Student v. Earlimart School District (consolidated)

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, AND

EARLIMART SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2026010501

CASE NO. 2026031274

DECISION

SEPTEMBER 30, 2026

On January 13, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Parents on behalf of Student naming Earlimart School District, called Earlimart, in OAH case number 2026010501. On February 20, 2026, OAH continued the due process hearing to April 14 through 16, 2026, for good cause.

On March 27, 2026, Earlimart filed a due process hearing request with OAH naming Student in OAH case number 2026031274. On April 3, 2026, OAH consolidated Earlimart’s and Student’s cases and continued the due process hearing to May 19 through 21, 2026. On May 8, 2026, OAH granted a further continuance for good cause to July 7 through 9, 2026.

On May 11, 2026, Earlimart filed a request to dismiss its case. On May 13, 2026, OAH dismissed Earlimart’s case. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded only as to Student’s case.

Administrative Law Judge Jennifer Kelly heard this matter by videoconference on July 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, and 31, and August 6 and 11, 2026. Attorney Andrea Marcus represented Student. Parent attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Attorneys Amanda J. Cordova and Anna M. Wood represented Earlimart. Angelica Jimenez, Earlimart’s Director of Student Support Services, attended each hearing day on Earlimart’s behalf. OAH provided Spanish language interpretation during each day of hearing.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to September 8, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on September 8, 2026.

ISSUES

A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.

On June 29, 2026, the ALJ held a prehearing conference and issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference, determining the issues to be decided at hearing. The order stated that the parties were required to promptly file a written objection if the issues stated in the Order did not accurately reflect their understanding of the issues or they otherwise objected to any stated issue. Neither party filed an objection.

Student withdrew Issue 8 on the first hearing day. The issues retain their original number for clarity. Issue 1 is analyzed last.

On the second hearing day, Student clarified that no May 8, 2024, IEP existed. At Student’s request, and without objection by Earlimart, that date was removed from Issues 2 and 3. Accordingly, Issues 2 and 3 pertain only to the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP.

Student’s Issue 9B originally identified a September 10, 2025, request for one-toone aide support. Neither party offered evidence of an IEP on that date. Both parties introduced and addressed the September 19, 2025, amendment IEP and Parent’s request at that meeting. Therefore, Issue 9B refers to a September 19, 2025, amendment IEP. Student’s remaining Issues for hearing, as reflected in the Order Following Prehearing Conference as modified on the record at the hearing, are stated below. 1. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE beginning January 13, 2024, and continuing through the date the complaint was filed on January 13, 2026, by failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability, specifically in:

A. social skills, B. attention to task, C. communication skills, D. behavior, and E. adaptive behavior, including toileting?

2. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year in an amendment IEP dated May 28, 2024, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in all areas of need, specifically in: A. communication, B. social skills, C. attention, D. behavior; and E. adaptive behavior, including toileting?

3. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year in an amendment IEP dated May 28, 2024, by failing to offer Student appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by:

A. failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised/and or credentialed staff, and B. failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable?

4. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, January 27, March 18, and 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in all areas of need, specifically in: A. communication, B. social skills,

C. attention, D. behavior, and E. adaptive behavior, including toileting?

5. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, January 27, March 18, and 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by:

A. failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised/and or credentialed staff, and B. failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable?

6. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in all areas of need, specifically in: A. communication, B. social skills, C. attention, D. behavior, and E. adaptive behavior, including toileting?

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

7. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025, by failing to offer Student appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by:

A. failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised/and or credentialed staff, and B. failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable?

8. Withdrawn at hearing.

9. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from January 13, 2024, through January 13, 2026, by failing to:

A. timely provide Parent a prior written notice denying her request for an occupational therapy assessment for Student, B. provide a prior written notice in response to Parent’s requests on September 13, 2024, and September 19, 2025, for one-to-one aide support for Student, and C. provide a prior written notice following Parent’s objection at IEP team meetings held in August and September 2025, to delivering Student’s speech and language services in a virtual versus an in-person model?

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

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called IDEA, 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 IDEA are to ensure:

all children with disabilities have available to them a 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).)

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 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).) In this case, Student had the (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. 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).)

This Decision does not cite to the administrative record because it was not available before the issuance of this Decision. Furthermore, OAH policy is that its decisions do not include citations to the record. OAH Decisions are written in an accessible font and format as required by state and federal law. Student was six years old at the time of hearing and a rising first grader. Student resided within Earlimart’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Spanish was the primary language spoken in Student’s home. Student was eligible for special education under the category of autism. Student had deficits in communication and social interaction that adversely affected his educational performance. Student’s speech was largely unintelligible to unfamiliar listeners. Student relied primarily on hand gestures, visual icons, and a tablet to communicate. Student required individual adult support to sustain attention, complete tasks, and manage his behaviors. Parent withdrew Student from school on October 24, 2025, due to safety concerns. At the time of hearing, Student did not attend school.

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.) Special education is instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C.

§ 1401(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(a), (b)(3); Ed. Code, § 56031, subd. (a).) Related services are transportation and other developmental, corrective, and supportive services that are required to assist the child in benefitting from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34; Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a) [in California, related services are also called designated instruction and services].)

In general, a child eligible for special education must be provided access to specialized instruction and related services that 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 School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204 [102 S.Ct. 3034] (Rowley); Endrew F. v. Douglas County School Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 403 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000] (Endrew F.).)

An IEP is a written document for each child with a disability that includes a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320 (a)(1); Ed. Code, § 56345 subd. (a)(1) and (2).) An IEP must contain a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the pupil, or on behalf of the pupil, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals and to be involved in and make progress in the regular education curriculum and participate in nonacademic activities, and to be educated and participate with other individuals with exceptional needs and nondisabled pupils. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).)

Parents and school personnel develop an IEP for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501; see Ed. Code, §§ 56031, 56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a), and 56363, subd. (a).) In developing the IEP, the IEP team shall consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child, the results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation of the child and the academic, functional, and developmental needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A).)

SEPTEMBER 2022 INITIAL ASSESSMENT AND IEP

In September 2022, when Student was two years and `11 months old, Earlimart completed assessments to determine if Student met eligibility for special education. Earlimart’s school psychologist Daniella Duran and speech-language pathologist Crystal Bueno completed a multidisciplinary assessment in psychoeducation and speech and language. Student did not yet attend school.

School psychologist Duran testified at hearing. Duran held a master’s degree in education and was a licensed school psychologist. Duran was trained in crisis intervention prevention. Duran conducted special education assessments, including multidisciplinary and functional behavior assessments, prepared behavior intervention plans, and oversaw teachers at Earlimart’s three school sites. Duran conducted approximately 100 multidisciplinary assessments and had experience working with children with autism.

Duran’s initial psychoeducational evaluation included a review of background information, a Parent interview, testing observations, and assessments in cognitive, social-emotional-behavior, and autism. Parent’s main concern was Student’s behavior and inability to play appropriately.

Duran evaluated Student’s social skills, attention to task, and adaptive behavior through the:

Developmental Assessment of Young Children, Second Edition (called Developmental Assessment);

Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (called Behavior Assessment), and Autism Spectrum Rating Scales (Autism Scales).

Student’s scores on the Developmental Assessment in adaptive behavior, or the ability to independently function, were in the very poor range. In toileting, Student had emerging skills. Student tried to wash his own hands, helped put things away, and brushed his teeth independently.

Student’s social skills, or his social awareness, social relationships, and social competence fell in the very poor range. Student had difficulty regulating his emotions and communicating without frustration.

Student’s scores on the Behavior Assessment in social skills and adaptive skills fell in the at-risk category. Student struggled with sharing toys and responding appropriately when asked a question. He became frustrated easily and did not adapt easily to change. Student’s scores on the Autism Scales demonstrated he had many behavioral characteristics similar to children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. These behaviors included not playing well with others, not looking at others during interactions, preferring to play alone, and hyper-focusing on one activity.

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

Speech-language pathologist Bueno assessed Student’s speech and language needs as part of the initial September 2022 evaluation. Bueno held a master’s degree in Communicative Disorders-Speech Language Pathology and was a licensed speechlanguage pathologist. She worked as a speech-language pathologist for over 10 years. Bueno performed an oral facial examination, observed Student, and interviewed Parent and a teacher, and administered multiple assessments, including the:

Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test, Fourth Edition;

Developmental Assessment of Young Children Second Edition, and the

Learning to Learn Program Assessment of Strengths and Developmental Differences.

Based upon her assessments, Bueno determined Student had expressive, social and receptive language delays. Student could vocalize sounds and could say the word “mama”. Bueno could not assess Student’s articulation because Student could not repeat targeted words.

Earlimart held an IEP team meeting on September 21, 2022. Earlimart found Student eligible for special education under the category of autism. The IEP team identified communication, adaptive and social needs, and expressive, receptive, and social language delays. Earlimart offered Student a special education program that included speech and language services and consultation between the school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, and Parent.

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

2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR – PRESCHOOL

Student attended a general education, half-day preschool program at an elementary school within Earlimart during the 2023-2024 school year when he was three years old. Student received private applied behavior analysis services outside the school setting for three hours in the morning, and attended preschool daily from 12:00 PM to 2:30 PM. Applied behavior analysis is an evidence-based methodology used to understand and change behavior.

Earlimart held an annual IEP team meeting for Student on September 18, 2023. At that time, Student demonstrated difficulties with language, sensory, behavior, and emotional development. Student had age-appropriate academic skills, but struggled to participate in classroom activities for more than three to four minutes without adult support. Student did not allow peers to play with shared items. Student pushed, screamed, hit, and pulled hair when he was upset.

Student enjoyed books, listening to songs, pointing to days of the week, and puzzles. He could sequence a familiar story with pictures, identify numbers one through 10, and order objects by size. His academic and gross and fine motor skills were reportedly age appropriate.

Student followed simple directions and classroom routines with adult support. His teacher paired verbal redirection with visual reminders, and without that support Student often left the routine.

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

Student was largely nonverbal. He imitated animal sounds with a model, led the speech-language pathologist by the hand, and grabbed items. He independently identified one icon on his speech-generating device and tapped two to three with gestural cues. He understood core words, including “go,” “open,” “up,” “down,” and “all done/finished.”

Parent expressed concern about classroom support and believed a communication device could reduce Student’s aggression. The education specialist had developed visual supports, first-then boards, and token boards to clarify expectations. The September 18, 2023 IEP team determined Student had needs in language, sensory, behavior, and emotional development. The IEP offered Student four goals in functional/adaptive skills, social-emotional-behavior, and communication. The September 18, 2023 IEP offered Student a variety of accommodations, including:

reduced visual, auditory and sensory distractions, a workspace clear of unrelated materials, providing additional personal space when standing in line and during instructional time, preferred seating, giving directions in small steps, a first-then board and/or token board, a visual timer, and rewards for positive behaviors.

The IEP offered Student placement in a general education preschool classroom with the following related services:

60 minutes weekly specialized academic instruction through direct individual and/or small group instruction, and/or collaboration between the special education staff, general education staff, and Parents;

180 minutes monthly speech and language services provided in six, 30-minute sessions, described as direct services, consultation, and/or collaboration between the special education staff, general education teacher, and Parent to support language and sound development; and

30 minutes monthly consultation between the school psychologist, Parent, and the speech-language pathologist.

The first page of the September 18, 2023, IEP stated that the next annual review was due by September 17, 2024, and the next three-year review by September 20, 2025. Parent consented to the IEP on September 25, 2023.

NOVEMBER 2023 AUGMENTATIVE AND ALTERNATIVE

COMMUNICATION ASSESSMENT

At the September 18, 2023 IEP team meeting, Earlimart offered Parent an assessment plan to conduct an assistive technology assessment to determine if an augmentative and alternative communication device would be appropriate for Student. Parent consented to the assessment plan on September 18, 2023.

An augmentative and alternative communication device is equipment used to increase, maintain or improve the functional communication abilities of individuals with disabilities. An augmentative and alternative communication service is any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an augmentative and alternative communication device. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(1); Ed. Code, § 56020.5.)

Speech-language pathologist Bueno conducted an augmentative and alternative communication assessment and a November 9, 2023 written report. The purpose of the assessment was to determine what type of augmentative and alternative communication device and strategies could support Student in his educational environment. Bueno interviewed Student’s teacher, directly observed Student, and administered an assessment designed to choose an appropriate technology device and software. At the November 9, 2023, amendment IEP team meeting, Bueno reported that Student’s expressive communication deficits significantly limited his functional communication. He used an iPad with a communication application called GoTalk Now for single words and short phrases as well as body movements, sounds, facial expressions, visuals, and gestures. Bueno reported that Student’s iPad application displayed 32 icons using core vocabulary icons. He independently identified four and understood approximately 12 core words, including ”go,” “all done,” and “stop.” He did not consistently use the device during classroom activities. Bueno recommended an electronic tablet with a dynamic display, a prompt hierarchy, aided language input, and repeated opportunities to communicate.

During her assessment, Bueno tried a dynamic display device application called ProLoQuo2Go with Student. Student was able to navigate within the display pages and make selections in a group of 36 icon-based symbols. In her report, Bueno stated that using augmentative and alternative communication strategies could decrease Student’s frustration and disruptive behaviors resulting from his inability to express his wants and needs.

The November 9, 2023, IEP amendment team agreed that visuals, a communication board, and a device with software could expand Student’s social greetings, questions, and interactions. Earlimart would order the device and schedule meetings to review the technology policy and assist Parent and classroom staff in implementing the communication program. Parent consented to the November 9, 2023, amendment IEP that day.

ISSUES 2A THROUGH 2E: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE

MAY 28, 2024, AMENDMENT IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER GOALS IN SOCIAL

SKILLS, ATTENTION TO TASK, COMMUNICATION SKILLS, BEHAVIOR, AND

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING TOILETING?

Student contends the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP should have modified or added goals in communication, social skills, attention, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting, because he had not made adequate progress.

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

Earlimart contends that Student made progress toward his September 18, 2023, annual goals and had no newly identified needs requiring additional goals. It also argues that challenges to the original September 2023 offer are time-barred. Only three school days remained after the May 28, 2024, meeting, and the annual review was due in September 2024.

The appropriateness of the September 18, 2023, IEP goals at the time they were offered was not at issue in this hearing as that IEP fell outside the two-year statute of limitations. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)(B), 1415(f)(3)(C); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).) As discussed with the parties on day two of the hearing, and without objection by Earlimart, Student argues the issue is whether Earlimart failed to offer modified or additional goals in the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP based upon Student’s lack of progress towards his annual goals and his anticipated needs. Therefore, Issue 2A through 2E addresses whether Earlimart should have offered additional or different goals based on Student’s lack of anticipated progress and his known needs at the time of the May 28, 2024 amendment IEP team meeting.

An IEP must contain a statement of measurable annual goals for the child, including academic and functional goals, designed to:

meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).)

For each area in which a child has an identified need, the IEP team must develop measurable annual goals that are based upon the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, and which the child has a reasonable chance of attaining within a year. (Ed. Code, § 56344; Letter to Butler (U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) March 25, 1988); U.S. Dept. of Education, Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 C.F.R., part 300, Question 4 (1999 regulations).) The IEP must show a direct relationship between the present levels of performance, the goals, and the educational services to be provided to the student. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040, subd. (c).) A child’s needs are broadly construed to include the child’s academic, social, health, emotional, communicative, physical, and vocational needs. (Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v. B.S. (9th Cir. 1996) 83 F.3d 1493, 1500, abrogated in part by Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 56-58.)

The IEP must include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured, and when periodic reports of the child’s progress will be provided to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II) & (III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2) & (3); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1) & (2).) The purpose of annual goals is to permit the IEP team to determine whether the child is making progress in an area of need. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a); see also, 64 Fed. Reg. 12,471 (1999).) An examination of the goals is central to the determination of whether the student was offered a FAPE: “[W]e look to the [IEP] goals and goal achieving methods at the time the plan was implemented and ask whether these methods were reasonably calculated to confer … a meaningful benefit.” (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149 (Adams), citing Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Board of Education (3d Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041 (Fuhrmann).)

The IDEA does not require an IEP to contain every goal from which a student might benefit. (Capistrano Unified School Dist. v. S.W., et al. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1133, cert. den. sub nom. S.W. on behalf of B.W. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (2022) 143 S.Ct. 98 (Capistrano).)

“[T]he IEP annual goals must meet a student’s needs, but the IDEA does not require that they have a one-to-one correspondence with specific needs. So long as the goals, as a whole, address the student’s needs and enable progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances, the IEP is appropriate.” (K.M. by & through Markham v. Tehachapi Unified School

Dist. (E.D.Cal. April 5, 2017) 2017 WL 1348807, at *17 (K.M.).) A goal must be clear and measurable as written in the IEP, and cannot leave material aspects of the goal to be decided later. (See Knable v. Bexley City School Dist. (6th Cir. 2001) 238 F.3d 755, 769 (a generalized proposal of behavioral and educational goals is not sufficient); M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1198-1199 (IEP that offered the student use of an assistive technology device, but did not specify what device was offered, was "useless as a blueprint for enforcement," infringed the parent's opportunity to participate in the IEP process, and denied the student a FAPE).)

The adequacy of an IEP is evaluated considering information available to the IEP team at the time it was developed; it is not judged in hindsight. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149.) This evaluation standard is known as the “snapshot rule”. (J.W. v. Fresno

Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 439.)

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

The IEP team is required to review a child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and revise the IEP as appropriate to address:

the lack of progress toward the annual goals;

the results of any reevaluation;

information provided to or by the parents;

the child’s anticipated needs; or other matters.

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1).) California law provides that an IEP team shall meet whenever the pupil demonstrates a lack of anticipated progress; or the parent or teacher requests a meeting to develop, review, or revise the IEP. (Ed. Code, § 56343, subds. (b), (c).)

A failure to offer an appropriate goal may be a procedural violation of the IDEA. (Park v. Anaheim Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1025, 1031 (Park).) A procedural violation denies a student a FAPE when it:

impedes the student’s right to a FAPE;

significantly interferes with parental participation; or deprives the student of educational benefit or opportunity.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)); W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target

Range Dist. No. 23 (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 (Target Range).)

MAY 28, 2024, AMENDMENT IEP

Earlimart convened an amendment IEP team meeting on May 28, 2024. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Student’s transition from preschool to transitional kindergarten. Student was four years, eight months old.

