determination review team. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(1)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1)(i).)

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Roseville denied him a FAPE by failing to conduct a functional behavior assessment as part of his triennial review or at any other point during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3b: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY

AND AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION?

A school district is required to assess in all areas of suspected disability, including assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication, when necessary, prior to offering related services or devices. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2) & (3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(b)(2), (c)(4) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56320, subds. (e) & (f).) A school district is required to provide any augmentative and alternative communication device that is necessary to provide a FAPE to a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(12)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 (2006); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (b)(5).) An IEP team must consider whether a child requires augmentative and alternative communication devices or services. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(v); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(v) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (b)(5).) Student argued that he required assistive technology and augmentative communication assessments to address his difficulties with verbal and written communication. Student also argued that Student’s previous use of a text chat feature approximately three years ago while on distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic-related school closures demonstrated Student’s need for assistive technology.

Accessibility Modified

Student did not prove that Roseville had a duty to assess him in the areas of assistive technology or augmentative and alternative communication as part of his triennial review, or at any other time during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Student failed to offer persuasive evidence that Roseville should have assessed his need for assistive technology to produce written work. Student did not prove Student’s utilization of a text chat feature during distance learning was relevant while Student was attending school in person. Student also failed to offer proof that he had an abnormal speech pattern, what Student referred to as a slow rate of speech. Nor did Student offer persuasive evidence that Roseville should have assessed his need for an augmentative and alternative communication device to communicate with teachers or peers to access his education.

Irshay and Shin also offered their opinions that Student required assessments in these areas. However, neither Irshay nor Shin were competent to give an opinion regarding assistive technology or augmentative and alternative communication assessments, or Student’s need for one. Nor was either witness familiar with Student’s educational needs. Neither had observed Student in class or completed a thorough review of his most recent educational records. Neither Irshay nor Shin were persuasive witnesses in support of Student’s need for assessments in the areas of assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication.

Both School Psychologist Davis and Speech Pathologist Claunch were familiar with assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication. Neither believed that Student required assessments in these areas. Claunch had specific training regarding augmentative and alternative communication devices and had experience conducting augmentative and alternative communication assessments. Claunch credibly

Accessibility Modified explained that Student did not present with needs which would require assistive technology or an augmentative and alternative communication device. Rather, Student’s verbal communication met his needs and allowed him to access his education. Claunch testified that verbal communication is always preferable to an augmentative and alternative communication device, because Student would likely take longer to communicate with an augmentative and alternative communication device than he would without one. Student did not refute this testimony.

Overall, Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Roseville had denied him a FAPE by failing to assess him in the areas of assistive technology or augmentative and alternative communication during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024.

ISSUE 3c: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM

THE BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2,

2024, BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF SPEECH AND

LANGUAGE?

Student argued that Roseville should have included a speech and language assessment as part of Student’s September 2023 triennial reevaluation, because Student previously received speech and language services in 2020, and he received poor grades in English. Roseville argued that speech and language was not an area of need, and

Accessibility Modified

Parent did not put Roseville on notice of her concerns with Student’s speech and language skills during the 2023-2024 school year until April 2, 2024. Roseville further argued that it timely offered to assess Student after April 2, 2024, but Parent refused to consent to the assessment plan.

Student did not prove that Roseville had a duty to conduct a speech and language assessment as part of his triennial review, or at any other time during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024.

School Psychologist Davis issued Parent a triennial assessment plan on August 11, 2023. The assessment plan called for assessments in the following areas:

academic achievement, health, intellectual development, perceptual motor development, post-secondary transition, attention, and executive functions.

Parent consented to the assessment plan on August 11, 2023. She did not indicate any other areas of concern or request any additional assessments, including speech and language.

Davis requested Parent’s input for the September 25, 2023 psychoeducational assessment via an electronic form. Parent completed this form on August 15, 2023. On that form, Parent did not indicate any concerns with Student’s speech and language skills, including social pragmatics. During her testimony, however, Parent made general

Accessibility Modified comments that she had told Roseville staff that she believed that Student should continue to receive speech and language services, and that she was concerned about his social pragmatic skills.

