Mendocino Unified School District v. Student

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MENDOCINO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

v.

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.

CASE NO. 2025040010

DECISION

JUNE 2, 2025

On March 28, 2025, Mendocino Unified School District, called Mendocino, filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Student. On April 8, 2025, OAH granted Student’s request for continuance. Administrative Law Judge Paul H. Kamoroff heard this matter by videoconference on May 6, and 7, 2025.

Attorney Debra I. Sanders represented Mendocino. Kimberly Humrichouse, principal at Mendocino K-8 School, attended all hearing days on Mendocino’s behalf. Mother represented Student.

Accessibility Modified

At Student’s request, OAH continued the matter to May 21, 2025, for written closing briefs. Student’s closing brief was not considered for this Decision because it was not timely submitted. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on May 21, 2025.

ISSUE

Is Mendocino’s January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment appropriate, such that Mendocino can deny Parents’ request for an independent educational evaluation?

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, called FAPE, 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).)

Accessibility Modified

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 FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 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, and has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); 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).) Mendocino had the burden of proof for the issue alleged in this matter. 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 13 years old and in seventh grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within Mendocino’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under the category speech or language impairment.

ISSUE: THE JANUARY 25, 2025 SPEECH AND LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT

Mendocino contends its January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment of Student was legally compliant and appropriately conducted. Therefore, it argues it is not required to fund the independent educational evaluation for speech and language requested by Parents. Relying on the results of this assessment, Mendocino convened an individualized education program, called IEP, team meeting in March 2025 and recommended discontinuing Student’s speech and language services and exiting him from special education.

Accessibility Modified

Parents disagree, asserting the assessment was flawed because it recommended ending Student’s speech and language services and eligibility under the speech or language impairment category. Parents maintain that Student continues to require speech and language services, particularly to address his stuttering disorder. Before determining a student’s eligibility for special education, a school district must assess the student in all areas of suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a), (b); Ed. Code, §§ 56320, 56321.) Reassessments must occur at least every three years, but not more than once per year, unless otherwise agreed. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2).)

Assessments must be conducted with parental consent and proper written notice, which includes a proposed assessment plan and a copy of the parent’s procedural safeguards. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(b)(1); 1415(b)(3), (c)(1); Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (a).) The plan must be in the parent’s native language, clearly describe the assessments to be conducted, identify qualified assessors, and state that no IEP will result without parental consent. (Ed. Code, § 56321, subds. (a), (b)(1)-(4); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3)-(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.9(a).)

Assessments must use valid, reliable tools administered by qualified personnel in a non-discriminatory manner and in the student’s native language. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A); Ed. Code, § 56320, subds. (a), (b)(3).) Assessors must use multiple measures and incorporate relevant parent input. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A); Ed. Code, § 56320, subds. (b), (e).) Adherence to the testing producer’s instructions is required. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(v); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (b)(3).)

Accessibility Modified

If a parent disagrees with a district’s assessment, they have the right to request an independent educational evaluation at public expense. The district must then, without undue delay, either fund the independent educational evaluation or file for due process to defend its assessment. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1)–(2);

Baquerizo v. Garden Grove Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2016) 826 F.3d 1179, 1185.) Student has been eligible for special education since 2019, under the category of speech or language impairment. As part of his three-year reassessment, Mendocino conducted health and speech and language assessments. Mendocino completed the speech and language assessment on January 25, 2025.

At a March 20, 2025 IEP team meeting, Mendocino relied on this assessment to recommend that Student no longer qualified for speech and language services or special education. Parents disagreed and, on March 25, 2025, requested a publicly funded independent educational evaluation. Mendocino responded by filing for due process on March 28, 2025, to defend its assessment.

Mendocino speech-language pathologist Samantha Skowron conducted the speech and language assessment. Her report, dated January 25, 2025, summarized testing that began in November 2024, and concluded in January 2025. However, the report failed to specify the exact dates on which each test was administered. Skowron was a speech-language pathologist with Mendocino since 2021. She provided speech and language services to Student and acted as his IEP case manager. Mendocino called Skowron to testify in support of her assessment and Mendocino’s decision to deny Parents’ request for an independent educational evaluation. The

Accessibility Modified parties called only two witnesses during the hearing, Skowron and Mother. Mother’s testimony did not support the speech and language assessment or Mendocino’s decision to deny Parents’ request for an independent educational evaluation. As part of her assessment, Skowron observed Student during class transitions and lunch recess. Skowron collected input from teachers and Student, but did not obtain any information from Parents. The assessment included the following instruments:

Oral and Written Language Scales, Second Edition

Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, Third Edition

Stuttering Severity Instrument, Fourth Edition

Conversational Speech and Language Sample

Vocal Quality Observation

Fluency Assessment

Pragmatic Language Observation

Hearing Screening

Based on these measures, Skowron concluded that Student had average overall speech and language abilities and a mild stuttering disorder. She determined the stuttering disorder did not impact his access to education and recommended discontinuing both his speech and language services and eligibility under the speech or language impairment category.