The IEP team members included:

Parent, a Spanish language interpreter provided by Earlimart,

Earlimart principal Debbie Noe,

Jimenez, who was a vice principal at the time, early childhood education specialist Amy Valencia, early childhood education specialist Michele Stephens, school psychologist Gabriela Aguilar, speech-language pathologist Bueno, a general education teacher, a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center, and

Parent’s two lay advocates.

Student attended preschool in the afternoons. In the mornings, Student received private applied behavior analysis services outside the school setting. Student’s operative goals at the time were the four goals from the September 18, 2023, IEP. Student had two goals in functional/adaptive skills. The first functional/adaptive skill goal addressed Student’s difficulty to sustain attention to task. The second functional/adaptive skill goal aimed for Student to develop skills to transition between activities. The social-emotional/behavior goal addressed Student’s tantrum-like behavior when sharing preferred items with his peers. The one communication goal sought for Student to combine two words during structured play tasks using a total communication approach.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP by failing to offer modified or additional goals in communication, social skills, attention, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting. The May 28, 2024, amendment IEP’s notes reflect that the IEP team discussed Student’s progress towards his IEP goals. The notes state Student made steady progress towards his goals, but he did not reach his June 2024 objectives. Speech-language pathologist Bueno reported on Student’s progress towards his communication goal. Student was interested in books. Student had an iPad in the classroom and during speech sessions, but he was not using it regularly at school. Bueno believed Student’s communication had improved but he preferred to use gestures and visual supports. He ignored attempts by adults to use his iPad. Student’s general education teacher shared that Student communicated primarily by pointing to visual icons on a keyring she carried with her. Student struggled with non-preferred activities and during unstructured time.

Parent expressed concerns about Student’s progress in speech. He could babble or point but could not communicate verbally. When he became frustrated, he hit himself in the head and acted out by hitting, biting, pushing and scratching. Student would elope or run away, especially if he saw a peer doing the same. Parent believed Student required one-to-one aide support.

The IEP team discussed that beginning in fall 2024 Student would attend a general education transitional kindergarten program. Student’s education teacher relayed she would meet with Student’s new general education teacher at the start of the school year to review his IEP and accommodations and to collaborate with the teacher. Parent relayed that Student’s private applied behavior analysis services would end in late July 2024, and she was working on obtaining in-home services. Parent asked if Student could attend transitional kindergarten on a modified schedule. The IEP team discussed the importance of having Student attend school for the entire school day. The general education teacher believed some of Student’s frustration resulted from attending both applied behavior analysis services in the morning and preschool in the afternoon. The IEP team generally discussed Student’s need for behavior support in the classroom. The May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team did not discuss if Student’s goals should be changed, or if he required additional goals based on a lack of progress. The education specialist told the IEP team that Student’s annual IEP was scheduled for September 2024 and at that time the IEP team could determine if Student required additional supports. The May 28, 2024, amendment IEP increased Student’s specialized academic instruction from 60 minutes weekly to 60 minutes daily to reflect Student’s anticipated attendance in the full-day general education transitional kindergarten class. No other changes were made to Student’s IEP.

Education specialist Valencia attended the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting and testified at hearing. Valencia held a master’s degree in educational leadership and was a credentialed education specialist authorized to teach mild-tomoderate and moderate-to-severe students with disabilities. She also held a multiple subject teaching credential and an added authorization in Early Childhood Special Education. Valencia had experience working with children with autism and maladaptive behaviors. She was trained in deescalation and positive behavior interventions. Valencia did not provide services to Student during the 2023-2024 school year. Valencia recalled that Parent requested one-to-one aide support at the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting, but otherwise could not recall the substance of the meeting.

At hearing, Bueno opined that Student made anticipated progress towards his communication goal at the time of the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting. She described Student’s progress as using his iPad by selecting icons on the device, and imitating animal sounds. She did not believe that additional verbal goals were required at the time. She reasoned Student was not using enough verbal language and therefore a verbal language goal was not needed.

School psychologist Aguilar testified at hearing. Aguilar held a master’s degree in psychology and was a licensed school psychologist. She worked as a school psychologist for Earlimart since 2021. Student did not elicit testimony from Aguilar about any anticipated lack of progress towards his social-emotional/behavior or other goals at the time of the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP. Student did not call as witnesses Student’s general education or special education teachers during the 2023-2024 school year.

Student called two parents whose children attended school within Earlimart. The parents offered testimony about Student’s behaviors during the school years at issue. They described Student’s social skills, communication, and behavioral deficits known by

Earlimart. Neither parent held any credentials in education or special education, and were not familiar with Student’s IEPs. Although well-intended, their testimony was not persuasive in proving the FAPE violations alleged by Student.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP was objectively unreasonable at the time it was drafted. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149 The IEP team reasonably believed Student was making some progress towards his goals. The IEP team was aware of Student’s communication and behavioral deficits, and his existing IEP goals targeted his needs. No IEP team member, including Parent, suggested Student required different goals. The IEP team considered that Student would be attending a full-time transitional kindergarten program the upcoming fall 2024 and that his annual IEP would be held in September 2024. Student had attended preschool on only a limited basis, and it was reasonable to determine he needed more time to work on his annual goals.

Even if Earlimart committed a procedural violation by failing to offer modified or additional goals in the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP based on lack of anticipated progress, Student failed to prove this denied him a FAPE. (See, Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f); see also Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1032.) Student did not prove that any failure to offer different goals at the meeting denied Parent meaningful participation. Parent was an active participant in the meeting. She asked questions and expressed her concerns. Student also did not prove that any failure to offer different goals denied him educational benefit. (Ibid.)

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issues 2A through 2E.

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

ISSUE 3A: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE DURING THE 2023-2024

SCHOOL YEAR IN A MAY 28, 2024 AMENDMENT IEP BY FAILING TO

OFFER STUDENT APPROPRIATE SUPPORTS AND SERVICES TO ADDRESS

STUDENT’S BEHAVIORS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY BY FAILING TO

OFFER APPROPRIATELY TRAINED, SUPERVISED/AND OR CREDENTIALED

STAFF?

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the May 28, 2024 amendment IEP by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised, and/or credentialed staff. Student argues the teachers and instructional aides working with Student were not appropriately trained to:

implement Student’s communication and behavior goals, implement Student’s augmentative and alternative communication device, keep Student safe during transitions and during his interactions with his peers and treat Student’s seafood allergy, specifically administering an EpiPen.

Earlimart contends the teachers and instructional aides working with Student during the 2023-2024 school year were appropriately trained, supervised and/or credentialed. Earlimart contends that the qualifications for special education teachers, related services personnel, and paraprofessionals are left to the states, and that parents do not have a private right of action on behalf of an individual student for the failure of a particular staff person to meet applicable requirements.

When resolving the question of whether a school district has offered a FAPE, the focus is on the adequacy of the school district's proposed program. (Gregory K v.

Longview School Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314-15 [citing School Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359].) For a school district's offer of special education to constitute a FAPE, the offer must be designed to meet the student's unique needs, comport with the student's IEP, and be reasonably calculated to provide the student with some educational benefit in the least restrictive environment. (Id. at p. 1314.) A school district is not required to place a student in a program preferred by parents, even if that program will result in greater educational benefit to the student. (Ibid. [citing Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 197, fn. 21].) A FAPE “does not mean the absolutely best or ‘potential-maximizing’ education for the child.” (Los Angeles Unified

School Dist. v. A.O. by and through Owens (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 1159, 1172 (A.O.) [quoting Gregory K., supra, 811 F.2d at p. 1314].)

The IDEA grants the states the obligation to establish and maintain qualifications to ensure that personnel are appropriately prepared and trained to serve children with disabilities. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(A).) This obligation extends to related services personnel, paraprofessionals, and special education teachers. (Id. at § 1412(B), (C).) The IDEA expressly states that nothing in its provisions create a right of action on behalf of an individual student for the failure of a particular State educational agency or local educational agency staff person to meet the applicable requirements, or to prevent a parent from filing a complaint about staff qualifications with the State educational agency. (Id. at § 1412(E).)

The California Department of Education recognizes paraprofessionals, also called paraeducators, teacher aides, or instructional aides, as important components of California’s education system. A paraprofessional includes an instructional aide as defined in California Education Code section 45343, and a teacher aide as described in Education Code section 45360.

The Every Student Succeeds Act defines a paraprofessional as an individual who is employed in a preschool, elementary school, or secondary school under the supervision of a certified or licensed teacher, including individuals employed in special education. (20 U.S.C. § 7011(11).) A paraprofessional, also known as a paraeducator, includes an education assistant and instructional assistant. (20 U.S.C. § 8108(37).) A paraprofessional shall perform only duties that, in the judgment of the certified personnel to whom the instructional aide is assigned, may be performed by a person not licensed as a classroom teacher. (Ed. Code, § 45330, subd. (b).)

Student failed to meet his burden of proving Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised, and/or credentialed staff. Student’s claim fails as a matter of law because he does not have a private right of action against Earlimart for failure to provide a properly licensed teacher. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14)(E).) A similar argument was recently rejected by OAH. (Parents on behalf of Student v. Palo

Alto Unified School District (February. 27, 2025) OAH Case No. 2024070468, at pp. 68-69 (rejecting Parents’ challenge to qualifications of teachers.)

To the extent Student’s claim is that the staff working with Student were not appropriately trained or supervised to teach Student functionally equivalent replacement behaviors, track data on Student’s behaviors, implement his IEP accommodations, or effectively work with Student to use his augmentative and alternative communication device, this claim also is without merit. This issue does not challenge the adequacy of the offer of services, but rather suggests Earlimart failed to appropriately implement the IEP accommodations and services. Student raised this claim for the first time at hearing. This claim was not in Student’s complaint, raised at any of the prehearing conferences, or discussed on the first day of hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) Therefore, this Decision does not address that claim.

Student also argues that the adults working with Student during all relevant times were not aware of Student’s seafood allergy or trained to administer an Epi-Pen. Student did not provide legal authority at hearing or in his closing brief establishing OAH has jurisdiction over this claim. Even if this claim was within OAH’s jurisdiction, Student did not prove that Earlimart did not properly train or supervise its staff on use of Student’s Epi-Pen. Licensed vocational nurse Luz Acuna testified at hearing. Acuna worked as a school nurse for Earlimart for 11 years. During the 2023-2024 school year, Acuna was aware of Student’s seafood allergy. She received a doctor’s order from Student’s pediatrician in November 2023 and entered the order into Earlimart’s medical profile for Student. Acuna kept Student’s prescribed Epi-Pen in the nurse’s office as directed by Student’s doctor. Acuna also prepared a meal accommodation form for food services noting Student’s seafood allergy and directing them to omit seafood from Student’s meals. Acuna prepared an emergency action plan for Student, and provided copies of the document to the nurse and the school’s health office.

Registered nurse Vanessa Hernandez offered consistent testimony establishing Earlimart was aware of Student’s seafood allergy. Hernandez had been a registered nurse for over three years. She was employed by Earlimart during the 2025-2026 school year. Hernandez persuasively opined that Earlimart was aware of Student’s seafood allergy and that a protocol was established for administering the Epi-Pen in the event Student had an allergic reaction caused by seafood. She opined the adults working with Student were trained on using the Epi-Pen. Food services also was aware of Student’s seafood allergy and seafood was omitted from his school lunches. Student did not offer persuasive evidence rebutting Acuna and Hernandez’s testimony. Although Student suggested that the adults working with Student were not properly trained on Student’s emergency plan and administration of an Epi-Pen, he did not offer persuasive evidence proving this issue.

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issue 3A.

ISSUE 3B: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE DURING THE 2023-2024

SCHOOL YEAR IN A MAY 28, 2024 AMENDMENT IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER

STUDENT APPROPRIATE SUPPORTS AND SERVICES TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S

BEHAVIORS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY BY FAILING TO OFFER PEER

REVIEWED AND RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS TO THE EXTENT

PRACTICABLE?

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the May 28, 2024 amendment IEP by failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable to address his behavior and developmental delays. Student argues he required behavior intervention services based in principals of applied behavior analysis implemented by a registered behavior technician supervised by a board certified behavior analyst to receive a FAPE.

Earlimart argues applied behavior analysis is a methodology, and that it has discretion over methodologies used to instruct Student. Earlimart further argues that an IEP team is not required to utilize peer reviewed and research-based interventions if the IEP team does not find the methodology suitable based on the student’s individual needs. Finally, Earlimart argues that its offer of behavior supports and services was appropriate to address Student’s behavioral needs and developmental delays. Student’s experts, including Dr. Gary Katz and Dr. Christine Villareal offered persuasive testimony about applied behavior analysis and its usefulness as an early intervention for children with autism. Dr. Katz opined applied behavior analysis focuses on understanding the antecedents, or what happens before a behavior occurs, the resulting behavior, and the consequence of the behavior. Applied behavior analysis focuses on positive reinforcement to encourage the individuals to continue using the skills, which over time leads to meaningful behavioral change. Educational benefit is not limited to academic needs, but also includes the social and emotional needs that affect academic progress, school behavior, and socialization. (County of San Diego v. California Special Education Hearing Office, et al. (9th Cir. 1996) 93 F.3d 1458, 1467.) In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his 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) (2017); Ed. Code, §§ 56520, subd. (a)(4)(b)(1),

56341.1, subd. (b)(1); Positive, Proactive Approaches to Supporting Children With

Disabilities: A Guide for Stakeholders, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Policy Support 22-01, July 19, 2022.) Some children may benefit from intensive supports that are designed to meet the specific needs of an individual child. These supports may include a functional behavior assessment, implementing a behavior intervention plan, or individual counseling. (OSEP, Policy Support 22-01, supra, at p. 7.) A functional behavior assessment is not defined by the IDEA or California state law. The United States Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services defines a functional behavior assessment as a process for identifying the reasons behind, or factors contributing to, a child’s behaviors. (Id. at p. 8.)

The IDEA mandates that special education and related services and supplementary aids and services be based upon peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(i)(IV); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4).) The phrase “to the extent practicable means” that supports and services should be based on peer-reviewed research to the extent possible, given the availability of peer-reviewed research. (71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (Aug. 16, 2006).) The IDEA does not require that the service with the greatest body of research is the service necessarily required for a child to receive a FAPE. (Ibid.) IEP teams are not required to discuss the research-based methods offered, or to provide documentation of those methods. The United States Department of Education has determined that such a requirement is unnecessary and would be unduly burdensome on the IEP team. (71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (Aug. 16, 2006).) California law mirrors the IDEA by requiring the IEP document to include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based upon peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the pupil. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) An IEP generally is not required to include the specific instructional methodologies the school district will use to educate the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.320(d)(1); 71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (Aug. 14, 2006).) The methodology used to implement an IEP is left to the school district’s discretion so long as it is designed to meet the student’s unique needs, comports with the child’s IEP, and is reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit. (Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 208; Crofts v. Issaquah School Dist. No. 411 (9th Cir. 2022) 22 F.4th 1048, 1056-57.) School districts are “entitled to deference in deciding which programming is appropriate as a matter of educational policy.” (J.L. v. Mercer Island Sch.

Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 592 F.3d 938, 945, n. 5 (Mercer Island), citing Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. 176, 208 [102 S.Ct. 3034 ] (“[O]nce a court determines that the requirements of the [IDEA] have been met, questions of methodology are for resolution by the States.”); R.P. ex. rel.

C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 631 F.3d 1117, 1122 (“The IDEA accords educators discretion to select from various methods for meeting the individualized needs of a student, provided those practices are reasonably calculated to provide him with educational benefit”).)

However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated that if an instructional method is necessary to enable a student to receive a FAPE, it must be specified in the student’s IEP. (Mercer Island, supra, 592 F.3d at p. 952 [although school district should specify a teaching methodology for some students, for other students “IEPs may not need to address the instructional method to be used because specificity about methodology is not necessary to enable those students to receive an appropriate education”]; E.E. by and through Hutchinson-Escobedo v. Norris School Dist. (E.D.Cal. April 27, 2023) 2023 WL 3124618, at *12 (E.E. by and through Hutchinson-Escobedo) [IEP needed to specify that personnel be trained in the use of applied behavioral analysis to meet FAPE standard]; see also Rogich v. Clark City. Sch. Dist. (D.Nev. October 12, 2021 Case No. 2:17-CV-01541-RFB-NJK) 2021 WL 4781515, at *8) [District of Nevada concluded the student did not “necessarily require [ ] Orton-Gillingham methodology, but required an equivalent methodology” and “failing to identify a methodology that would ensure that the same approach is consistently utilized throughout the day by all of [student’s] instructors … necessarily means that [student] will not have the opportunity to learn as she needs to“].)

In E.E. by and through Hutchinson-Escobedo, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California considered the question of whether a student’s IEP should have documented Student’s need for applied behavior analysis services. Upon review of Mercer Island and Rogich, the court concluded the student’s need for applied behavior analysis services was well documented. The student’s IEP team discussed with parents the need for a one-to-one aide trained in applied behavior analysis and each of student’s four independent assessors believed a functional behavior assessment would lead to development of a behavior intervention plan and a one-to-one aide trained in applied behavior analysis. At the hearing, the school psychologist hired to evaluate the student testified that the student required daily and explicit instruction and systematic teaching using applied behavior analysis from an appropriately trained aide to acquire appropriate behavior skills. (E.E. by and through Hutchinson-Escobedo, supra, 2023 WL 3124618, at *12.) The court held, “Taken together, this case law established the need to specify a specific methodology when the record shows a consensus on this issue.” (Ibid.)

One-to-one aide support is a related service designed to assist a student in accessing his educational program. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd.(a)(4); D.R. by and through

R.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2022) 56 F.4th 636, 646 (D.R.).) The provision of a one-to-one aide does not increase the restrictiveness of a placement, but rather can help a student with a disability access his education in a general education placement. (Ms. S. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 11361137 (Vashon Island).) Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the May 28, 2024 amendment IEP by failing to offer Student peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable to address his behaviors and developmental delay. Student’s communication and behavioral deficits were discussed at the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting. At that meeting, Parent shared that Student would continue to receive private applied behavior analysis services during the 2024-2025 school year, and requested permission to modify his school day. Parent believed Student required one-to-one aide support to access his program. Vice principal Jimenez stated Earlimart would need to collect data to determine if Student needed a one-to-one aide. Further, she stated Earlimart would need to start with tier one supports before moving to a more restrictive option. Jimenez’s statements reflected a misunderstanding about the nature of one-to-one aide support. She mistakenly believed that one-to-one aide support makes a child’s placement more restrictive. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd.(a)(4); Vashon Island, supra, 337 F.3d at pp. 1136-1137.) Although this statement was incorrect, it does not necessarily mean Earlimart’s offer was inappropriate at the time it was made. The offer must be evaluated based on what Earlimart knew, or had reason to know, at time of the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP; not based upon hindsight. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149.)