When questioned as to when Parent raised these concerns, Parent replied that she had constantly been raising these concerns. However, Parent could not point to specific times or instances where she raised concerns about Student having social pragmatic language needs during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Moreover, Parent could not corroborate her testimony with any documentary evidence. Parent’s testimony that she had put Roseville on notice of Student having social pragmatic language difficulties prior to the triennial assessments conducted in 2023 was not persuasive. Parent’s testimony that she put Roseville on notice of Student’s suspected social pragmatic language deficits for the remainder of the 2023-2024 school year, other than a telephone call with Director of Special Services Bryan Johnson on April 2, 2024, was also not persuasive. Student also failed to offer any evidence from any other source to establish Student had social pragmatic language deficits which impeded his ability to access his education or function in the educational environment during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024.

Student also argued that Roseville’s duty to conduct a speech and language assessment was triggered by Parent’s concerns related to an assessment from the UC Davis MIND Institute, dated February 9, 2017. However, that assessor’s recommendations that Student receive subsequent testing to determine whether Student met clinical criteria for a speech and language disorder had been followed. Student was previously assessed by Roseville City School District, and he received speech and language services. Student did not explain why this assessment was relevant to Roseville’s determination regarding the need to assess speech and language. This is especially notable considering the Accessibility Modified speech and language assessment conducted by Roseville City School District as part of Student’s October 16, 2020 triennial review more recently showed that Student’s speech and language deficits had been remediated.

Irshay and Shin both generally testified that Roseville should have assessed Student’s speech and language needs. However, both of their recommendations for the assessment were based on Parent’s reports to them that Student had social pragmatic skills deficits and would pause before answering a question or otherwise speak slowly. Neither Irshay nor Shin testified to evaluating Student’s speech and language skills. Neither Irshay nor Shin were speech and language pathologists or were otherwise qualified to give a competent opinion regarding Student’s need for a speech and language assessment. Neither Irshay’s nor Shin’s testimony on this point was given any weight.

Further, Student did not prove that he spoke slowly or had a slow rate of speech, such that a speech and language assessment was needed. Rather, Claunch credibly testified that she had interacted with Student at the October 28, 2022 IEP team meeting and had no concerns. Similarly, none of the Student’s teachers who were interviewed as part of the September 25, 2023 psychoeducational assessment raised any concerns regarding Student’s communication or social pragmatic skills. Overall, Student failed to prove that Roseville had a duty to assess Student in the area of speech and language as part of his triennial review.

Finally, Student did not prove that Roseville should have assessed Student in the area of speech and language following his triennial review and prior to May 2, 2024. Parent conceded that she never requested a speech and language assessment after the triennial assessment during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Student

Accessibility Modified argued that Parent had expressed concerns about Student’s speech and language deficits throughout the 2023-2024 school year. However, the record does not support Student’s argument. As discussed previously, Parent’s testimony on this point was not persuasive and was not otherwise substantiated. School Psychologist, Davis, who attended all of Student’s IEP team meetings during the 2023-2024 school year, credibly testified that Parent never communicated these concerns at any of those meetings. None of the IEP documents indicated that Parent had expressed concerns regarding Student’s speech and language skills at any of these IEP team meetings. Lastly, Parent could not provide any specific dates and times her concerns regarding Student’s speech and language would have been communicated.

The only time during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024, the evidence established that Parent expressed concerns regarding Student’s speech and language skills was during an April 2, 2024 telephone call with Director Johnson. Following that telephone call, Roseville offered to conduct a speech and language assessment on April 17, 2024. However, Parent did not consent to that assessment plan between April 17, 2024, and the date the complaint was filed on May 2, 2024, despite multiple attempts by Roseville to contact Parent to consent to the speech and language assessment.

Lastly, Student did not prove that his perceived difficulties with writing could have been addressed by speech and language services, or that Roseville should have conducted a speech and language assessment for that reason. Therefore, Student failed to meet his burden of proving that Roseville denied him a FAPE by not conducting a speech and language assessment at any time during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4b: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES?

NO RULING IS MADE REGARDING STUDENT’S ELIGIBILITY FOR

SPECIAL EDUCATION BEGINNING ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2023, AS THE

ISSUE WAS NOT RAISED IN STUDENT’S COMPLAINT

Student’s IEP team convened on September 29, 2023, for his triennial review. Parent and Student attended the meeting. During that IEP team meeting, the Student’s IEP team reviewed the September 25, 2023 psychoeducational assessment report. Based on the information available, Roseville staff recommended that Student be exited from special education. Therefore, Roseville did not offer to find Student eligible for special education or make a prospective offer of FAPE.

Parent did not consent to the September 29, 2023 IEP which would have exited Student from special education. Because Parent did not consent to the September 29, 2023 IEP, Roseville continued to implement Student’s last consented to and implemented IEP dated September 29, 2022 as amended on October 28, 2022.