However, there were significant problems with Skowron’s testimony. She initially claimed to observe Student daily in class, but later admitted she only observed him once or twice a month, and only indirectly while working with another student.

Accessibility Modified

Skowron testified that her recommendation to terminate services was based on Student’s progress towards IEP goals. Yet, she could not identify which goals she had worked on, how progress was measured, or which IEP was operative at the time of the assessment. She was unfamiliar with Student’s goals and IEPs.

Additionally, Skowron could not reliably describe the duration and frequency of services she provided. While she stated Student received 300 minutes of speech and language services per year, she vaguely recalled providing services once or twice per month, and acknowledged missing some sessions for various reasons. Skowron was also unable to describe what tasks she worked on with Student during his speech and language therapy.

Given Skowron’s dual role as Student’s service provider and IEP case manager, her lack of knowledge and conflicting testimony significantly undermined her credibility as a witness.

Furthermore, Mendocino failed to establish necessary procedural and substantive elements of a valid assessment. Mendocino failed to show it provided Parents legally sufficient notice, obtained necessary parental input, or followed required testing instructions, as further detailed below.

THE ASSESSMENT PLAN AND PARENTAL NOTICE

Parents play an integral role in the assessment process and an assessment may not be done without parental consent. To obtain parental consent for an assessment, the school district must provide proper notice to the student and their parent. (20 U.S.C.

Accessibility Modified

§ 1414(b)(1); Ed. Code, §§ 56321, subd. (a), 56381, subd. (a).) The notice consists of the proposed assessment plan and a copy of parental procedural rights under the IDEA and related state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (a).) Mendocino determined that Student’s three-year-assessments were due and proposed to reassess Student’s health and speech and language. Mendocino was therefore required to provide Parents an assessment plan that met procedural requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(a); Ed. Code, § 56321, subds. (a) & (b)(1)-(4).) The proposed assessment plan had to be written in Parents’ native language, which was English. The plan had to be written clearly and in terms understandable by the general public. It had to explain the types of assessments to be conducted and identify qualified staff to conduct the assessments. The assessment plan had to be comprehensive and include assessments in all areas of suspected deficit. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(b)(1), 1415(b)(3), (c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(a); Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (a).)

During the hearing, Mendocino failed to establish that it provided Parents an assessment plan that met these requirements. Mendocino did not submit the assessment plan into evidence or offer testimony verifying that it met legal requirements. As a result, Mendocino failed to prove that it provided proper notice or obtained valid parental consent. This failure rendered the assessment procedurally flawed.

FAILURE TO OBTAIN PARENTAL INPUT

Parents are a vital part of the assessment process. Assessments are required to include information provided by a parent to assist in determining whether the child has

Accessibility Modified a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414 (b)(2)(A); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (b).) Consequently, it was necessary for Mendocino to obtain information from a parent as part of its speech and language assessment.

Mendocino failed to obtain information from a parent, or to take reasonable steps to obtain parental input, as part of its January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment.

Skowron testified she attempted to obtain parental input by mailing Parents a testing questionnaire, but Parents failed to respond to the questionnaire. However, she could not identify the questionnaire used and later admitted it was sent to an incorrect address for Mother, who lives separately from Father. She made no further effort – by phone, email, or otherwise – to contact either parent to obtain their input for the assessment.

This failure to obtain crucial parental information rendered the assessment incomplete.

FAILURE TO FOLLOW TESTING INSTRUCTIONS

Federal and state law require assessments to follow standardized instructions. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(v); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (b)(3).) Without adherence to testing instructions, the assessment will yield unreliable data. Without accurate assessment information, a parent is unable to determine the types of services necessary or evaluate the services or placement recommended for a student.

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

Accessibility Modified

Mendocino failed to establish that the testing included in its January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment followed the producer’s testing instructions. Skowron testified that she gave Student breaks during the Stuttering Severity Instrument test, although she acknowledged such breaks were not permitted by the test publisher. Moreover, Mendocino presented no documentary evidence to show that the assessments were administered in compliance with the producer’s instructions. This testimony and omission of evidence raised concerns about the validity of the assessment results.

Given the nature of Student’s disability, it was crucial to have accurate information regarding his speech and language needs, and particularly his stuttering disorder. Mendocino’s failure to prove it obtained reliable information regarding Student’s disability rendered the speech and language assessment materially defective. Mendocino failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment of Student complied with legal requirements and was appropriately conducted. Therefore, Student is entitled to an independent educational evaluation for speech and language, funded by Mendocino.

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

Mendocino’s January 25, 2025 speech and language assessment was not appropriate, such that Mendocino cannot deny Parents’ request for an independent educational evaluation.

Student prevailed on the Issue for this matter.

ORDER

Mendocino shall fund an independent speech and language evaluation for Student.

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.

PAUL H. KAMOROFF

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility Modified