As discussed in Issue 2, the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team was aware of Student’s communication and behavior challenges. The IEP team discussed his transition to transitional kindergarten, including his schedule. The general education teacher shared she would meet with Student’s new teacher to review his IEP and accommodations. Student’s special education teacher shared she would give Student’s file to his new teacher including her notes of observations and supports that helped Student in the preschool classroom.

Student would receive 60 minutes daily individual and small group specialized academic instruction in the regular classroom. Services would be provided through individual or small group or direct services, consultation, and/or collaboration between the special education staff, general education staff, and Parents. Student would also receive the speech and language services and accommodations stated in the September 18, 2023, IEP discussed above.

Student had only attended a part-time preschool program. He also received private applied behavior analysis services, and the IEP team discussed the importance of generalizing the skills he learned in that therapy in the educational environment. Earlimart did not specifically determine Student’s behavior impeded his learning or that of others. Earlimart had not developed a behavior intervention plan, or determined a functional behavior assessment was necessary. There was no consensus at the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting that Student required behavior intervention services. Given Student’s young age and limited exposure to the school environment, it was objectively reasonable to provide Student an opportunity to adjust to the new school setting for the 2024-2025 school year with the accommodations, services and supports offered in his IEP. Student failed to prove that at the time of the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP Student required behavior intervention services by a registered behavior technician with oversight by a board certified behavior analysist to receive a FAPE. (Gregory K., supra, 811 F.2d at pp. 1314-15.)

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issue 3B.

ISSUES 4A THROUGH 4E: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY

FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE GOALS IN SOCIAL SKILLS, ATTENTION,

COMMUNICATION, BEHAVIOR, AND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING

TOILETING IN IEPS DATED SEPTEMBER 13 AND DECEMBER 10, 2024,

JANUARY 27, MARCH 18 AND 27, MAY 12, AND JUNE 5, 2025?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in social skills, attention to task, communication, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting. Earlimart contends that the goals offered in the IEPS during the 2024-2025 school year appropriately addressed Student’s unique needs.

Student’s IEP team met on August 19, 2024, to discuss Parent’s request that Student attend transitional kindergarten on a modified schedule. Student received applied behavior analysis services through the Tulare County Office of Education on Tuesdays through Fridays from 8:00 AM to 11:30 AM. Parent requested Student be permitted to attend transitional kindergarten from 12:00 PM to 2:30 PM, on Monday, (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, and from 12:00 PM to 1:45 PM, on Wednesday, which was a scheduled minimum day at Earlimart. Earlimart agreed to this request and modified Student’s IEP related services as follows:

75 minutes weekly specialized academic instruction through a push-in model,

120 minutes monthly speech and language services, provided in four, 30-minute sessions, and

15 minutes, twice monthly consultation with Student’s teacher and staff members working with Student.

Student’s IEP was amended to reflect the changes to Student’s program in an August 19, 2024, amendment IEP. Parent consented to the amendment on August 26, 2024.

2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR - GENERAL EDUCATION TRANSITIONAL

KINDERGARTEN

Student’s first day of school for the 2024-2025 school year was August 26, 2024. Student attended a general education transitional kindergarten class taught by general education teacher Milany Suboh. Suboh was supported in the transitional kindergarten classroom by instructional aide Adriane Navarro. The class had 15 students. Education specialist Valencia implemented Student’s specialized academic instruction in the general education classroom. She worked one-on-one with Student approximately 30 minutes daily. General education teacher Suboh and instructional aide Navarro implemented Student’s IEP accommodations. School psychologist Aguilar visited the classroom approximately three to four times during the 2024-2025 school year to inquire about Student.

TESTIMONY OF GENERAL EDUCATION TRANSITIONAL

KINDERGARTEN TEACHER MILANY SUBOH

General education teacher Suboh was Student’s teacher during the 2024-2025 school year through February 4, 2025. Suboh held a bachelor’s degree and a multiple subjects teaching credential. Suboh had worked at Earlimart for approximately 27 years. At hearing, Suboh described Student as having significant communication and behavioral challenges. Student was largely nonverbal. He could use words such as, “no” and “mama.” He made a cross with his fingers to indicate “no.” Student communicated primarily through pointing at picture cards that Suboh and Navarro wore on lanyards around their necks. Suboh and Navarro encouraged Student to use words. Although Student had access to an iPad and could press the icons, he did not use the device to communicate. At the start of the school year, Suboh did not receive training from Earlimart on how to use the device with Student. Suboh tried to have Student use the device, but he refused.

Academically, Student could recognize letters and name colors, numbers and shapes. Student was transferred to a special day class in February 2025. A special day class is taught by a special education teacher and the students all require special education. By the time Student transferred to the special day class, he could identify most letters, numbers and shapes. He could count to 20 and put the numbers one through 10 in order using cards. Student could write his name and spoke more words such as, “no, thank you,” and “please stop.” He knew the names of some of his classmates.

Suboh opined Student required one-to-one aide support. When Student arrived in the classroom at 12:00 PM, the other students were taking naps. Student ran around the classroom and looked for books. If Suboh asked him to stop, he would scream. Suboh would sit him in her lap and bounce him for 10 minutes while he watched educational videos. Student could attend to task for five minutes or less during the time he was in her classroom, and required frequent redirection. During circle time, Navarro would sit with him.

Suboh persuasively opined that she implemented most of the accommodations from Student’s September 13, 2024, IEP, including using:

positive rewards, a first-then board, a visual timer, breaking tasks into small steps, preferred seating, giving Student personal space, and providing a clear workspace with reduced visual distractions.

Suboh also used other techniques with Student to modify his behavior, including rubbing his arms and back and counting. However, Student continued to hit, kick, and drop to the ground approximately one to two times weekly. Suboh opined that over time Student’s behaviors decreased. However, she agreed that throughout the time Student was in her classroom from August 26, 2024, through February 4, 2025, he engaged in biting, hitting, and kicking and required one-to-one adult support to complete his academic tasks. Suboh’s behavior tracking log for the 78 school days between September 17, 2024, through February 4, 2025, reflected the following behaviors:

eight acts of self-harm,

15 acts of physical aggression, nine screaming incidents, seven acts of putting nonedible items into his mouth,

36 incidents of running around the room, eight incidents of throwing objects at the class or off of tables,

14 incidents of taking items from others, and

124 incidents of work refusal or not participating in class activities.

Suboh’s testimony at hearing was persuasive based upon her experience, her recollection of Student, and her thoughtful demeanor. Suboh’s testimony was persuasive in establishing Student’s need for intensive behavior intervention services.

TESTIMONY OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION SPECIALIST

AMY VALENCIA

Education specialist Valencia testified at hearing. Consistent with Suboh, Valencia offered persuasive testimony about Student’s communication and behavioral challenges during the 2024-2025 school year. Valencia implemented Student’s specialized academic instruction during the 2024-2025 school year starting in August 2024, through February 4, 2025. Valencia pushed into the general education transitional kindergarten classroom and worked with Student in small groups. She implemented Student’s accommodations, including using a first-then board or token board, visual timers, rewards, verbal praise, and preferential seating. She opined that Student responded well to a timer and receiving rewards for completing assignments or following classroom routines, such as high fives, praise, stickers, snacks, or a break. She worked with Student on his IEP goals. Valencia was responsible for implementing Student’s toileting plan. She was trained in toileting and took him to the nurse’s office for toileting on a regular schedule. Consistent with Suboh, Valencia believed Student required more adult support. She described Student’s conduct of grabbing items from his peers, becoming upset, and pushing them. On the playground, Student would roughly push his peers when playing tag.

THE SEPTEMBER 13, 2024, ANNUAL IEP

Earlimart convened Student’s annual IEP team meeting on September 13, 2024, to develop Student’s educational program for the 2024-2025 school year. Student had attended approximately 14 school days at the time of the IEP team meeting. The September 13, 2024, IEP team members included

Parent, vice principal Jimenez, principal Debbie Noe, general education teacher Suboh, education specialist Valencia, school psychologist Aguilar, a speech-language pathologist, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

The September 13, 2024, IEP team reviewed Student’s present levels of performance. Academically, Student enjoyed books and showed an understanding of the alphabet, numbers, shapes, and colors. He could trace letters and numbers when he had an adult sitting near him.

Student did not allow peers to play with shared items and would scream, hit, push or pull hair. He understood the classroom schedule, followed simple directions and completed some classroom routines with support from staff. He could attend to task for four to six minutes, then would leave to another area or activity. Functionally, he could drink from a cup and attempted to put on his backpack. He still wore diapers and was on a toileting plan. The IEP notes stated Student, “requires adult supervision at all times since he is quick and may run from adult.”

Student could imitate animal sounds when provided a model. He could intermittently take turns with adults, but he protested if peers approached and tried to play with his toys. During speech and language services, he led the speech pathologist by the hand to access desired items. He could independently identify one icon on his iPad.

Parent expressed her concerns about Student’s behaviors, specifically his inability to share with his peers and physical aggression towards them, including hitting. Parent believed Student required one-to-one aide support. Parent also was concerned about Student’s toileting needs. Suboh shared that Student required adult support to get any work done, and that she and the class instructional aide alternated working with Student. Suboh agreed with Parent’s concerns about Student’s inability to share and described behavior incidents that recently occurred. She explained to the team that Student still “roamed the room” and was easily distracted.

The September 13, 2024, IEP offered a total of four goals in communication, functional/adaptive skills (attending to an activity), social-emotional-behavior (sharing items without engaging in tantrum-like behaviors) and identifying emotions. The IEP offered a variety of accommodations, largely similar to his September 18, 2023, IEP. The IEP offered 60 minutes yearly consultation between the general education teacher and education specialist to support Student and school personnel. On the special factors section of the IEP document, Earlimart checked the box stating that Student’s behaviors did not impede learning of self or others.

The September 13, 2024, IEP offered Student:

75 minutes weekly specialized academic instruction,

180 minutes monthly speech-language services, provided in six, 30-minute sessions, and

60 minutes yearly consultation services between the general education teacher and education specialist.

The IEP discussed Student’s need for toileting and confirmed the school nurse would complete a toileting plan. Parent consented to the September 13, 2024, IEP on September 23, 2024.

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

ISSUE 4A: COMMUNICATION GOALS

Student met his burden of proving Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate communication goals in the IEPs developed during the 2024-2025 school year. The September 13, 2024, IEP did not include progress on Student’s previous goals. Therefore, it was unclear what progress Student had made, if any, towards the goals from the September 18, 2023, IEP.

The September 13, 2024, IEP offered one communication goal. The goal’s baseline indicated Student could use single words using a total communication approach. He understood core words, such as “go,” “open,” “want,” “stop,” “up,” “all done,” and “my turn.” The goal’s baseline indicated that Student’s use of two-to-threeword combinations was emerging. The baseline did not describe how Student could combine two words, such as verbally or by using visual icons or some other method. The communication goal required Student to combine two to three words during structured play tasks using a total communication approach, described as using sounds or words, gestures, icons or vocabulary boards.

The new goal was identical to the total communication goal from the September 18, 2023, IEP, except that instead of requiring Student to combine two words during structured play tasks using a total communication approach, the new goal required Student to combine two to three words to make requests and comments. The goal contained two short-term objectives. The first short-term objective required Student by December 2024 to use 25 words during structured play tasks to make requests and comments using a total communication approach. The second short-term objective aimed for Student by March 2025 to combine 10, two-worded phrases to make requests and comments using a total communication approach. These short-term objectives were identical to those in his previous communication goal, which included using 25 words and combining 10, two-worded phrases, underscoring the limited progress Student made on the previous goal.

The communication goal was objectively unmeasurable. The goal failed to include objective criteria and evaluation procedures to measure progress. For example, it did explain how to measure Student’s combination of two-to-three words during structured play tasks using words, gestures, icons or vocabulary boards. The goal also did not specify over what period of time Student’s progress would be measured. For example, it was unclear if the goal was measurable across one structured play session, or over all structured play during one school day, or over multiple school days, rendering the goal objectively unmeasurable. As drafted, progress towards this goal, or its shortterm objectives, was not possible to measure. In addition, the March 2025 short-term objective was more ambitious than the goal itself. Specifically, the objective of combining 10, two-word phrases (for a total of 20 words) was greater than combining two-to-three words. This inconsistency rendered the goal vague and confusing, and therefore insufficient to meet his communication needs.

The September 13, 2024, IEP noted in the special factors section that Student required assistive technology devices and services to expand his social greetings, ask questions, and initiate interactions. However, the IEP did not include a goal targeting Student’s use of the augmentative and alternative communication device to expand his communication in these areas, which was a known and central area of need.

OCTOBER 21, 2024, AND DECEMBER 10, 2024, AMENDMENT

IEPS TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S COMMUNICATION NEEDS

Earlimart convened IEP team meetings on October 21, and December 10, 2024, to review Student’s progress. At the October 21, 2024, IEP team meeting, the team discussed Student’s use of his iPad. Suboh told the team Student preferred to use the visual icons attached to lanyards worn by Suboh and the instructional aide instead of the iPad. Suboh believed there were a lot of icons on his iPad for him to choose from and it was difficult for him to manage. Speech-language pathologist Marissa Montano shared that Student preferred to verbalize rather than using visual icons. She recommended Student keep the device, but she would work on reducing the number of icons presented to him. No changes were made to Student’s communication goal. Earlimart convened another IEP team meeting on December 10, 2024, to discuss Parent’s concerns that Student was not using the iPad in the classroom and Suboh was not trained on using the device to help Student functionally communicate. Suboh shared that she only recently received training. Speech-language pathologist Montano shared that Student should use multiple means of communication to make progress towards his total communication goal. The IEP team reviewed the speech goal and discussed ways for Student to use 40 words on the iPad. However, the IEP team did not add a goal requiring Student to increase his vocabulary using the iPad. Parent expressed concerns about Student’s ability to ask for help from adults. The December 10, 2024, amendment IEP added a goal labeled as a self-help goal that aimed for Student to use visuals to seek help from an adult instead of engaging in a challenging behavior. Parent consented to the December 10, 2024, amendment IEP on January 13, 2025.

Other than adding the self-help goal, Earlimart did not make any changes to Student’s communication goals during the 2024-2025 school year. As a result, Student was left without appropriate goals to target his significant communication deficits and enable him to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).)

EARLIMART SHOULD HAVE OFFERED ADDITIONAL COMMUNICATION

GOALS TARGETING STUDENT’S RECEPTIVE, EXPRESSIVE AND SOCIAL

LANGUAGE NEEDS

Student proved that Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate communication goals targeting his needs in receptive, expressive and social language. At hearing, Student’s experts, speech-language pathologists Jose Gonzalez and Christine Villareal, Ph.D., offered persuasive testimony in support of Student’s needs for multiple communication goals at all relevant times.

PRIVATE SPEECH-LANGUAGE EVALUATION BY SPEECHLANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST JOSE GONZALEZ

Gonzalez conducted a private speech-language evaluation of Student in March 2026 and prepared a written report dated March 26, 2026. Dr. Villareal was a speechlanguage pathologist for over 25 years. She conducted the observation portion of the evaluation, which Gonzalez incorporated into his report. This report was prepared after Student’s complaint was filed and therefore was not reviewed by Student’s IEP team. However, after-acquired evidence may shed light on the objective reasonableness of a school district’s actions at the time the school district rendered its decision. (E.M. v.

Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 652 F.3d 999, 1006.) Student proved the after-acquired speech and language evaluation was relevant to the objective reasonableness of Earlimart’s actions at the time of the September 13, 2024, IEP. Specifically, the evidence proved that Student made little progress on his total communication goal between the September 13, 2024, IEP and Gonzalez’s March 2026 evaluation. As a result, Gonzalez’s testimony and report shed light on the objective unreasonableness of Earlimart’s communication goal.

Gonzalez held a master’s degree in speech-language pathology. He had been a licensed speech-language pathologist since 2022. In conducting his evaluation, Gonzalez interviewed Parent about Student’s health and developmental history, reviewed records, conducted an oral peripheral examination, observed Student during direct speech-language sessions, obtained a language sample, and administered standardized assessments. Gonzalez provided 18, 45-minute speech-language sessions to Student in the private setting between January 20, 2026, and June 26, 2026. Gonzalez administered an assessment to examine Student’s articulation abilities at the word level. Gonzalez administered the assessment in both English and Spanish. The results of the assessment indicated significant difficulty with speech sound production at the sound level and across words and contexts, which significantly impacted Student’s overall intelligibility. Student’s sound production skills were significantly below his expected age level.

Gonzalez also evaluated Student’s language functioning. Student’s receptive language index score fell in the first percentile, indicating a significantly reduced understanding of spoken language. He could follow simple, familiar directions with visual supports or context, but had increased difficulty with multi-step directions. He had deficits in expressive language, particularly in intelligibility, grammar, and overall sentence formation, with his expressive language index score falling in the first percentile. He primarily communicated using single words, short phrases, and word approximations. He frequently produced unintelligible utterances in both English and Spanish.

Gonzalez reported that Student demonstrated delays in pragmatic language that impacted his ability to effectively engage in social interactions. He showed emerging efforts to initiate interactions and seek engagement with others, but he had difficulty maintaining joint attention, engaging in back-and-forth exchanges, and sustaining interactions. Overall, Student demonstrated delays across expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language, and significant speech sound production delays, that significantly impacted his ability to communicate effectively across settings. At hearing, Gonzalez offered persuasive testimony about Student’s delays across expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language, and speech sound production deficits. Gonzalez opined Student required multiple communication goals to address his articulation, receptive and expressive language, and pragmatic deficits. Gonzalez’s testimony was persuasive based upon his knowledge of Student from providing private speech therapy to Student and conducting an assessment, and his thoughtful and earnest demeanor. Although Gonzalez did not observe Student in the school setting, his opinions were persuasive in describing Student’s extensive communication needs. Gonzalez’s opinions were not refuted by Earlimart’s witnesses, including speechlanguage pathologists Bueno and Rolake Moore.