Counsel for both Student and Roseville argued that the question of Student’s eligibility was relevant to the underlying issues in this matter. Student’s counsel expressly stated that “this due process hearing is all about that” referring to Student’s eligibility. Student’s counsel also argued that “[a]ll the subparts [of the issues are] meaningless if there’s no … eligibility.”

Accessibility Modified

Roseville’s counsel argued that the recommendation of the Roseville members of Student’s IEP team to exit Student from special education at the September 29, 2023 IEP team meeting was relevant to the reasons that other services were not offered or provided to Student through the September 29, 2023 IEP or subsequent IEPs during the 2023-2024 school year. But, Roseville did not agree that the issue of eligibility was before OAH.

A party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint unless the other party has consented. (20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(b); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) Student did not put Roseville on notice that he sought a ruling on eligibility in his complaint. Furthermore, Roseville’s contention that their view of Student’s eligibility was relevant to its decision regarding whether to offer services did not constitute clear consent to the determination of eligibility in this hearing. Rather, counsel for Roseville objected to Student’s questions related to Roseville’s recommendation to exit him from special education. Student did not properly allege an issue regarding Student’s continued eligibility for special education, and Roseville did not consent to try this issue during the hearing. Therefore, Student’s eligibility was not determined in this hearing. Instead, this Decision considers Student eligible pursuant to his last consented to and implemented September 29, 2022 IEP, as amended on October 28, 2022.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

STUDENT DID NOT PROVE HE REQUIRED SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

SERVICES DURING THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR, THROUGH MAY 2,

2024 Student did not prove that he required speech and language services during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, to address his perceived social pragmatic language or writing deficits. Student failed to offer any persuasive evidence that he had a need for speech and language services at any time during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Student again solicited opinions from Irshay and Shin. However, neither of their opinions were persuasive or credible for the reasons discussed previously. Moreover, both applied their unpersuasive opinions regarding Student’s need for speech and language services during the 2022-2023 school year to Student’s need for those services during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Student again did not refute Speech and Language Pathologist Claunch’s credible testimony that speech and language deficits did not generally affect a student’s ability to write. Student did not prove that his perceived writing difficulties could have been addressed by speech and language services.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he required speech and language services to receive a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Student failed to prove that he had pragmatic speech deficits that impeded his ability to access his education or that speech and language services would improve his writing skills. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him speech and language services.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4c: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION?

Student did not prove that he required specialized transportation from home to school as a service through his IEP during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Student repeated the arguments he made regarding this service during the 20222023 school year, and they were still unpersuasive. Student did not provide any persuasive evidence that Student required specialized transportation, including any medical or other evidence of any gross motor delay or physical impediment that impacted Student’s ability to travel from home to school. While Parent and Student’s experts repeatedly claimed that his diagnosis of X-Linked Hypophosphatemia might have an impact on his ability to walk or otherwise travel from home to school, that assertion was never proved. Student again argued that he had bowed legs but did not establish that condition impacted his ability to travel to school, but again conceded that his bowed legs were not an impediment to him riding his bicycle.

Student again argued that his history of first period tardies substantiated his need for specialized transportation services. However, Student’s first period tardies had decreased from 31 in the 2022-2023 school year to 11 during the 2023-2024 school year without the assistance of specialized transportation. The evidence established that Student continued to ride his bicycle to school, and that he could adequately make it to school on time.

Accessibility Modified

Student again solicited opinions from Irshay and Shin. However, neither of their opinions were persuasive or credible for the reasons discussed previously. Neither Irshay nor Shin were familiar with Roseville’s transportation policies or had any personal knowledge regarding Student’s transportation situation, other than that received second hand through Parent and Student’s counsel. Moreover, Shin’s opinion that Roseville should have provided Student with specialized transportation was due to her belief that Parent’s request for specialized transportation was sufficient to trigger Roseville’s duty to provide that service. Shin’s opinion is not consistent with the law. Transportation is provided to special education students who demonstrate the service is needed for them to access their education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a).) Student did not meet his burden of proving that he required specialized transportation to receive a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024, to benefit from his education. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him specialized transportation services.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4d: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE?

Student did not prove that he required a one-to-one aide during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024. Student offered no persuasive evidence of a need for a one-to-one aide during the during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024. Rather, Student repeated his unpersuasive arguments regarding his alleged need for a one-to-one aide during the 2022-2023 school year.