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

Gonzalez’s written report and testimony demonstrated Student required multiple communication goals addressing:

articulation, including producing early developing sounds and targeted sounds, verbal receptive and expressive language, pragmatic language, functional communication in structured and play-based activities, and a functional communication goal using an augmentative and alternative communication device or a total communication method.

OBSERVATIONS BY SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST DR.

CHRISTINE VILLAREAL

Dr. Villareal held a Doctor of Education and a master’s degree in Communicative Sciences and Disorders. She was a licensed speech-language pathologist and held a Certificate of Clinical Competence in speech-language pathology through the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. She taught courses at a California state college for over 27 years. Dr. Villareal had extensive experience working with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder and speech or language impairments. She founded and supervised a speech-language preschool clinic at a California state university for children with autism.

Dr. Villareal observed Student on three occasions and prepared a written report of her observations. Dr. Villareal observed Student:

On February 7, 2026, for 45 minutes at a gymnasium,

On February 17, 2026, for one and a half hours during Student’s speech session with Gonzalez, and

On February 17, 2026, for one and a half hours at Student’s home.

Dr. Villareal described Student as verbal but largely unintelligible. Student was very active and constantly moved between activities. Student showed interest in social interactions with peers, but did not take turns. During her observation of Student working with Gonzalez, Student was cooperative and benefited from breaks and prompts.

Dr. Villareal opined that by age six, a child should be 95 to 100 percent intelligible and should have mastered grammatical structures, social-pragmatics, and reciprocal communication. She estimated Student’s intelligibility was equivalent to a two-and-onehalf to three-and-one-half year-old child. Dr. Villareal offered compelling testimony about the importance of early interventions for children with autism, including applied behavior analysis and speech-language therapy. Dr. Villareal opined that at all relevant times, Student required direct speech-language services three-times weekly. Earlimart did not offer persuasive evidence refuting Gonzalez’s and Dr. Villareal’s opinions. Bueno opined Student did not require any additional or different communication goals at the time of the September 13, 2024, IEP. Bueno’s testimony was not persuasive based on Student’s significant communication deficits and his lack of progress towards his single communication goal during all relevant times. Bueno’s testimony was further unconvincing because it conflicted with her earlier assessments and written reports reflecting Student’s significant communication deficits and need to learn functional communication skills to interact with others and decrease frustration. Despite Student’s known communication challenges and Bueno’s recommendation that Student access an augmentative and alternative communication device to increase his core vocabulary and improve his ability to communicate with adults and peers, the September 13, 2024, IEP did not add any additional communication goals. Earlimart should have added a goal to expand Student’s proficiency using his iPad to communicate. Student did not consistently use the device, nor were his teachers and instructional aides trained on the device or the specific icons Student should access to improve his ability to communicate.

At hearing, Bueno unpersuasively opined that use of his iPad was embedded in Student’s one total communication goal in the September 18, 2023, IEP, which goal was largely replicated in the September 13, 2024, IEP. Bueno’s testimony was unconvincing because the goal as drafted does not specify that Student’s use of the iPad was included in the goal. Multiple witnesses, including general education teacher Suboh and education specialist Valenica, were not aware that use of an iPad was included within the total communication goal. They also did not understand how to use it with Student to expand his communication. A goal improving Student’s use of his device would have targeted his need to functionally communicate, which was a significant, and known area of need. The evidence established that Student’s significant communication needs could not be met through the single goal contained in the September 13, 2024, IEP. Expert witnesses Gonzalez and Dr. Villareal’s opinions about Student’s need for multiple communication goals to address his deficits in articulation, including producing early developing sounds and targeted sounds, verbal receptive and expressive language, pragmatic language, functional communication in structured and play-based activities, and a goal for use of his augmentative and alternative communication device was convincing and unrefuted by Earlimart.

Student proved by a preponderance of evidence that Earlimart’s failure to offer appropriate communications goals during the 2024-2025 school year was a procedural violation. The single communication goal was not reasonably calculated to enable Student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).) Student further proved this failure impeded Student’s right to a FAPE because Student did not have adequate, measurable communication goals, leaving these needs unaddressed. The failure to offer appropriate communication goals also denied Parent meaningful participation in development of Student’s educational program. Without adequate communication goals, Parent could not track and measure Student’s progress on a significant area of need. (See, Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f); Park, supra., 464 F.3d at p. 1032.)

Student met his burden of proof on Issue 4A.

ISSUES 4B AND 4D: GOALS IN SOCIAL SKILLS AND BEHAVIOR

Student met his burden of proving Earlimart failed to offer appropriate goals in social skills and behavior. The September 13, 2024, IEP offered two goals in socialemotional/behavior. Student proved both goals were inappropriate to address Student’s needs in these areas.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL/BEHAVIOR GOAL – SHARING PREFERRED

ITEMS

The first goal was identical to the one social-emotional/behavior goal from Student’s September 18, 2023, IEP. The goal required Student to share preferred materials with peers without engaging in tantrum-like behavior, described as yelling, pushing, or pulling hair. The September 13, 2024, IEP document did not state Student’s progress on this goal since the September 18, 2023, IEP. The notes from the September 13, 2024, IEP state Student showed interest in his peers and would waive “hi” to them and follow others on the playground. However, he continued to have difficulty sharing items with others. When he became frustrated, he engaged in hitting, crying, and pulling hair.

The goal had two short-term objectives. The first short-term objective aimed for Student by December 2024 to maintain control of some shared materials while allowing others to use the rest of the items with close adult support, access to visual supports, and without engaging in tantrum-like behavior, such as yelling, pushing, or pulling hair, with 50 percent accuracy across two weeks of recorded observations. The second short-term objective required Student by March 2025 to maintain control of some shared materials while allowing others to use the rest with close adult support, access to visual supports, and without engaging in tantrum-like behavior, such as yelling, pushing, or pulling hair, with 60 percent accuracy across two weeks of recorded observations.

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

This social-emotional/behavior goal was unclear and unmeasurable. The goal did not identify the setting in which the goal would be measured. For example, it did not specify if the goal would be measured during structured or unstructured times. It did not define the meaning of the task of “maintaining control of some preferred items” while allowing others to use the rest of them, or explain how the goal would be measured. For example, it did explain how the person measuring the goal could determine if Student allowed others to use some items. The reference to “minimal adult” support, such as “verbal or gestural” was vague and ambiguous. Specifically, the goal did not identify how many verbal or gestural prompts could be used for Student to make progress on this goal. For these reasons, the goal was unmeasurable and therefore inappropriate.

SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL BEHAVIOR GOAL – IDENTIFYING

EMOTIONS THROUGH USE OF VISUALS

The September 13, 2024, IEP team determined Student had difficulty positively interacting with his peers. If a peer tried to share an item, Student would become upset and act out by crying hitting, and pulling hair. The IEP team offered a goal requiring Student to appropriately express his emotions with the use of visuals, such as picture cards, books, toys, and manipulatives. The goal required Student to accurately identify five emotions, such as happy, sad, or angry, with 80 percent accuracy across two weeks of recorded observations. The goal contained two short-term objectives to track his progress.

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

Valencia testified this goal was appropriate to address Student’s struggles with identifying his emotions and resulting acting out. She opined Student made progress on this goal during the 2024-2025 school year and he could use visuals to identify his emotions. However, Student still could not verbally express his feelings to an adult in an appropriate manner.

It was unclear from Valencia’s testimony how Student’s ability to identify his emotions through visuals was reasonably related to targeting Student’s behavior needs. Although Student purportedly met this goal sometime in fall 2024, Student’s maladaptive behaviors, including physical aggression, work refusal, running around the room, screaming, taking items from others, and self-harm continued through the 20242025 school year. Student’s continued maladaptive behaviors despite having met this goal underscores the objective unreasonableness of this goal at the time it was offered.

BEHAVIOR GOAL –MARCH 27, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP

As discussed in Issue 5B below, Earlimart conducted a functional behavior assessment in March 2025, which it reviewed at a March 27, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. The March 27, 2025, IEP offered Student a new behavior goal requiring Student to reduce physical aggression, defined as “hitting, scratching, or grabbing” during peer interactions by 50 percent during a 60-minute time frame over a four-week observational period. The goal did not assign responsibility for implementation to any specific person and did not have a beginning or end date. As a result, the goal was inappropriate.

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

Student proved Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the September 13, 2024, IEP and March 27, 2025, amendment IEP by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in social-emotional/behavior. Student proved the goal requiring Student to share preferred items without engaging in tantrum-like behavior was recycled from the previous year, and was not measurable. Student further proved the new goal aiming for Student to identify his emotions through visuals was not directly related to his present levels of performance in behavior, namely exhibiting maladaptive behaviors when sharing preferred items with peers. The goal added in the March 27, 2025, amendment IEP was inappropriate because it did not have a start or end date, or assign responsibility to any person for implementation.

Student proved the behavior goals offered during the 2024-2025 school year were not reasonably calculated to enable Student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(2).) No changes to Student’s behavior goals were made to Student’s IEP in the December 10, 2024, January 27, and March 18, 2025, amendment IEPs. The failure to offer appropriate social-emotional/behavior goals impeded Student’s ability to access his education and denied him a FAPE. (See, Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f).)

ISSUE 4C: ATTENTION GOAL

The September 13, 2024, IEP offered one functional/adaptive skills goal addressing attention. The goal was identical to the attention goal from Student’s September 18, 2023, IEP. The goal’s baseline stated Student struggled to participate in classroom activities for more than four to five minutes without close adult support. When he was no longer interested in the activity, he would get up and leave the area.

The goal required Student during whole group, small group, and free choice opportunities to attend to an activity for at least 10 minutes according to age-appropriate established classroom expectations with no more than two additional prompts in 90 percent of documented activities across two weeks. The goal had two short-term objectives, which sought to incrementally increase Student’s attention to task. The first short-term objective sought for Student by December 2024 to attend to task for at least four minutes during whole group, small group, and free choice activities with no more than four additional prompts in 60 percent of documented opportunities across two weeks. The second short-term objective benchmark aimed for Student by March 2025 to attend to an activity for at least six minutes with no more than three additional prompts.

The goal was defective because it was unclear and unmeasurable. The goal failed to specify the setting in which the goal would be measured. The objective unreasonableness of the goal was illustrated through education specialist Valencia’s testimony at hearing. Valencia explained that Student could attend to task for four to five minutes for nonpreferred activities. However, Student could attend to task for approximately eight to 10 minutes for preferred activities, such as looking at books, coloring, or sorting. By failing to specify the setting in which the goal would be measured, Student presumably had already met this goal because he could attend to task for preferred activities for up to 10 minutes, making the goal not appropriately ambitious. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 402.)

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

Student met his burden of proving the attention goal was inappropriate at the time of the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting. The failure to offer an appropriate attention goal targeting deprived Student the opportunity to improve his ability to sustain attention, a known area of need, and therefore denied him educational benefit. (See, Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f); Park, supra., 464 F.3d at p. 1032.)

ISSUE 4E: ADAPTVE BEHAVIOR GOAL, INCLUDING TOILETING

Student contends he should have been offered a toileting goal in the September 13, 2024. IEP. Earlimart contends its district nurse developed a toileting plan for the 2024-2025 school year, and it was implemented by trained adults working with Student, and that he did not require an IEP goal.

The functional skill of independent toileting is a need that may be addressed through IEP goals. (Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 877, 884.) The evidence was undisputed that Student was not toilet trained and wore diapers throughout the 2024-2025 school year. School nurses Acuna and Hernandez testified that Student had a toileting plan during all times at issue and that the designated adults trained on the toileting plan assisted Student with his toileting needs. Student had a toileting plan during the 2024-2025 school year. The toileting plan was not included as part of his IEP. Valencia implemented Student’s toileting plan during the 2024-2025 school year during the time Student attended the general education transitional kindergarten class. Valencia followed the toileting plan developed by Earlimart’s registered nurse. Valencia took Student to the nurse’s office every two hours and assisted Student with the steps of toileting. Student required assistance with pulling down his pants and washing his hands. Valencia testified that Student could not tell adults when he needed to use the restroom. She believed Student should have had a toileting goal to work on completing the steps of independently toileting. She opined that the IEP team, “overlooked” toileting in developing the September 13, 2024, IEP.

The failure to include a toileting goal in Student’s September 13, 2024, IEP was a procedural violation under the IDEA. There was no clear method for Student to signal his need to use the restroom or any way to measure his progress. Earlimart’s failure to develop any measurable goal to address Student’s identified need to learn the functional skill of independent toileting, and its failure to design a clear, measurable goal to help Student learn to signal his need to use the bathroom, were procedural violations under the IDEA that denied Student educational benefit. (See, Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f).)

Student prevailed on Issue 4E.

ISSUE 5A: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE DURING THE 2024-2025

SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE SUPPORTS AND

SERVICES TO ADDRESS BEHAVIORS AND DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS BY

FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATELY TRAINED, SUPERVISED AND/OR

CREDENTIALED STAFF IN IEPS DATED SEPTEMBER 13 AND DECEMBER 10,

2024, AND JANUARY 27, MARCH 18 AND 27, MAY 12, AND JUNE 5, 2025?

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised and or credentialed staff during the 2024-2025 school year in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, and January 27, March 18 and March 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025.

Earlimart contends the general and special education teachers, instruction aides, and related service providers working with Student during the 2024-2025 school year were appropriately trained, supervised, and/or credentialed, and that Student failed to meet his burden of proof on this issue.

As with Issue 3A, Student did not challenge the qualifications of the individuals working with Student during the 2024-2025 school year. Rather, Student argued that the individuals working with Student were not appropriately trained on how to address Student’s behaviors, when to implement accommodations, and how to track Student’s behaviors with fidelity. This claim is misplaced. Earlimart was free to choose the manner in which it trained its aides. (Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 207-208.) Parent has no private right of action under the IDEA against a school district for failure to provide properly licensed teachers and staff. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(14)(E).) Further, to the extent this claim relates to a failure to implement Student’s program, this issue was not pled in the complaint or discussed at the prehearing conferences or on the first day or hearing, nor did Earlimart consent to this issue. Student believed the individuals working with Student, including general education teacher Suboh, instructional aide Navarro, education specialist Valencia, and substitute teacher Leticia Aguirre were not trained on his augmentative and alternative communication device, or how to implement his IEP accommodations, behavior intervention plan, or data tracking necessary to make progress towards his communication and behavioral goals. Student further believed that staff was not appropriately trained on how to administer Student’s Epi-Pen in the event he (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

was exposed to seafood. For the same reasons discussed in Issue 3A, this Decision does not address whether Earlimart failed to implement Student’s educational program during the 2024-2025 school year.

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issue 5A.

ISSUE 5B: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE DURING THE 2024-2025

SCHOOL YEAR BY FAILING TO OFFER STUDENT APPROPRIATE SUPPORTS

AND SERVICES TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S BEHAVIORS AND DEVELOPMENTAL

DELAY BY FAILING TO OFFER PEER REVIEWED AND RESEARCH-BASED

INTERVENTIONS IN IEPS DATED SEPTEMBER 13 AND DECEMBER 10, 2024,

JANUARY 27, MARCH 18 AND 27, MAY 12, AND JUNE 5, 2025?

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer peer reviewed and researched-based interventions to the extent practicable to address his behavior and developmental delays. Student argues he required behavior intervention services based in principals of applied behavior analysis implemented by a registered behavior technician supervised by a board certified behavior analyst to receive a FAPE.

Earlimart argues applied behavior analysis is a methodology, and that it is has discretion over methodologies used to instruct Student. Earlimart further argues that an IEP team is not required to utilize peer reviewed and research-based interventions if the IEP does not find the methodology suitable based on the student’s individual needs. Finally, Earlimart argues that its offer of behavior supports and services were appropriate to address Student’s behavioral needs and developmental delays.

Pursuant to Education Code section 56520, behavioral interventions shall be designed or planned only by personnel who have a:

Pupil Personnel Services Credential that authorizes school counseling or school psychology; or credential authorizing the holder to deliver special education instruction; or license as a Marriage and Family Therapist certified by the Board of Behavioral Sciences, within the Department of Consumer Affairs; or license as a Clinical Social Worker by the Board of Behavioral Sciences, within the Department of Consumer Affairs; or license as an Educational Psychologist issued by a licensing agency within the Department of Consumer Affairs; or license in psychology regulated by the Board of Psychology, within the Department of Consumer Affairs; or master's degree issued by a regionally accredited post-secondary institution in education, psychology, counseling, behavior analysis, behavior science, human development, social work, rehabilitation, or in a related field. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.23, subd. (a).)

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

To provide behavioral intervention, including implementation of behavior intervention plans, but not including development or modification of behavior intervention plans, a school district shall deliver those services using personnel who possess the qualifications under California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 3051.23, subdivision (a) or who:

are under the supervision of personnel qualified under subdivision (a); and possess a high school diploma or its equivalent; and receive the specific level of supervision required in the pupil’s IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.23, subd. (b).)

TESTIMONY BY DR. GARY KATZ, PH.D.

Dr. Gary Katz was a Doctor of Psychology and a licensed California psychologist. Dr. Katz worked as an Associate Professor with tenure at a California state university since 1998. Dr. Katz conducted assessments, diagnostic evaluations, and therapy for adults and children and provided services including cognitive-behavioral and behavioral intervention to address emotional and behavioral concerns. Dr. Katz was familiar with principals of applied behavior analysis and taught a course to psychology students focused on assessing behavior concerns and conducting valid interventions using applied behavior analysis.

Dr. Katz conducted a private psychoeducational evaluation for Student and prepared a written report dated May 30, 2026. Dr. Katz’s evaluation included a parent questionnaire, a comprehensive review of Student’s educational records, an observation of Student, and administration of rating scales and standardized assessments.

Cognitively, Student’s overall abilities fell in the very low to extremely low range. On academic achievement tests, Student could not complete any task which involved expressive language demands. On a receptive language task, he could point to one item correctly. In writing, he could write one letter when asked to write as many letters as he could. Student’s overall scores in word reading, written expression, and mathematics were very low.

In behavior, Parent and Student’s general education teacher during the 2025-2026 school year, Jennifer Hill, agreed Student had deficits in adaptive functioning, particularly in communication and independent functioning skills. Both Parent and Hill identified self-awareness as a relative strength for Student, but expressed significant concerns about Student in self-management and responsible decision-making, indicating a consistent pattern of difficulty regulating emotions and behavior, controlling impulses, and making appropriate choices. On a rating scale assessing an individual’s characteristics consistent with autism, both Parent and Hill identified concerns with social communication and reciprocal social behavior. Parent and Hill also identified concerns in adaptive behavior in communication, daily living skills, socialization and motor skills across the home and school environments.

In his report and at hearing, Dr. Katz offered persuasive testimony about the need for early, intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism. Dr. Katz recommended that Student receive intensive, scientifically driven, applied behavior analysis services at home and in the school setting by a board certified behavior analyst. Although Dr. Katz’s evaluation was conducted in spring 2026 and documented in a written report dated May 2026, his testimony shed light on the objective reasonableness of Earlimart’s actions during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years. (Pajaro Valley, supra, 652 F.3d at p. 1006.) Dr. Katz’s opinions were consistent with the overwhelming weight of evidence establishing Student’s deficits in communication, behavior and adaptive functioning throughout the 2024-2025 school year and during the 2025-2026 school year through October 2025 when Parent pulled Student from school. None of Earlimart’s witnesses, including school psychologists Duran and Aguilar, persuasively refuted Dr. Katz’s opinions.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2024, IEP

At the time of the September 13, 2024, IEP, Student continued to demonstrate significant educational needs. Student was largely nonverbal and could not effectively communicate his wants and needs. He required adult support throughout the school day. He struggled with transitions between activities and independently completing academic tasks. He engaged in aggressive behavior towards himself, peers, and adults. This was evident as of the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting, and the subsequent amendment IEPs offered during the 2024-2025 school year. Student did not share with his peers and did not transition between activities with adult support. He frequently hit or kicked others.

General education teacher Suboh and education specialist Valencia implemented Student’s IEP accommodations, such as a first-then board, a visual timer, and breaking tasks into small steps. These behavior interventions were ineffective. Student’s level of attention, compliance, and overall behaviors were inconsistent throughout the day. Overall, Student’s behavior impeded his learning and the learning of others. Earlimart was aware of Student’s behavior and communication deficits which remained largely unchanged since Earlimart’s initial assessment in September 2022. Student’s lack of progress was evident in the largely recycled goals offered by Earlimart, as discussed in Issues 4B through 4E. Yet, the September 13, 2024, IEP did not offer a behavior plan to address these behaviors.

The September 13, 2024, IEP also offered Student accommodations largely identical to those from the September 18, 2023, IEP. Earlimart did not offer intensive individualized support addressing Student’s behaviors that were necessary for Student to control his behavior. At hearing, Suboh and Valencia persuasively described Student’s maladaptive behaviors at the start of the 2024-2025 school year, which included running around the room, screaming, hitting his head on the wall or floor, pulling hair, scratching, and kicking.

Parent requested one-to-one aide support during the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting. Earlimart denied the request and informed Parent that Earlimart would collect data to track Student’s behaviors, work on his behavior goals, and incorporate behavior supports in the classroom. However, the IEP did not specify what behaviors would be targeted, how Student’s behavior goals and accommodations would be implemented, and which behavior supports would be incorporated into the classroom. The IEP document failed to clearly describe the services offered. The offer of specialized academic instruction, described as a combination of direct services, consultation, and collaboration, was ambiguous.

Earlimart’s argument that the offer of goals, specialized academic instruction, an augmentative and alternative communication device, and accommodations based on principals of applied behavior analysis was reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment was not persuasive. Dr. Katz and Dr. Villareal’s testimony was more persuasive in establishing Student required systematic behavior intervention services to address his behaviors that interfered with his learning, communication, independence and participation. However, Earlimart did not refer Student for a functional behavior assessment, develop a positive behavior intervention plan, or offer direct behavior intervention services.

Based on the information available to Student’s IEP team at the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting, and not judged in hindsight, Earlimart should have offered Student behavior intervention services based on peer reviewed and research-based interventions.

JANUARY 27, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP TO DISCUSS FUNCTIONAL

BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT AND CHANGE OF PLACEMENT TO SPECIAL

DAY CLASS

Earlimart convened an IEP team meeting on January 27, 2025. The IEP team members included Parent, vice principal Jimenez, general education teacher Suboh, education specialist Valencia, speech-language pathologist Montano, a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center, school psychologist Aguilar, Student’s behavior consultant Kevin Golding, and Director Dr. Regina Green.

The purpose of the IEP team meeting was to address a variety of concerns, including the results of an occupational therapy referral to the Tulare County Office of Education, an update on Student’s communication needs, and Parent’s request for a behavioral assessment.

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

Speech-language pathologist Montano shared Student’s progress in speech and language. She described him as making a lot of growth and speaking more and using the iPad independently. The other IEP team members shared that Student was using more verbal words and that he did not prefer the iPad for communicating. Student continued to struggle with maladaptive behaviors. Parent expressed that she observed more aggressive behaviors in the home setting since the return from winter break. General education teacher Suboh shared an incident which occurred that day where Student stepped on another student and kicked the instructional aide. The IEP team discussed that during lunchtime Student could get his plate and sit down, but engaged in disruptive conduct, such as throwing food.

Earlimart did not offer Student one-to-one aide support or behavior intervention services. Instead, at that meeting Earlimart proposed Student’s placement be changed to a special day class, a more restrictive setting that included being in class with all special education students. The appropriateness of the offer of placement in the special day class was not at issue in the hearing and is not addressed in this Decision. The IEP team members, including Dr. Green and Jimenez shared why they believed placement in a special day class was appropriate for Student. Jimenez described what Student’s daily schedule would look like in the special day class. She explained that the academic pace would be slower, but Student could still integrate into the general education setting during music, art, and physical education. Behavior consultant Golding recommended that Parent observe the program. Suboh stated Student needed more adult support to access his academics, which the special day class would provide. Parent agreed to visit the special day class.

In addition to proposing a change of placement from a general education classroom to a special day class, the January 27, 2025, amendment IEP team proposed conducting a functional behavior analysis for Student. School psychologist Aguilar discussed the process of conducting a functional behavior analysis and preparing a behavior intervention plan. Aguilar explained to Parent that the IEP team would meet after the assessment was completed and data collected to determine behavior interventions in the classroom setting. Parent provided written consent to the assessment plan on January 27, 2025.

FEBRUARY 11, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP REGARDING THE CHANGE OF

PLACEMENT TO A SPECIAL DAY CLASS

Earlimart convened an IEP team meeting on February 11, 2025, to discuss Student’s placement in the special day class. Parents visited the special day class following the January 27, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. Parents consented to Student’s placement in the special day class.

The February 11, 2025, amendment IEP changed Student’s IEP to reflect that his specialized academic instruction would be delivered in a separate classroom. Based on his modified schedule, Student would receive 595 minutes weekly specialized academic instruction. If Student changed to a full-day schedule, the weekly minutes would increase to 1300 minutes. Parent consented to the February 11, 2025, amendment IEP. Student attended the special day class from approximately February 12, 2025, through the end of the 2024-2025 school year. Sometime during spring 2025, Student attended school on a full-time schedule.

MARCH 18, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP ADDING TRANSPORTATION

Student’s IEP team met on March 18, 2025 to discuss Parent’s request for transportation. Student’s IEP was amended to add daily transportation to and from school. No other changes were added to Student’s IEP.

MARCH 27, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP TEAM MEETING TO DISCUSS

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR ASSESSMENT

Earlimart convened an IEP amendment team meeting on March 27, 2025, to review the results of its functional behavior assessment. The participants at the meeting included:

Parent, a Spanish language interpreter, principal Noe, vice principal Jimenez, education specialist Valencia, a speech-language pathologist, behavior consultant Golding, special day class teacher Fabiola Lopez,

Dr. Green, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

School psychologist Aguilar conducted the functional behavioral assessment. In conducting her assessment, Aguilar reviewed background information, interviewed Parent and Student’s special education teacher, conducted observations, and administered a Functional Analysis Screening Tool. Aguilar did not independently collect data on the antecedents, behaviors, and consequences of Student’s behaviors, but relied on data tracked by Student’s teachers and instructional aides. During her observations of Student, he attempted to hit his teacher. Aguilar also observed Student try to take markers from another student, when the other student would not share, Student threw a marker and scratched the student. In another observation, Aguilar observed Student engage in work with an adult in close proximity.

Based on interviews with Parent and Student’s teacher and review of records, Aguilar identified the targeted behaviors as physical aggression, defined as clawing, scratching, and inappropriate touching, and inappropriate play, including sharing and turn-taking. Parent and Student’s teacher shared he struggled with sharing and taking turns, and engaged in inappropriate touching, such as hitting or scratching. Aguilar determined the function, or purpose, of Student’s physical aggression and inappropriate play was gaining attention from peers and access to preferred items. Aguilar reported to the IEP team that many of Student’s behaviors occurred during unstructured times, and that he had no more than two behavior incidents daily. Aguilar recommended that a behavior intervention plan be developed and a behavior goal added to Student’s IEP, as discussed in Issue 4. Aguilar proposed a behavior intervention plan to reduce Student’s physical aggression and inappropriate social interactions. In general, the offered behavior intervention plan included intervention strategies, such as visual supports and teaching social skills and expectations for transitions. It included behavioral strategies, including positive reinforcements for appropriate behaviors and timeout and redirections. The plan required tracking instances of physical aggression and inappropriate behaviors, as well as instances where Student engaged in acceptable social interactions. The behavior intervention plan stated teachers and support staff would meet regularly to discuss Student’s progress and to adjust the interventions, as needed. Student’s IEP was also amended to add 30 minutes monthly individual psychological services in a separate setting.

Parent consented to the March 27, 2025, amendment IEP on April 7, 2025.

MAY 12, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP

Earlimart convened an amendment IEP team meeting on May 12, 2025. The purpose of the meeting was to address Parent’s concerns regarding an occupational therapy observation conducted by the Tulare County Office of Education. The participants at the meeting included:

Parent, a Spanish language interpreter, principal Noe, vice principal Jimenez, education specialist Valencia, a speech-language pathologist, behavior consultant Golding, a general education teacher, school psychologist Aguilar, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

Parent expressed concerns that Student’s behaviors were worsening. Parent saw more aggressive behaviors and continued to believe he required one-to-one aide support.

School psychologist Aguilar explained there was a change of teachers in the special day class. Due to miscommunications, Student’s accommodations, including his visual supports, were not being used consistently throughout the school day. Aguilar explained that staff was placing more academic demands on Student by implementing his behavior goal, which could have contributed towards his increased behaviors. Despite Student’s worsening behaviors, Earlimart did not make any changes to Student’s educational program.

Testimony by teachers and staff working with Student in the special day class from February 2025 through October 2025 was persuasive in establishing Student’s need for behavior interventions for Student to access his educational program. During this period, the special day class was staffed by multiple special education teachers working under 30-day substitute credentials, and multiple long-term substitutes. Following Student’s transfer to the special day class in February 2025, his maladaptive behaviors continued. Student was reliant on the classroom instructional aides for academic, behavioral, and social support. In addition to frequently redirecting Student, Student’s aides often gave him time outs or breaks when Student could not sustain attention. From February 2025 through the end of the 2024-2025 school year, the special day class was staffed by substitute teachers and instructional aides.

Although Earlimart argued that the aides were supervised by a special education teacher and were trained on Student’s behavior intervention plan, the evidence proved to the contrary. The substitute teachers and instructional aides were not familiar with Student’s behavior intervention plan, they did not track with specificity the duration or frequency of any of Student’s maladaptive behaviors, or the antecedents to the behaviors. In short, although Earlimart argued that Student’s IEP program was reasonably calculated to address his behavior needs, this argument was illusory. The record supports that Earlimart’s school psychologist, teachers and instructional aides working with Student did not have requisite knowledge of Student’s program or behavior intervention plan.

Leticia Aguirre testified at hearing. Aguirre was a long-term substitute teacher in the special day class during May 2025. Aguirre was not familiar with Student’s IEP, accommodations, or his behavior intervention plan.

Aguirre kept a log of Student’s maladaptive behaviors during the one month she was Student’s special education teacher in May 2025. She documented incidents of Student kicking, biting, or spitting. She described an incident in the special day class when Student kicked a chair. Aguirre leaned down to reach for the chair and was kicked in the eye by Student. Aguirre kept a behavior log, which contained images of a happy or sad face. Aguirre circled the appropriate picture to depict how he did that day in English, writing and math, and sometimes wrote comments. Some of the comments included behaviors such as:

scratching staff, engaging in inappropriate interactions, taking a pencil away from another student, throwing books, trying to bite staff, spitting at staff, throwing things at staff, and throwing objects at other students.

Aguirre did not implement any particular or consistent behavior strategies, or follow Student’s prescribed behavior plan. Aguirre’s testimony was persuasive in establishing Student’s need for behavior interventions as of May 2025.

TESTIMONY BY TEACHERS AND INSTRUCTIONAL AIDES WORKING

WITH STUDENT DURING THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR THROUGH

OCTOBER 2025 CORROBORATED STUDENT’S ONGOING BEHAVIORAL

NEEDS

The overwhelming weight of evidence proved Student’s behavioral challenges continued during the 2025-2026 school year. Earlimart’s witnesses, including school psychologist Aguilar and director Jimenez, unpersuasively testified that the staff working with Student were familiar with his behavior intervention plan and followed its directives. The evidence proved otherwise.

Instructional aides Fabiola Lopez, Jessie Pesina, and Jaymi Ramirez, special education teacher Karla Martinez, and general education teacher Jennifer Hill testified at hearing. They could not describe Student’s IEP, its accommodations, or the behavior intervention plan. They could not clearly explain what behaviors were targeted, or what interventions were used, other than giving Student breaks, visuals, and social stories.

Teachers and instructional aides in the special day class frequently called administrators, such as Jimenez, the school psychologist or other administrators if they needed help to manage Student’s behaviors.

Instructional aide Pesina worked in the special day class during the 2025-2026 school year. Pesina offered persuasive testimony proving Student’s need for systematic behavior interventions. She described Student as “crying a lot,” not being able to keep still, blurting out words, and throwing himself off his chair. Student hit, bit, or kicked peers or staff daily. She believed Student’s peers feared him. His peers would move away from Student or put their hands up and say, “No, no!” Pesina and the other instructional aides used a timer, verbal directions to “keep his hands and feet safe,” and provided him five-minute breaks several times a day. Student could sustain attention to non-preferred tasks for three to four minutes. Pesina was not provided any instructions or feedback by school psychologist Aguilar. Pesina believed that other students were not safe around Student unless an adult was present or intervened. Instructional aide Ramirez also worked in the special day class during the 20252026 school year. Ramirez used visuals with Student. Student tried to use his iPad to communicate. Ramirez offered Student fidgets, frequent breaks, and visual timers. However, Student’s behavior escalated on a daily basis. Ramirez sometimes called administration for assistance to manage Student’s behaviors.

Lopez, who taught Student for approximately one month in August and September 2025, documented aggression towards an adult and a student. The art teacher reported thrown papers, crayons, and glue sticks. Lopez believed Student could benefit from one-to-one aide support.

Education specialist Martinez was Student’s special education teacher starting September 26, 2025. Martinez had been a credentialed education specialist for five years. She saw Student engage in maladaptive behaviors, including hitting a peer in the back without provocation, refusing to sit during whole class instruction, hitting a staff member in the arm and face while being redirected to group rotations, and bumping into another student. Student was provided flexible seating, allowed frequent breaks, and shown visual social stories depicting appropriate interactions. Martinez generally testified that Student’s behavior intervention plan was followed and that his behaviors improved during the one-month period she taught Student, but the testimony of other Earlimart witnesses, including Pesina, Ramirez, Fabiola, and Hill was more persuasive in establishing Student’s continued behavioral needs. On cross-examination, Martinez agreed Student could access general education curriculum with one-to-one aide support and systematic implementation of a behavior intervention plan. General education teacher Hill was Student’s teacher during the 2025-2026 school year. Hill’s testimony was persuasive in establishing Student’s need for behavior interventions and one-to-one aide support. Hill described Student as loud, largely unintelligible, and aggressive. She saw Student quickly crawl towards another student and put his hands around their neck. She saw Student hug a peer so forcefully that both fell, and saw Student attempt to push or kick a child down the slide. Hill believed Student required one-to-one aide support for his safety and that of others. Student’s teachers and instructional aides independently decided what accommodations to use, but failed to track with any specificity the duration or frequency of Student’s behaviors, or antecedents to behaviors. Staff working with Student were left to their own discretion due to lack of an appropriate behavior plan on how to address Student’s behaviors, when to implement accommodations, or how to track Student’s behaviors; all of which were performed inconsistently and not in a manner designed to extinguish the cause, or antecedents of the behavior. Dr. Katz’s and Dr. Villareal’s testimony that Student required consistent behavior interventions is illustrative here; the problem lies with the lack of appropriate behavior interventions, including a behavior intervention plan and one-to-one aide support with supervision by personnel trained to design and oversee behavior interventions. (Ed. Code, § 56520; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.23, subd. (a).)

Earlimart’s witnesses testified that Student always had adult support with him, including one-to-one aide support during the time he was in general education, and they tracked data on Student’s behaviors. However, one-to-one aide support was not offered in Student’s September 13, 2024, IEP, or any amendment IEP offered during the 2024-2025 or 2025-2026 school years. School psychologist Aguilar could not identify who had been trained or consistently supported Student, and classroom teachers and instructional aides described unfamiliarity with the IEP goals and behavior plan. The varying behavior plans further undermined the claim of a coordinated behavior intervention program.

STUDENT’S LACK OF PROGRESS TOWARDS HIS IEP GOALS AS OF

SEPTEMBER 2025

The inadequacy of Student’s IEP by failing to offer appropriate behavior intervention services became more apparent by the 2025-2026 school year. A September 9, 2025, progress report showed limited progress towards Student’s IEP goals. Student met his behavior goal of using visuals to identify five emotions from his September 13, 2024, IEP, but not the other reported goals.

Student did not meet his functional/adaptive skills goal of attending to task for at least 10 minutes with no more than two additional prompts. The short-term objectives indicated he could attend to task for an average of seven minutes with an average of one prompt, but it was unclear whether this was during structured or unstructured times. Because the goal was unmeasurable, as discussed in Issue 4E, it could not be determined if he made progress attending to task during structured activities. Student did not meet his goal of sharing materials with peers without engaging in tantrum-like behaviors. He did not meet his short-term objective by March 2025 of sharing preferred items without engaging in tantrum-like behavior with 60 percent accuracy across two weeks of recorded observations.