As determined previously, Roseville staff universally believed that Student did not require a one-to-one aide. For example, School Psychologist Davis credibly explained that Student could successfully access the general education environment without oneto-one support. When asked if she felt that Student needed this level of support, she replied “absolutely not.” She then explained that Student had the required level of cognitive, processing, and academic skills necessary to function independently at school. Her opinion did not change when considering Student’s needs during the 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Student did not refute this testimony. Overall, Student did not meet his burden of proving that he required a one-toone aide to receive a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him with a one-to-one aide.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4e: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS SERVICES?

Student did not prove that he had behavior needs which could be supported by applied behavior analysis services. Student offered no persuasive evidence of a need for applied behavior analysis during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024. Rather, Student repeated his unpersuasive arguments regarding his alleged need for applied behavior analysis services during the 2022-2023 school year. Student’s experts again vaguely supported the idea that Student could possibly have benefited from applied behavior analysis. However, their opinions were not persuasive and lacked credibility for the reasons already discussed. Neither Irshay nor Shin were board-certified behavior analysts. Neither proved that applied behavior analysis would have addressed Student’s tardiness to school or inconsistencies with turning in work.

Student offered no persuasive evidence that he required applied behavior analysis services during the 2023-2024 school year, though May 2, 2024. Therefore, Student did not meet his burden of proving that he was denied a FAPE during the 20232024 school year, though May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him with applied behavior analysis services.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4f: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024, BY

FAILING TO PROVIDE CONSULTATION BETWEEN SPECIAL EDUCATION

TEACHERS AND GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHERS ABOUT STUDENT’S

HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENTS?

As with the 2022-2023 school year, Student offered no persuasive evidence that he was unable to access information about his homework obligations at school, or through the electronic means available to him. Nor did Student offer evidence that he missed homework assignments or failed to understand homework assignments because of a lack of consultation between his special education or general education teachers about his homework assignments. Rather, the evidence established that Student had increased his homework completion rate to between 80 percent and 90 percent without the additional consultation support Student argued he needed.

Student offered no evidence that Parent ever sought consultation between his general education and special education teachers regarding Student’s homework. Nor did Student offer any evidence that any teacher recommended that support. Student offered no evidence establishing that consultation between his general education and special education teachers was necessary for him to be able to access his special education or general education. Student did not meet his burden of proof on this issue.

Accessibility Modified

Student offered no persuasive evidence that he required consultation between special education teachers and general education teachers about his homework assignments to receive a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him this consultation support.

ISSUE 4a: DID ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

DENY STUDENT A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FROM THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH MAY 2, 2024,

BY FAILING TO PROVIDE HOME OR HOSPITAL INSTRUCTION?

The evidence established that Student was not actually seeking home or hospital instruction for the entire 2023-2024 school year, through May 2, 2024. Instead, Student argued that Roseville was required to provide him with home or hospital instruction following his April 1, 2024 orthopedic surgery on his leg, and that Roseville’s failure to do so denied him a FAPE.

Roseville argued that Student was only entitled to the special education placement and services included in his last consented to and implemented IEP, dated September 29, 2022, as amended on October 28, 2022. Roseville further argued that it was willing to accommodate Parent’s request for home or hospital instruction following Student’s surgery, but Parent’s repeated failure to communicate with Roseville staff, or consent to the offered services, prevented Roseville from providing home or hospital instruction.

Accessibility Modified

Students may receive individual instruction in their home, a hospital or other health facility when a temporary disability that makes attendance in a regular program impossible or inadvisable. (Ed. Code, § 48206.3.) This individual instruction must begin no later than five working days after the school district has determined that the student will receive this service. (Ed. Code, § 48207.5.) This service is different from individualized in-home placement and instruction pursuant to an IEP for purposes of providing a FAPE to a child with disabilities. (34 C.F.R. § 300.115(b)(1); 5 C.C.R. § 3051.4(d).)

An IEP team may recommend special education and related services in the home or hospital. (5 C.C.R. §3051.4(a).) For those pupils with exceptional needs with a medical condition, such as those related to surgery, accidents, short-term illness or medical treatment for a chronic illness, the IEP team shall review, and revise, if appropriate, the IEP whenever this is a significant change in the pupil’s current medical condition. (5 C.C.R. §3051.4(c).) When recommending placement for home instruction, the IEP team shall have in the assessment information a medical report from the attending physician and surgeon or the report of the psychologist, as appropriate, stating the diagnosed condition and certifying that the severity of the condition prevents the pupil from attending a less restrictive placement. The report shall include a projected calendar date for the pupil’s return to school. The IEP team shall meet to reconsider the IEP prior to the projected date for the pupil’s return to school. (5 C.C.R. §3051.4(d).) When a pupil with an IEP experiences an acute health problem which results in his or her non-attendance at school for more than five consecutive days, upon notification of the classroom teacher or the parent, the school principal or designee shall assure that an IEP team is convened to determine the appropriate educational services. (5 C.C.R. § 3051.17 (c).)

Accessibility Modified

On March 14, 2024, Parent provided Roseville staff with a request for home or hospital instruction on Roseville’s form, called a Physician’s Statement Requesting Home and Hospital. The form indicated that Student would have orthopedic surgery on April 1, 2024, and would be homebound until May 12, 2024. The form was signed by one of Student’s doctors.

Student’s IEP team convened on March 21, 2024, in part to discuss Parent’s request that Student receive home or hospital instruction, sometimes referred to by the parties as home hospital instruction. At the March 21, 2024 IEP team meeting, Roseville staff reiterated their belief that Student was no longer eligible for special education. Parent still did not consent to Student’s exit from special education. Roseville initially denied the request, indicating that Student was receiving special education through his last agreed upon and implemented IEP, referred to as stay put. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).) Roseville informed Parent that changing Student’s placement to home or hospital instruction would be a change to that stay put placement. Roseville staff denied Student home or hospital instruction incorrectly believing that they could not alter Student’s stay put placement by moving Student temporarily to home or hospital instruction. Roseville staff compounded this error by again denying Student home or hospital instruction during a telephone call to Parent on April 3, 2024, while Student was still in the hospital following his surgery. Nothing prevented Roseville from offering Student home or hospital instruction. Therefore, Roseville’s failure to offer Student home or hospital instruction at the March 21, 2024 IEP team meeting was a procedural error.

Nevertheless, Student did not prove that this procedural error resulted in a denial of FAPE. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2).)

Accessibility Modified

Director Johnson, who was not a member of Student’s IEP team, began communicating with Parent on April 2, 2024, regarding a previous request for an independent educational evaluation not related to any of the issues currently before OAH in this matter. During that telephone call, Parent mentioned her request for home or hospital instruction. Johnson explained that he was not aware of Parent’s request for home or hospital instruction and would investigate the situation. During the hearing, Parent admitted that she would not communicate with the school following a telephone call with Roseville staff, not including Johnson, on April 3, 2024, because she felt that Roseville staff were not going to help her or Student. Parent explained, “[w]e were too far in. It was too far gone, and I was done with communication with them.”

The evidence established that Johnson attempted to offer home or hospital instruction the same week as his April 2, 2024 telephone call. Parent admitted that Johnson repeatedly tried to call her, as early as April 5, 2024, to discuss her request for home or hospital instruction, but she did not answer. Johnson subsequently attempted to contact Parent using Student’s father’s telephone number in addition to Parent’s. Johnson emailed Parent on April 17, 2024, to propose a temporary change in placement to home or hospital instruction through May 12, 2024, the date Student’s doctor anticipated that he could return to school, at which time Student’s program would revert back to that reflected in the September 29, 2022 IEP as amended on October 28, 2022. Parent did not reply to that email.

On April 22, 2024, Johnson prepared a proposed IEP amendment reflecting the offer he made in the April 17, 2024 email. Johnson sent that proposed IEP amendment

Accessibility Modified to Parent multiple times through Roseville’s electronic IEP document system, which allows staff to send IEP documents to parents for their electronic signatures. Johnson sent the April 22, 2024 IEP amendment to Parent on

April 22, 2024;

May 9, 2024;

May 14, 2024;

June 11, 2024; and

July 1, 2024.

Parent never signed the April 22, 2024 IEP amendment.

Johnson and Jeff Clark, Program Specialist for Roseville, conducted a home visit on April 23, 2024. Johnson and Clark provided Parent with a copy of the April 22, 2024 IEP amendment in addition to Student’s textbooks and homework assignments assigned while he was absent, and other requested educational records. Parent admitted that she again did not consent to Roseville providing Student with home or hospital instruction. Following Parent’s lack of response to the April 22, 2024 email and IEP amendment, Roseville offered to convene an IEP team meeting on May 3, 2024, to discuss home or hospital instruction and Student’s transition back to campus. Roseville sent Parent an IEP team meeting notice on April 25, 2024. Parent did not respond to that meeting notice or attend the IEP team meeting. When asked why she did not attend that IEP team meeting, Parent replied, “I had already decided not to be in contact because I had already reached out for help, and I wasn’t going to deal with the school any longer.”