Student did not meet his adaptive goal of using visuals to seek help from an adult instead of engaging in a challenging behavior with 80 percent accuracy. He did not meet the short-term objective by June 2025 of using visuals to seek help from an adult with 70 percent accuracy across two weeks of recorded observations. Student did not meet his behavior goal of reducing physical aggression, such as hitting, scratching, or grabbing, during peer interactions by 50 percent during a 60-minute period. A June 4, 2025 progress report indicated his physical aggression was slightly reduced, but he still hit and scratched when he became frustrated. No progress was reported on Student’s one communication goal.

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

Student proved the offer of services, accommodations, and behavior intervention plan in the IEPs developed during the 2024-2025 school year were insufficient to address Student’s behavioral and communication needs. Student required one-to-one adult support and systematic behavior interventions to access instruction and peer interactions. The offers of services and support in the IEPs developed during the 2024-2025 school year were not designed to meet Student’s unique needs, did not comport with Student's IEP, and were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with some educational benefit in the least restrictive environment. (Gregory K., supra, 811 F.2d at pp. 1314-1315.) Student proved by a preponderance of evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year in by failing to offer behavior intervention services based on peer reviewed and researched-based interventions to the extent practicable.

Student prevailed on Issue 5B.

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

ISSUE 6A THROUGH 6E: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE

SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2025 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE

GOALS IN SOCIAL SKILLS, ATTENTION TO TASK, COMMUNICATION SKILLS,

BEHAVIOR, AND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING TOILETING?

ISSUES 7A AND 7B: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE

SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2025 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE

SUPPORTS AND SERVICES TO ADDRESS BEHAVIORS AND DEVELOPMENTAL

DELAYS BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATELY TRAINED, SUPERVISED

AND/OR CREDENTIALED STAFF AND FAILING TO OFFER PEER REVIEWED

AND RESEARCH-BASED INTERVENTIONS TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE?

Issues 6A through 6E and Issues 7A and 7B are analyzed together because they relate to Student’s educational program during the 2025-2026 school year. As discussed below, Earlimart did not complete its review of Student’s comprehensive three-year evaluation of Student due in September 2025, and did not make a formal FAPE offer to Student in the 2025-2026 school year.

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

2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR - KINDERGARTEN

AUGUST 6, 2025, ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR THREE-YEAR EVALUATION

On August 6, 2025, Earlimart issued an assessment plan for Student’s three-year reevaluation. Student’s three-year reevaluation was required to be completed before September 20, 2025. California law refers to evaluations as assessments, and the terms evaluation and assessment are used in this Decision interchangeably. (Ed. Code, § 56302.5.)

Earlimart proposed to evaluate Student in the following areas:

academics including reading, arithmetic, oral and written language skills, and/or general knowledge by the education specialist;

health by the district nurse;

intellectual development by the school psychologist;

language and speech communication development by a speechlanguage pathologist;

motor development by an occupational therapist;

social-emotional/behavior by a school psychologist; and adaptive behavior by a school psychologist.

Parent provided consent to the assessment plan on August 8, 2025.

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

SEPTEMBER 4 AND 19, 2025, AMENDMENT IEP TEAM MEETINGS TO

DISCUSS PARENT’S REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES

INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANCE EVALUATION

Earlimart convened an amendment IEP team meeting on September 4, 2025, to address Parent’s concerns, specifically Parent’s request that Student be provided one-toone aide support. Student was five years, 11 months old and in kindergarten. The participants at the IEP team meeting were:

Parent, a Spanish interpreter, principal Noe, general education teacher Hill, education specialist Valencia, special education teacher Lopez, school psychologist Aguilar, speech-language pathologist Moore, student services support director Jimenez, vice principal Ivan Guiterrez, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

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

Parent requested a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation, an evaluation used to determine the need for dedicated aide support. She described Student’s need for frequent redirection at home, distractibility, and aggression towards other children. Earlimart said it needed more time to consider this request. The Earlimart team members believed Student was making progress with his IEP accommodations and behavior intervention plan. School psychologist Aguilar believed the existing accommodations and behavior plan were effective, and Student was making progress towards his IEP goals. Special education teacher Lopez raised concerns about Student’s behaviors when she was absent. General education teacher Hill raised concerns about Student’s behaviors during unstructured time, including recess. The IEP team suggested that Student participate in Recess Crew, which was a structured play program.

On September 8, 2026, Parent sent a letter to Earlimart reiterating her request for a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation.

Earlimart convened a continuation IEP team meeting on September 19, 2025. Earlimart agreed to conduct a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation. Neither party introduced the assessment plan at hearing. Aguilar conducted a limited assessment and prepared a written report dated November 19, 2025, without observations of Student who was then out of school.

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

OCTOBER 24, 2025, IEP TEAM MEETING, AS CONTINUED TO

NOVEMBER 19, 2025

In Issue 6, Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to offer goals in social skills, attention to task, communication skills, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting, at IEP team meetings held in September and October 2025. Student argues Parent withdrew him from school in October 2025 due to safety concerns, and that Earlimart failed to make a FAPE offer for the 2025-2026 school year. Student maintains that although Earlimart claims it made a diagnostic offer of one-to-one support while it completed the IEP process, the offer was unclear. Earlimart contends it conducted Student’s three-year reevaluation and convened Student’s IEP team meeting on October 24, 2025, but did not complete the review of its three-year reassessments in speech and language and psychoeducation. Earlimart contends it agreed to conduct a special circumstances instructional assistance assessment following Student’s request on September 4, 2025, and completed its assessment on November 19, 2025, after it obtained Parent’s consent to the assessment plan. Earlimart argues it was in the process of completing the special circumstances instructional assistance assessment when Parents pulled Student from school on October 24, 2025. Earlimart argues it made reasonable efforts since October 24, 2025, to reschedule the IEP team meetings to finish the review of the three-year reevaluations in psychoeducation and speech and language, review Student’s present levels of performance, develop goals, and make an offer of special education and related services, but has been unable to do so as of the date of hearing. Earlimart maintains it was willing to implement Student’s last consented-to IEP while the parties completed the IEP, but Parent did not bring Student to school after October 24, 2025. Earlimart argues it made an interim offer to allow Student to attend the general education classroom with individual aide support, but Parent did not agree. Earlimart further argues that it was not obligated to make a FAPE offer at the end of the IEP team meetings on October 24 and November 19, 2025, and that it has made reasonable attempts to accommodate Parent’s concerns and reschedule the IEP team meeting to foster Parent’s meaningful participation.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE AN OFFER OF FAPE WAS MADE, OR

THAT EARLIMART WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF FAPE, AT

THE SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2025, IEP TEAM MEETINGS

The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child, and the provision of FAPE to the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b) & (c); Ed. Code, §§ 56304, 56341.) Each public agency must take steps to ensure the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP team meeting or afforded the opportunity to participate, including: (1) notifying parents of the meeting early enough to ensure that they will have an opportunity to attend; and (2) scheduling the meeting at a mutually agreed on time and place. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322(a).) A parent has meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when he or she is informed of the child’s problems, attends the IEP meeting, expresses disagreement regarding the IEP team’s conclusions, and requests revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox

County Schools (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693 (N.L.); Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d at p. 1036 .)

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

“[T]he informed involvement of parents” is central to the IEP process. (Winkelman v. Parma City School Dist. (2007) 550 U.S. 516, 524 [127 S. Ct. 1994] (Winkelman).) Protection of parental participation is “[a]mong the most important procedural safeguards” in the IDEA. (Amanda J. v. Clark County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 877, 882 (Amanda J.).) Parents not only represent the best interests of their child in the IEP development process, but also “provide information about the child critical to developing a comprehensive IEP and which only they are in a position to know.” (Ibid.)

The fact that it may be difficult to schedule meetings or to work with a parent does not excuse a failure to include the parent in the IEP team meeting. (Doug C. v.

Hawaii Dept. of Education (9th Cir. 2013) 720 F.3d 1038, 1045 (Doug C.).) When confronted with competing IDEA procedural requirements, the agency must make a reasonable determination of which course of action promotes the purposes of the IDEA and is least likely to result in the denial of FAPE. (Id. at p. 1046.) In reviewing an agency’s actions in such a scenario, the agency will have reasonable latitude in making that determination. (Ibid.) A school district denies Student a FAPE where it holds an IEP team meeting to consider placement and services without parents even when parents had already decided the student would not be attending a district school. (D.B.

ex rel. Roberts v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2015) 606 Fed.Appx. 359, 360 [nonpub. opn.]; see also, Anchorage School Dist. v. M.P. (9th Cir. 2012) 689 F.3d 1047, 1055 (Anchorage) [“[T]he IDEA, its implementing regulations, and our case law all emphasize the importance of parental involvement and advocacy, even when the parents’ preferences do not align with those of the educational agency.”].) Nor does withdrawal from public school automatically end a district’s duty where the parent continues to seek an appropriate program. (L.B. by and Through Morrisey v. San Diego

Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2026) 168 F.4th 1150, 1161-1162 (L.B.).) A school district is required to conduct not just an IEP team meeting, but a meaningful IEP team meeting. (Target Range, supra, 960 F.2d at p. 1485; see N.L., supra, 315 F.3d at p. 693; Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d at p. 1036.) “Participation must be more than mere form; it must be meaningful.” (Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education (6th Cir. 2004) 392 F.3d 840, 858 [citations omitted; emphasis in original] (Deal); see also,

Winkelman, supra, 550 U.S. at p. 524 [127 S.Ct. 1994]; Amanda J., supra, 267 F.3d at p. 882.) The IEP team shall consider the concerns of the parent for enhancing the student’s education and information on the student’s needs provided to, or by, the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)A) & (d)(4)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(1)(ii) & (b)(1)(ii)(C); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subds. (a)(2), (d)(3) & (f).)

THE OCTOBER 24, 2025, IEP TEAM MEETING TO REVIEW

EARLIMART’S THREE-YEAR REEVALUATION AND DEVELOP

STUDENT’S ANNUAL IEP

Student’s three-year review was due by September 20, 2025. Earlimart scheduled an IEP team meeting for September 11, 2025, to review the three-year reevaluations and develop Student’s IEP. For reasons not entirely made clear at hearing, the IEP team meeting was rescheduled to October 24, 2025. The October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

was facilitated by Tulare County Office of Education Special Education Local Plan Area Compliance Officer Kevin Jessee. The meeting lasted for one and a half hours. The IEP team members included:

Parent, a Spanish language interpreter, compliance officer Kevin Jessee, occupational therapist Goodin, principal Noe, vice principal Gutierrez, school psychologist Aguilar, speech-language pathologist Bueno, general education teacher Hill, education specialists Martinez and Valencia,

Tulare County Office of Education program specialist Christine Ruddy, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

At the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting, Jessee provided Parent an opportunity to address all her concerns about Student’s educational program. The entirety of the meeting was spent on allowing Parent ample opportunity to state her concerns. Parent shared a variety of concerns including Student’s safety, her belief he required one-to-one aide support, delays in receiving Student’s progress reports, and disagreement with

Student’s speech and language services being delivered virtually. Parent described various instances where Student had been harmed, including being bitten, scratched, falling, bumping into a pole, and hit in the face by a door. Parent described other instances when Student hit or harmed others, including staff. Parent believed Earlimart did not communicate timely with Parent about these incidents or explain what happened and did not believe that Student was appropriately supervised. Parent requested clarification about who was responsible for implementing Student’s IEP and how his behavior intervention plan and goals were being addressed. Earlimart agreed to provide Parent reports documenting their investigation of these incidents. The IEP team discussed that the special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation would identify the times during the day that Student required one-to-one aide support. Principal Noe asked Parent if she felt comfortable sending Student back to school. Parent stated she did not. Principal Noe proposed a diagnostic placement for Student pending completion of the special circumstances instructional assistance assessment and development of Student’s educational program. She proposed that Student be placed in the general education setting for the full school day with instructional aide support. Parent responded she would discuss this with Student’s father and let the IEP team know the family’s decision. Parent further shared she did not want this proposal to be temporary.

Due to time constraints, the IEP team did not complete a review of Student’s three-year reevaluation or develop Student’s FAPE offer at the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting. The IEP team agreed to reconvene to review the assessment results and (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

develop Student’s educational program. As a result, Earlimart did not make an offer of special education and related services at the conclusion of the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting.

On October 27, 2025, Parent sent an email to Principal Noe and Jimenez stating Student would not be attending school for his safety.

NOVEMBER 6, 2025, OFFER TO PLACE STUDENT IN GENERAL

EDUCATION CLASSROOM WITH AIDE SUPPORT PENDING

COMPLETION OF STUDENT’S THREE-YEAR REVIEW

Earlimart sent Parent an email on November 6, 2025, and a document titled, “Memorandum of Understanding”. The document outlined a temporary placement offer for Student pending completion of review of Student’s three-year reevaluations and development of a FAPE offer. Earlimart offered:

placement in the general education classroom for the full school day;

in-class support in the form of a classroom instructional aide for the full school day; and all other supports and services as stated in Student’s September 13,

2024, IEP.

The offer was described as temporary and would expire on November 19, 2025, unless the IEP team agreed to amend Student’s IEP to offer this placement. Parent did not respond to this proposal.

THE NOVEMBER 19, 2025, CONTINUED IEP TEAM MEETING

Earlimart reconvened the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting on November 19, 2025. The meeting lasted for two hours. Compliance officer Jessee facilitated the meeting. The people who attended the November 19, 2025, IEP team meeting included:

Parent, a Spanish language interpreter, compliance officer Jessee,

Student’s godparent, occupational therapist Goodin, principal Noe, vice principal Gutierrez, school psychologist Aguilar, speech-language pathologist Bueno, general education teacher Hill, education specialists Martinez and Valencia, program specialist Ruddy, and a representative from the Central Valley Regional Center.

During the November 19, 2025, IEP team meeting, occupational therapist Goodin reviewed the results of his occupational therapy assessment in depth with the IEP team. Valencia reviewed the results of Student’s academic assessment. Only five minutes remained after Goodin and Valencia shared their assessment results. Parent requested the opportunity to ask questions before ending the meeting that day. Parent asked why Earlimart was conducting a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation. Jimenez responded by stating the assessment was being conducted based on Parent’s earlier request. Parent verbally retracted her consent to the assessment and requested that Earlimart provide one-to-one aide support by a registered behavior technician with supervision by a board certified behavior analyst. Parent did not feel safe sending Student to school without these supports. After further discussion with the team, Parent stated it was acceptable for Earlimart to complete the special circumstances instructional assistance assessment.

Parent asked if Earlimart could provide Student support by a registered behavior technician with oversight by a board certified behavior analyst. Jimenez responded that Earlimart did not have a registered behavior technician on staff, but it had other staff that could support Student. The Earlimart IEP team members reiterated that Earlimart needed to continue the IEP team meeting to review the remaining assessment results, respond to Parent’s request for behavioral supports, and make a formal FAPE offer. Parent wanted the IEP team to decide that day if they would offer Student one-to-one aide support by a registered behavior technician.

Due to time constraints, the IEP team agreed to reconvene the IEP team meeting to review the remaining evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language and special circumstances instructional assistance and to discuss Student’s goals and related services. Earlimart did not make a FAPE offer at the conclusion of the November 19, 2025, IEP team meeting.

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

EARLIMART’S EFFORTS TO RESCHEDULE THE IEP TEAM MEETING TO

FINISH REVIEW OF THE THREE-YEAR REEVALUATIONS AND MAKE A

FAPE OFFER

Following the IEP team meeting held on November 19, 2025, Earlimart attempted to schedule another IEP team meeting to complete Student’s IEP and make an offer for special education and related services. On November 25, 2025, Jimenez emailed Parent to clarify that Earlimart’s proposed diagnostic placement in the general education classroom with aide support remained open while the IEP team continued developing Student’s IEP. In an email exchange between Parent and Jimenez on December 5, 2025, Earlimart confirmed that the proposed diagnostic placement in the general education classroom was made to address Parent’s concerns about Student’s safety at school. Parent wrote in a December 8, 2025, email that she felt overwhelmed during the IEP team meetings. Jimenez responded that the IEP team members were necessary participants and that the representatives from the Tulare County Office of Education who attended the meetings were there to facilitate the discussions. Jimenez offered to share Parent’s concerns with the IEP team members and encourage them to use simple vocabulary when presenting their assessment results.

On December 9, 2025, Parent notified Jimenez she would not attend a continued IEP team meeting scheduled for December 11, 2025, because she did not understand the Earlimart employee’s Spanish translation during the previous November 19, 2025, IEP team meeting. Jimenez notified Parent the case manager would reach out to propose a new date and time for the continued IEP team meeting.

Jimenez emailed Parent on December 12, 2025, to propose accommodations to help Parent feel comfortable at the next IEP team meeting. She proposed excusing IEP team members who had already presented their assessment reports, having some members appear by Zoom rather than in person, having an Earlimart staff member go to Parent’s home to interpret in person, or hold an in-person IEP team meeting. In an email dated December 16, 2025, Parent again stated she was overwhelmed by the IEP process. Jimenez sent another email to Parent clarifying the temporary offer of placement in the general education setting with an instructional aide present in the classroom. Jimenez further proposed daily teacher communication with Parent and check-ins with the school counselor.

No evidence established the parties had further communication after that email or that an IEP team meeting was held before Student filed his complaint on January 13, 2026. The three-year review and IEP remained unfinished as of the date of hearing.

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE AN OFFER OF FAPE WAS REQUIRED TO

BE MADE AT THE SEPTEMBER 2025 AND OCTOBER 2025 IEP TEAM

MEETINGS

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE in the October 24, 2025, IEP by failing to offer appropriate goals and behavioral supports. Earlimart contends the IEP team did not have an opportunity to review Student’s three-year reevaluation or make a FAPE offer to Student, and that it made multiple attempts to reschedule the IEP team meeting.

During the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting, as continued to November 19, 2025, Parent had many questions and concerns about Student’s safety at school and the occupational therapy and academic assessments. Each IEP team meeting lasted for approximately one and a half hours, and the Earlimart team members worked collaboratively with Parent to develop Student’s educational program. In an effort to accommodate Parent, compliance officer Jessee communicated with Parent before the meetings, prepared draft agendas, and allowed Parent to voice her concerns over the course of the entire October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting.