Accessibility Modified

As determined above, Roseville’s failure to offer home or hospital instruction during the March 21, 2024 IEP team meeting was a procedural violation of the IDEA. However, a procedural violation only constitutes a denial of FAPE if the violation impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding provision of a FAPE to the student; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2).) None of these circumstances occurred here. A school district must implement an IEP as soon as possible following its development and receipt of parental consent. (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c)(2)(2006); Ed Code, §§ 56043, 56344.) General education home or hospital instruction provided in a student’s home pursuant to Ed. Code, § 48206.3 must commence within five working days after the school district determined the student required this service. (Ed. Code, § 48207.5.) By analogy, the timeframe for beginning home instruction for general education students provides a reasonable timeframe for a school district to implement an IEP which requires home instruction.

Although Roseville committed a procedural error, Roseville timely moved to correct that error. Assuming that Roseville properly offered home or hospital instruction at the March 21, 2024 IEP team meeting, and Parent consented on the same day, Roseville should have started that service within five working days. March 21, 2024, was a Thursday, and the following week was Roseville’s spring break. Therefore, five working days would have been April 4, 2024.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

Roseville’s attempts to correct its error were within the timeframe that Roseville reasonably had to implement the home instruction. Even if Johnson’s call to Parent to remedy the situation occurred on April 5, 2024, a single day delay is not material. (Van

Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J (9th Cir. 2007) 502 F.3d 811, 822 [only a material failure to implement an IEP violates the IDEA].) Nevertheless, Parent’s refusal to communicate with Roseville from April 3, 2024, forward hindered Roseville’s attempts to correct its error.

At that point, Parent’s refusal to communicate with Roseville staff became the impediment to Student receiving home or hospital instruction. Accordingly, Roseville’s actions did not impede Student’s right to a FAPE or cause a deprivation of educational benefits. Similarly, Parent was not denied the ability to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. To the contrary, Roseville was actively trying to have Parent participate, but Parent repeatedly and knowingly refused to do so.

Therefore, Roseville’s procedural error of not offering home and hospital instruction at the March 21, 2024 IEP team meeting did not deny Student a FAPE. Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, when Roseville did not provide him home or hospital instruction.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

As required by 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.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1, SUBSECTION a:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not assessing Student in the area of functional behavior.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 1, subsection a.

ISSUE 1, SUBSECTION b:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not assessing Student in the area of assistive technology and augmentative communication.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 1, subsection b.

ISSUE 1, SUBSECTION c:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not assessing Student in the area of speech and language.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 1, subsection c.

ISSUE 2, SUBSECTION a:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing Student speech and language services.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 2, subsection a.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2, SUBSECTION b:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing Student specialized transportation.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 2, subsection b.

ISSUE 2, SUBSECTION c:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing Student a one-to-one aide. Roseville prevailed on Issue 2, subsection c.

ISSUE 2, SUBSECTION d:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing Student applied behavior analysis services.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 2, subsection d.

ISSUE 2, SUBSECTION e:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by not providing Student consultation between special education and general education teachers regarding Student’s homework assignments.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 2, subsection e.

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION a:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by not assessing Student in the area of functional behavior.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 3, subsection a.

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION b:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by not assessing Student in the area of assistive technology and augmentative communication.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 3, subsection b.

ISSUE 3, SUBSECTION c:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by not assessing Student in the area of speech and language.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 3, subsection c.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION a:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student home or hospital instruction.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection a.

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION b:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student speech and language services.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection b.

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION c:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student specialized transportation.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection c.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION d:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student a one-to-one aide.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection d.

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION e:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student applied behavior analysis services.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection e.

ISSUE 4, SUBSECTION f:

Roseville Joint Union High School District did not deny Student a FAPE from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year through May 2, 2024, by failing to provide Student consultation between special education and general education teachers regarding Student’s homework assignments.

Roseville prevailed on Issue 4, subsection f.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

ORDER

1.

Student did not prevail on any issues.

2.

All of Student’s requested relief is denied.

RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION

This is a final administrative decision, and all parties are bound by it. Pursuant to Education Code section 56505, subdivision (k), any party may appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt.

Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility Modified