However, Earlimart did not make a FAPE offer at these meetings because further discussion needed to be had before a formal offer could be made. The parties participated in two IEP team meetings, but did not complete the review of Student’s three-year reevaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, and special circumstances instructional assistance evaluations. The IEP team did not review Student’s present levels of performance, develop goals, or determine the supports and services required to provide Student a FAPE.

Although school district personnel may bring a draft of the IEP to the meeting, the parents are entitled to bring to an IEP team meeting their questions, concerns, and recommendations as part of a full discussion of a child’s needs and the services to be provided to meet those needs before the IEP is finalized. (Assistance to States for the

Education of Children Disabilities (March 12, 1999) 64 Fed. Reg. 12478-12479.) Parent took the untenable position that she only would return Student to school if he received one-to-one aide services by a registered behavior technician with oversight by a board certified behavior analyst. Parent also decided not to participate in the IEP process following the November 19, 2025, IEP team meeting through the date Student filed his complaint. These decisions placed Earlimart in the position of either completing the IEP process without Parent’s input, or instead, delaying the offer by continuing to attempt to involve Parent in the IEP process. Earlimart reasonably chose the latter option. Earlimart continued through the date of hearing to attempt to complete Student’s IEP. Earlimart’s decision was consistent with legal precedent by the United States Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Endrew F., school officials are tasked with responsibility for decisions of critical importance to disabled children, and deference is afforded them based on their expertise and judgment. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 404.) The IEP process ensures that “parents and school representatives will fully air their respective opinions on the degree of progress a child’s IEP should pursue.” (Ibid.) Further, by the time a dispute reaches a court, “the school authorities will have had a complete opportunity to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress in light of his circumstances.” (Ibid.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has provided some guidance to school districts faced with balancing competing commands of federal law affecting a parent’s participation rights. In Doug C., supra, 720 F.3d 1038, a district scheduled an annual IEP team meeting just in time to meet the IDEA’s requirement that a meeting be held at least annually to consider the student’s progress on his goals and make revisions if appropriate. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(4)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1).) The parent could not attend because of illness and sought postponement to a later date and the district refused, citing its obligation to hold the meeting within a year of the previous meeting. The court held the district to a reasonableness standard of taking the course of action that promoted the purpose of the IDEA and was least likely to result in the denial of FAPE, determining that the school district denied the student a FAPE because it deprived the parents of adequate participation in the IEP process. (Doug C., supra, 720 F.3d at p. 1046; see also Anchorage, supra, 689 F.3d at pp. 1059-1060 [strained relationship between school district and parents did not excuse the school district from updating the student’s IEP in compliance with the IDEA].)

Applying the Doug C. standard, the only reasonable course of action for Earlimart to take on October 24, 2025, and November 19, 2025, was to defer development of the IEP to a later date. Rescheduling the IEP team meeting to complete the review of Student’s three-year evaluations afforded Parent the opportunity to provide input and allowed for a full discussion of Parent’s questions and concerns regarding the recommendations by Earlimart’s team members. Earlimart made reasonable efforts to reconvene the IEP team meeting. Earlimart reached out to Parent on multiple occasions to explain the necessity of completing the IEP development process and the importance of Parent’s participation. In a December 12, 2025, email to Parent, Jimenez addressed Parent’s unwillingness to further participate by agreeing to reschedule the meeting. Earlimart offered accommodations to facilitate Parent’s participation, including limiting the number of IEP team members present and having an interpreter translate for Parent at Parent’s home. These efforts gave Parent the opportunity to provide input and allowed for a full discussion of Parent’s questions and concerns regarding Earlimart’s recommendations in the development of Student’s IEP.

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

Earlimart was not in a position to make a FAPE offer until it reviewed the threeyear reevaluations, obtained input from the IEP team members, including Parent, and developed a FAPE offer with all required components. Had Earlimart instead finalized the IEP at the October 24, 2025, IEP team meeting or after the November 19, 2025, team meeting without Parent’s participation, it would have denied Parent the opportunity to consider the evaluator’s psychoeducation, speech-language, and special circumstances instructional assistance evaluations, and discussion of the components of an educational program for Student. At the time of the October 24, 2025, and November 19, 2025, IEP team meetings, there was already an IEP in place to which Parent had previously agreed. The September 13, 2024, IEP, as amended, was the last agreed upon and implemented IEP. Student was therefore not left without an educational placement pending completion of development of his new IEP. That continuity did not cure the deficiencies found under Issues 4A through 4E and 5B or suspend Earlimart’s duty to complete an updated IEP.

This conclusion is limited. Parental disagreement does not authorize indefinite delay, and the existence of a prior IEP does not establish that its goals and services remain appropriate. (Doug. C., supra, 720 F3d. at pp. 1045-1047; Anchorage, supra, 689 F.3d at pp. 1055-1056.) Here, the October 24, 2025, IEP, as continued to November 19, 2025, did not result in any newly adopted goals or services whose adequacy could be evaluated under the issues as framed. (L.B., supra, 168 F.4th at p. 1160.) Student failed to prove Earlimart denied him FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025 by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in communication, social skills, attention, behavior and adaptive behavior, including toileting. Student further did not prove Earlimart denied Student a FAPE in the IEPs dated

September and October 2025 by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised and/or credentialed staff and failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable.

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issues 6A through 6E and Issues 7A and 7B.

ISSUES 9A THROUGH 9C: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE

FROM JANUARY 13, 2024, THROUGH JANUARY 13, 2026, BY FAILING TO

PROVIDE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICES DENYING PARENT’S REQUEST FOR AN

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT, DENYING PARENT’S REQUEST

FOR ONE-TO-ONE AIDE SUPPORTS, AND DENYING PARENT’S REQUEST

FOR IN-PERSON SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES?

Special education law requires a school district to provide parents with prior written notice whenever it proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the provision of FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (a).) The prior written notice must include:

1. a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency; 2. an explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action;

3. description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report the district used as a basis for the proposed or refused action;

4. a statement that the parents of a child with a disability have protections under the procedural safeguards of the IDEA and information about how to obtain a copy of those safeguards;

5. sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the IDEA’s provisions;

6. a description of other options considered by the IEP team and the reason why those options were rejected; and 7. a description of the factors that are relevant to the agency's proposal or refusal.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (b).) An IEP document can serve as a prior written notice if the IEP contains the required content of a prior written notice. (Assistance to States for the Education of

Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46691 (Aug. 14, 2006); see also Parents v. Santa Cruz City School Dist. (November 10, 2025) OAH Case No. 2025060821).) The failure to issue a prior written notice may be a procedural violation under the IDEA. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2).)

9A: REQUEST FOR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY ASSESSMENT

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to issue a prior written notice in response to Parent’s request for an occupational therapy assessment at a January 27, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. Student further contends Earlimart should have issued a prior written notice following the May 12, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting when Parent disagreed with an occupational therapy observation by the Tulare County Office of Education.

Earlimart contends Parent requested an occupational therapy assessment at the May 12, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting, and that Earlimart agreed to conduct an occupational therapy assessment at the start of the 2025-2026 school year. Earlimart further contends it provided Parent an assessment plan to assess Student in occupational therapy on August 6, 2025, to which Parent consented. Earlimart argues that even if it should have issued a prior written notice, Student did not prove that this procedural violation materially impeded Student’s right to a FAPE, significantly interfered with Parent’s ability to participate in Student’s program, or deprived Student of educational benefit or opportunity.

Parent expressed concerns about Student’s need for occupational therapy services at various times in the relevant period, including at the May 28, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting. The IEP team notes reflected that Earlimart referred Student to the Tulare County Office of Education for an occupational therapy observation.

The following school year at the May 12, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting, education specialist Valencia reported on the results of an occupational therapy observation conducted by Tulare County Office of Education occupational therapist Warren Goodin. Valencia reported that based on his observation, Goodin determined Student had excellent fine motor skills and he did not believe an occupational therapy assessment was needed.

Parent expressed her disagreement with Goodin’s finding that Student did not require occupational therapy services. She shared her concerns with the IEP team that Student grabbed and held his pencil with his fist, and that her medical providers recommended that Student receive school based occupational therapy services. The Earlimart IEP team members discussed with Parent that it would conduct an occupational therapy assessment in August 2025 as part of Student’s three-year reevaluation.

Student did not prove that Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to issue a prior written notice. Parent testified that she first requested an occupational therapy assessment for Student in summer 2025. The evidence proved Parent requested an occupational therapy assessment at the May 12, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. Earlimart agreed at that meeting to assess Student starting in August 2025. Earlimart issued an assessment plan for Student’s three-year evaluation on August 6, 2025. The assessment plan proposed to assess Student in various areas, including occupational therapy. Parent consented to the assessment plan, and occupational therapist Goodin assessed Student in September 2025 and prepared a written report dated October 15, 2025.

Further, even if a procedural violation occurred, Student failed to prove this impeded Student’s right to a FAPE, significantly interfered with Parent’s participation in the decision-making process or deprived Student of educational benefits. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2).)

Student failed to meet his burden of proof on Issue 9A.

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

9B: SEPTEMBER 13, 2024, AND SEPTEMBER 19, 2025, REQUESTS FOR

ONE-TO-ONE AIDE SUPPORT

Student contends that Parent requested one-to-one aide support for Student at IEP team meetings held on September 13, 2024, and September 19, 2025, and Earlimart denied these requests. Student contends Earlimart was required to issue legally compliant prior written notices explaining the basis for its refusal to offer one-to-one aide support. Earlimart contends that the September 13, 2024, and September 19, 2025, IEP meeting notes stated the actions proposed or refused by Earlimart and the basis for declining Parent’s request. Earlimart contends this satisfied its obligation to provide Parent prior written notices.

Parent made a request for one-to-one aide support on multiple occasions during the statutory period, including at the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting, and the following year at a September 19, 2025, IEP team meeting.

At the September 13, 2024, IEP team meeting, Earlimart denied Parent’s request on the basis there was a required process to obtain this support. Earlimart explained it needed to collect more data on Student’s behavior and other behavior supports before it could offer this service. Parent renewed her request the next year at the September 19, 2025 amendment IEP team meeting. Parent believed Student required one-to-one aide support for his physical safety. She expressed concern about new behaviors Student was exhibiting, including spitting, displaying anxiety, and hitting.

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

Earlimart did not provide a prior written notice in response to Parent’s requests. At hearing, Student Supports Services Director Jimenez recognized that Earlimart should have issued a prior written notice describing the failure to do so as a “missed opportunity.” Contrary to Earlimart’s argument, the IEP team notes did not satisfy the requirements for a prior written notice. The notes in the September 13, 2024, IEP state the basis for the refusal was Earlimart’s need to track data and utilize other behavior supports. The notes from the September 19, 2025, amendment IEP state Earlimart will conduct a special circumstances instructional assistance assessment, and suggest one-to-one aide support makes a disabled Student’s placement more restrictive. Earlimart’s reasons for refusing one-to-one support was based on Earlimart’s incorrect understanding that one-to-one aide support is more restrictive than a special day class. Earlimart’s explanations for its refusal to provide one-to-one aide support was incorrect in both instances, and did not satisfy its obligation to issue prior written notices. Instead of issuing a legally compliant prior written notice, on November 6, 2025, Earlimart offered a Memorandum of Understanding suggesting a temporary or diagnostic placement pending completion of its three-year reevaluation and development of Student’s FAPE offer. A prior written notice would have necessarily included important information about Earlimart’s offer, including a description of the action proposed, an explanation why it was proposing the offer, a description of what assessment or information it was relying on in making the offer, and about the procedural safeguards of the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (b).)

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

Earlimart’s failure to issue prior written notices in response to Parent’s requests for one-to-one aide support on September 13, 2024, and September 19, 2025, constitute procedural violations under the IDEA. Student proved that the failure to provide prior written notices denied him a FAPE. Earlimart’s failure to issue prior written notice interfered with Parent’s ability to meaningfully participate in Student’s education program. Parent was deprived of critical information regarding an explanation why Earlimart refused Parent’s requests, a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report Earlimart used as a basis for refused action, a description of other options considered by the IEP team and the reason why those options were rejected; and a description of the factors that were relevant to Earlimart’s refusals. Student met his burden of proof on Issue 9B.

9C: PARENT’S DISAGREEMENT WITH VIRTUAL SPEECH AND

LANGUAGE SERVICES

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to provide a prior written notice following Parent’s disagreement to virtual implementation of Student’s speech and language services during the 2025-2026 school year. Earlimart contends it was not required to issue a prior written notice because the reasons for its decision were discussed at the September 4, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. Earlimart further contends that Student’s IEP did not specifically state its speech and language services could not be delivered virtually, and therefore it was justified in issuing virtual services during the period it sought to hire a speech-language pathologist who could provide in-person services.

Student proved Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to issue a prior written notice following Parent’s disagreement at the September 4, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting to Student’s speech and language services being delivered virtually. Between fall 2024 and fall 2025, Earlimart’s speech-language pathologist was on maternity leave. During this period, multiple speech-language pathologists delivered speech and language services to Earlimart’s students. During the 2025-2026 school year, speech-language pathologist Moore delivered Student’s speech-language services virtually. At hearing, Moore explained Student’s teachers or instructional aides would log onto the computer and help Student put on headphones. Moore would work with Student for 30-minute sessions. She would start her sessions with an engaging video, followed by a targeted goal activity, such as producing words or sounds. She described Student as requiring frequent breaks and being engaged about 50 percent of the time. Student required reminders to keep his headphones on. He sometimes left the area and had to be redirected by an instructional aide. At the September 4, 2025, IEP amendment team meeting Parent expressed disagreement with Student receiving virtual speech and language services. Parent believed that Student required in-person services. Principal Noe agreed in-person services would be better, but explained Earlimart did not have someone who could offer in-person services. Jimenez explained that it was not an uncommon practice to offer virtual services and they were, “following the IEP.” Speech-pathologist Moore invited Parent to observe a virtual speech session.

On September 12, 2025, Parent wrote an email to principal Noe confirming her disagreement with virtual delivery of Student’s speech and language services. Parent explained she observed Student’s speech and language virtual service that day, along with vice principal Gutierrez. Parent described the sessions as a “disaster” because Student was redirected several times, yelled “no,” and did not sit at the computer. He did not have an instructional aide sitting next to him, and moved around the room during the session.

At hearing, Jimenez and Jessee testified that it was appropriate to provide speech and language services virtually because the IEP document did not expressly prohibit virtual services. Student’s September 13, 2024, IEP provided speech and language services to be delivered in a push-in model in the general education classroom. The document was silent on whether the services could be delivered virtually. Earlimart should have issued a prior written notice following Parent’s disagreement at the September 4, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. Earlimart was obligated to provide Parent prior written notice to explain the basis for providing speech services through a virtual model. Earlimart’s argument that the notes from the IEP satisfy the requirements of a prior written notice is unpersuasive because Earlimart’s reasons for not providing in-person services was legally flawed. The IEP required speech services to be delivered in a push-in session within the general education setting. Earlimart’s belief that because the IEP was silent as to whether services could be delivered virtually was incorrect. The IDEA requires the IEP written offer to clearly describe the nature of the services. Earlimart could not unilaterally change the offer to include virtual services without an IEP amendment consented to by Parent.

Earlimart’s failure to issue prior written notice interfered with Parent’s ability to meaningfully participate in Student’s education program. Parent was deprived of critical information regarding an explanation why Earlimart refused Parent’s requests for inperson service, a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report

Earlimart used as a basis for refused action, a description of other options considered by the IEP team and the reason why those options were rejected; and a description of the factors that were relevant to Earlimart’s refusals. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd (b).)

Student met his burden of proof on Issue 9C.

ISSUE 1: DID EARLIMART DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO ASSESS IN

SOCIAL SKILLS, ATTENTION, COMMUNICATION SKILLS, BEHAVIOR, AND

ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, INCLUDING TOILETING BEGINNING JANUARY 13,

2024, AND CONTINUING THROUGH THE DATE THE COMPLAINT WAS

FILED ON JANUARY 13, 2026?

Student contends Earlimart denied him a FAPE beginning January 13, 2024, through the date the complaint was filed on January 13, 2026, by failing to assess him in all areas of suspected disability, specifically in social skills, attention to task, communication skills, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting. Student argues the functional behavior assessment conducted by Earlimart in March 2025 and subsequent behavior intervention plan lacked specificity and data analysis, frequency of the aggressive behavior, or acquisition of replacement behaviors necessary to inform Student’s behavioral needs. Student argues Earlimart should have further assessed Student’s behavioral needs. Student further argues that Earlimart should have conducted additional assessments to address Student’s communication deficits following the November 9, 2023, augmentative and alternative communication assessment, specifically pertaining to his use of the augmentative and alternative communication device.

Earlimart contends that it assessed Student in all areas of suspected disability during the relevant time. Earlimart also argues that Student’s three-year reevaluation was due by September 20, 2025, and that Earlimart did not believe Student’s educational or related service needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warranted a reassessment, nor did Parent or any teacher refer Student for assessment.

Student’s failure to assess claim spans two separate time periods governed by distinct legal requirements. First, between January 13, 2024, and September 20, 2025, Student was a child eligible for special education. Earlimart had a duty to assess if it determined Student required reassessment, or Parent or a teacher referred Student for assessment. Second, Earlimart was required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of Student as part of his three-year reevaluation due by September 20, 2025. To determine the contents of an IEP, a student eligible for special education under the IDEA must be assessed in all areas related to the student’s suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(b); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (f).) School district evaluations of students eligible for special education under the IDEA help IEP teams identify the special education and related services the student requires. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.303, 300.324(a)(1); Ed. Code, § 56341.1.) California law refers to evaluations as assessments, and the terms evaluation and assessment are used in this Decision interchangeably. (Ed. Code, § 56302.5.) For a child who is already eligible for special education, the IDEA provides for revaluations to be conducted no more frequently than once a year, but at least every three years, unless the parent and the school district agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Reevaluations of a student to determine if the student continues to be a child with a disability and continues to need special education and special services must be conducted no less than every three years. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2); see Comments, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,640 (Aug. 14, 2006).) Absent an agreement to the contrary between a school district and a student's parents, reassessments must not occur more than once a year. (Ibid.) Reevaluations must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all the child’s special education and related service needs, whether commonly linked to the child’s disability category. (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(6).)

A school district is not required to reassess more often than every three years unless one of the following occurs:

the school district determines that the educational or related service needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance of the student, warrant a reassessment;

a parent requests reassessment; or a teacher requests reassessment.

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a)(1); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1).) A school district’s failure to assess a suspected disability constitutes a procedural violation of the IDEA. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d at pp. 1031-1032.) In M.S. by & through Sartin v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (9th Cir. 2017) 678 Fed.Appx. 543, 544 (Lake Elsinore) (nonpub. opn.), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a California district court decision which incorrectly found that the school district committed a procedural, and ultimately a substantive, violation by failing to reassess a student exhibiting new and worsening behaviors. The Ninth Circuit strictly interpreted 20 United States Code section 1414(a)(2), finding no duty to assess, “because the local educational agency did not determine that revaluation was necessary, M.S.’s parents did not request a revaluation …, M.S.’s teacher did not request a revaluation, and fewer than three years had elapsed since [the prior] evaluation.” (Id. at p. 544.) In M.S., the student’s inappropriate behaviors became progressively more aggressive and posed a threat to Student’s health and safety. Student injured herself and screamed and cursed at random intervals. The school district concluded at an IEP team meeting that the student’s behaviors had worsened and were not being sufficiently addressed by her behavior intervention plan then in place. (M.S. v. Lake

Elsinore (C.D.Cal., July 24, 2015, Case No. 13-CV-01484-CAS (SPx)) 2015 WL 4511947, at p. 7.) The district court held that the school district denied student a FAPE by failing to reassess the student’s behavior. (Id. at p. 8.) The Court held the district court erred in holding the school district had a duty to reevaluate the student under these circumstances, and the school district did not procedurally violate the IDEA by failing to reassess. (Lake Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544.) Thus, where none of these triggering conditions exist, a school district has no duty to conduct a revaluation of a disabled child.

Student’s initial IEP team found him eligible for special education under the category of autism at a September 21, 2022, IEP team meeting. Student’s three-year reevaluation was due by September 20, 2025. Therefore, Earlimart was not required to assess between January 13, 2024, through September 20, 2025, unless Earlimart determined Student’s educational or related service needs, including improved academic achievement and functional performance warranted a reassessment or Parent or a teacher requested a reassessment. Earlimart was required to conduct

Student’s three-year reevaluation by September 20, 2025, which it did as discussed in Issues 6 and 7. Earlimart had no obligation to evaluate Student after September 20, 2025, through the date the complaint was filed on January 13, 2026, unless Parent or a teacher requested it or Earlimart determined an evaluation was necessary.

JANUARY 2024 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 2025 THREE-YEAR

REEVALUATION

Student did not prove Earlimart denied him a FAPE between January 13, 2024, and Student’s September 2025 reevaluation, by failing to assess in social skills, attention to task, communication, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting. The evidence established Earlimart assessed Student in these areas as part of its initial September 2022 evaluation. Earlimart conducted an additional evaluation in augmentative and alternative communication in October 2023 and reviewed the results of the assessment at a November 9, 2023, amendment IEP team meeting. It also conducted a functional behavior assessment in March 2025, and reviewed the assessment at the March 27, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting. The appropriateness of these revaluations was not at issue and is not addressed in this Decision.

Student did not offer persuasive evidence that Earlimart determined further assessment of Student was warranted before the 2025 reevaluation. Student also did not prove that either Parent or a teacher referred Student for assessment during this period. None of Earlimart’s witnesses, including school psychologist Duran, speechpathologist Bueno, Student Support Services Director Jimenez, or education specialist Valencia determined reevaluation was necessary. Further, Student did not offer evidence that a teacher referred Student for assessment during this period. Although Parent believed Student required additional speech and language services and one-to-aide support, she did not request an assessment before Student’s 2025 reevaluation in the areas at issue, specifically, in social skills, attention, communication, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting.

Student attempted to establish through questioning of Bueno, Duran, Valencia and Jimenez that Earlimart should have determined that further assessment of Student during this period was warranted. However, neither Student’s IEP team, including a teacher or Parent, referred Student for further assessment. Student’s attorney further inquired why Student was not referred for assessment based on the frequency of Student’s maladaptive behaviors including screaming, hitting, and pushing. Although Student believed Earlimart should have referred him for further assessment, this does not mean Earlimart had a duty to reevaluate Student under these circumstances. (Lake

Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed.Appx. at p. 544.)

THE SEPTEMBER 2025 THREE-YEAR REEVALUATION

Once a school district is on notice that a student displayed symptoms of an eligible disability, it must assess the student in all areas of that disability with reliable, standardized testing instruments, utilizing procedures that meet statutory requirements. The lack of information from a failure to assess may deny educational opportunities and substantially hinder the parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process. (Timothy O. v.

Paso Robles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1120-1121 (Timothy O.).)

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

Earlimart issued an assessment plan on August 6, 2025, for Student’s three-year evaluation. The purpose of an assessment plan is to provide notice to a parent of what assessments a district is proposing to conduct and by whom. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(a); Ed. Code § 56321, subd. (a).) A parent can consent to or disagree with proposed assessments and propose alternate assessments.

Following Parent’s consent to the August 6, 2025, assessment plan, Parent requested an additional assessment to consider Student’s need for individual one-toone aide support. Specifically, Parent requested a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation at the September 4, 2025 amendment IEP team meeting. Parent reiterated this request in writing on September 8, 2025. At a September 19, 2025, amendment IEP team meeting, Earlimart agreed to conduct a special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation. School psychologist Aguilar conducted the assessment and prepared a written report dated November 19, 2025. Student did not introduce evidence at hearing establishing he disagreed with the proposed assessments or that he requested assessment in additional areas of need. Student did not elicit testimony expressing Parent’s disagreement with the August 6, 2025, assessment plan or the special circumstances instructional assistance evaluation assessment plan. Student did not introduce evidence that the August 6, 2025, assessment plan did not propose to assess Student in communication, social skills, attention, behavior, and adaptive behavior. Student also did not offer testimony or documents establishing Earlimart failed to assess Student in social skills, attention to task, communication skills, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting during its three-year evaluation in September 2025. Nor were the adequacy of those evaluations at issue in hearing. At the time of hearing, with the exception of an occupational therapy and academic assessment, the remaining assessments had not been reviewed by Student’s IEP team.

Student failed to meet his burden of proving Earlimart failed to assess Student beginning January 13, 2024, through January 13, 2026.

Earlimart prevailed on Issues 1A through 1E.

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.

ISSUES 1A THROUGH 1E:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE beginning January 13, 2024, and continuing through the date the complaint was filed on January 13, 2026, by failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability, specifically in social skills, attention to task, communication skills, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting.

Earlimart prevailed on Issues 1A through 1E.

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

ISSUES 2A THROUGH 2E:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year in an amendment IEP dated May 28, 2024, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in all areas of need, specifically in communication, social skills, attention, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting.

Earlimart prevailed on Issues 2A through 2E.

ISSUE 3A:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year in an amendment IEP dated May 28, 2024, by failing to offer Student appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised and/or credentialed staff. Earlimart prevailed on Issue 3A.

ISSUE 3B:

Earlimart did not deny Student during the 2023-2024 school year in an amendment IEP dated May 28, 2024, by failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable.

Earlimart prevailed on Issue 3B.

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

ISSUES 4A THROUGH 4E:

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, January 27, March 18 and March 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in communication, social skills, attention, behavior, and adaptive behavior, including toileting.

Student prevailed on Issues 4A through 4E.

ISSUE 5A:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, January 27, March 18 and 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised, and/or credentialed staff. Earlimart prevailed on Issue 5A.

ISSUE 5B:

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE in IEPs dated September 13 and December 10, 2024, January 27, March 18 and March 27, May 12, and June 5, 2025, by failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable.

Student prevailed on Issue 5B.

ISSUES 6A THROUGH 6E:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025, by failing to offer Student appropriate goals in all areas of need, specifically in communication; social skills; attention; behavior; and adaptive behavior, including toileting.

Earlimart prevailed on Issues 6A through 6E.

ISSUE 7A:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025 by failing to offer Student appropriate supports and services to address Student’s behaviors and developmental delay by failing to offer appropriately trained, supervised and/or credentialed staff. Earlimart prevailed on Issue 7A.

ISSUE 7B:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year in IEPs dated September and October 2025 by failing to offer peer reviewed and research-based interventions to the extent practicable.

Earlimart prevailed on Issue 7B.

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

ISSUE 9A:

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to timely provide Parent a prior written notice denying her request for an occupational therapy assessment. Earlimart prevailed on Issue 9A.

ISSUE 9B:

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide a prior written notice in response to Parent’s requests on September 13, 2024, and September 19, 2025, for one-to-one aide support.

Student prevailed on Issue 9B.

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

ISSUE 9C:

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide a prior written notice following Parent’s objection at an IEP team meeting held on September 4, 2025, to delivering Student’s speech and language services in a virtual versus an inperson model. Student prevailed on Issue 9C.

REMEDIES

Student prevailed on Issues 4A through 4E, 5B, 9B, and 9C. Earlimart’s failures related to offering Student inappropriate goals and peer review and research-based interventions to the extent practicable in speech and behavior services during the 20242025 school year, and failing to provide Parent prior written notices regarding one-toone aide and speech and language services. As a remedy for Earlimart’s FAPE denials, Student requests modification of his IEP to include:

30 hours weekly applied behavior analysis services delivered by a behaviorally trained one-to-one aide supervised by a board certified behavior analyst;

one-to-one aide support throughout the school day;

three, 40-minute weekly individual speech and language services;

an IEP goal on Student’s augmentative and alternative communication device and staff training;

revision of Student’s goals in communication, attention, behavior, transitions, adaptive functioning, toileting/hygiene, safety, and academics.

Student also seeks an award of compensatory education to make up for the services Student did not receive for the two-year statutory period, specifically:

30 hours weekly for behavior and educational intervention services;

three times weekly speech and language services in 40-minute sessions;

1560 hours of behavior services, calculated at 30 hours per week for 26 school weeks for two years;

104 hours of speech and language services, calculated at three hours per week for 26 school weeks for two years;

156 hours for compensatory academics, calculated at three hours per week for 26 school weeks for two years; and mileage reimbursement for transportation costs.

Student requests that these compensatory services be available for a three-year period.

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

Student further requests reimbursement to Parent for educationally related expenses incurred on Student’s behalf, specifically:

$2,400 for 20 individual speech and language services provided by speech-language pathologist Gonzalez;

$500 for a speech-language evaluation by Speech Pathways and $100 for one speech-language session; and

$1,218.22 in transportation reimbursement for 21 round trips to obtain Student’s speech-language services.

Student requests that Earlimart be required to provide Parent service logs, goal progress data, supervision reports, and fidelity reports at least every eight weeks. Courts have broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide FAPE to a disabled child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Dept. of

Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 369 [105 S.Ct. 1996, 85 L.Ed.2d 385] (Burlington); Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup School Dist., No. 3 (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 1489, 1496-97 (Puyallup).) This broad equitable power extends to administrative law judges who hear and decide special education administrative due process matters. (Forest Grove School

Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230, 244, fn. 11 [129 S.Ct. 2484, 174 L.Ed.2d 168] (Forest Grove).)

In remedying a FAPE denial, the student is entitled to relief that is appropriate in consideration of the purposes of the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516(c)(3).) Appropriate relief means “relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA.” (Puyallup, supra, 31 F.3d at pp. 1496-97.) School districts may be ordered to provide compensatory education or additional services to a student who has been denied a FAPE. (Id. at p. 1496; Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1033.) These are equitable remedies that courts may employ to craft “appropriate relief” for a party. (Puyallop, supra, 31 F.3d at p. 1497.) The conduct of both parties must be reviewed and considered to determine whether equitable relief is appropriate. (Ibid.)

Compensatory education is a prospective award of educational services designed to catch-up the student to where he should have been absent the denial of a FAPE. (Brennan v. Regional School Dist. No. 1 (D.Conn. 2008) 531F.Supp.2d 245, 265; Orange

Unified School Dist. v. C.K. (C.D.Cal. June 4, 2012, No. SACV 11-1253 JVS(MLGx) 2012 WL 247839, *12.) Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that depends upon a fact-specific and individualized assessment of a student’s current needs. (Puyallup, supra, 31 F.3d at p. 1496.; Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia (D.D.C.Cir. 2005) 401 F.3d 516, 524.) The award must be “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” (Reid, supra, at p. 524.) However, hour-for-hour relief for a denial of FAPE is not required by law. (Puyallup, supra, 31 F.3d at p. 1497.) The FAPE denials determined in this Decision occurred from September 13, 2024, through the date the complaint was filed on January 13, 2026. The overwhelming weight of evidence established Student had significant deficits in communication, behavior and adaptive functioning and the FAPE violations deprived Student of educational benefit. Student is therefore entitled to compensatory educational services designed to place him the position he likely would have been in had Earlimart complied with its obligations under the IDEA.

RECOMMENDATIONS BY STUDENTS’ EXPERTS

Psychologist Dr. Katz and speech-language pathologist Dr. Villareal persuasively opined about the importance of early intervention for children with autism who display behavioral, adaptive, and communication deficits. Dr. Katz recommended that Student receive intensive, evidence-based interventions to address Student’s behavior needs. Speech-language pathologists Gonzalez and Dr. Villareal recommended intensive speechlanguage services, including services addressing Student’s need for augmentative and alternative communication supports. All three experts were knowledgeable in their fields and offered thoughtful, persuasive testimony. Earlimart’s witnesses, including school psychologists Duran and Aguilar and speech-language pathologists Bueno and Moore did not offer persuasive testimony rebutting Dr. Katz, Dr. Villareal, and Gonzalez’s opinions. Dr. Katz recommended that Student receive 30 hours weekly behavior intervention services based on principals of applied behavior analysis and delivered by a board certified behavior analyst. Dr. Katz further recommended that Student receive trained, one-to-one aide support through the school day. Speech-language pathologist Gonzalez and Dr. Villareal recommended that Student receive 40 minutes, one-to-one speechlanguage services three times weekly to address Student’s communication needs. Although Dr. Katz, Dr. Villareal, and Gonzalez offered persuasive testimony, none of them held special education teaching or administrative credentials. They did not have experience working in the public elementary school environment. They did not observe Student in the educational setting. They did not communicate with Student’s teachers or service providers, with the exception of rating scales obtained by Dr. Katz from general education teacher Hill. As a result, their opinions were not based on school observations and input from Student’s teachers. Their opinions were based

On maximizing Student’s educational potential, rather than providing Student some educational benefit as required by special education law. (A.O., supra, 92 F.4th at p. 1172.) Their recommendations also failed to consider the academic and other demands required of children in elementary school, which diminished the persuasiveness of their opinions on this issue. Therefore, the ALJ declines to adopt the total number of hours recommended by Dr. Katz and speech-language pathologists Gonzalez and Dr. Villareal. The recommendations by Dr. Katz, Dr. Villareal, and Gonzalez were directly related to Student’s deficits in behavior, adaptive functioning, and communication and Earlimart’s failure to offer appropriate goals in these areas, as well as behavior intervention services based on peer reviewed and peer-researched interventions to the extent practicable. Their testimony was persuasive, and not effectively refuted by Earlimart.

TESTIMONY BY STUDENT’S BOARD CERTIFIED BEHAVIOR ANALYST

CODY JACOBS WAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY FLAWED

Student’s expert Cody Jacobs conducted an indirect functional behavior assessment for Student and prepared a June 1, 2026, report. Jacobs described an indirect functional behavior evaluation as a behavior assessment based on interviews and records review, and not on direct observations of the child. Jacobs testified at hearing. He opined that Student had deficits in communication, academics, behavior, adaptive functioning, safety awareness and social skills at all times during the statutory period. Jacobs maintained Student should have communication goals in safety awareness, and requesting help. He further opined Student needed goals in reading, writing, and mathematics, toileting, and behavior. He made recommendations for a new behavior intervention plan, behavior data collection, and a fidelity monitoring system.

Jacobs’ opinions were not credible for numerous reasons. Jacobs’ June 1, 2026 report contained numerous deficiencies rendering it unreliable and unconvincing. Jacobs’ report indicated he interviewed Parent. Jacobs did not interview Parent directly, but rather had an intern conduct the interview in Spanish. Jacobs was not present during the interview and therefore did not ask Parent follow-up questions. Jacobs observed Student in the home setting over one and a half hours. Jacobs’ report did not include the date or length of the observation, or any notes about what he observed. Jacobs appeared defensive when questioned if direct observation was an important part of a functional behavior assessment, and stated it was appropriate to instead analyze the data he received. Jacobs spent approximately 10 to15 hours reviewing Student’s educational records. Jacobs did not observe Student in the school setting or communicate with any of Student’s teachers or related service providers. Jacobs did not communicate with Student’s private applied behavior analysis providers. In his report and during testimony, Jacobs offered opinions and recommendations outside his area of expertise. For example, Jacobs was not a credentialed special education teacher, a licensed speech-language pathologist, a licensed occupational therapist, or a school nurse. However, he made recommendations about Student’s needs in academics, fine motor, communication, and toileting. He also offered opinions about Student’s needs in speech-language, augmentative and alternative communication, safety, toileting, and educational placement. Jacobs’ willingness to offer opinions outside his area of experience significantly undermined his testimony. Jacobs presented as an advocate for Student rather than an independent evaluator, which further weakened his persuasiveness. Jacobs’ report and testimony displayed carelessness that significantly undermined Jacobs’ credibility. Most importantly, Jacobs testified to material facts he portrayed as being about Student but were actually about a different child at Earlimart. For example, he claimed:

Parent was frequently called by Earlimart to pick-up Student from school because of his behaviors;

Student was at risk for elopement and self-injury;

Student could only use three words;

Student still wore a diaper, frequently urinated, and touched his bowel movement;

Student shoved food into his mouth and was at risk for choking;

Student had eating/feeding needs;

Student purposefully bumped his head into a pole;

Student was hit on the leg by another Student in September 2025; and

Student was bit on the forehead by another Student in September 2025.

None of these facts related to Student.

On cross-examination, Jacobs initially insisted the facts in his report were accurate and referred to Student. Jacobs testified these facts informed his opinions and recommendations. However, when shown incident reports for Student and asked to identify where these facts were documented, he was unable to do so. Eventually, Jacobs tried to justify these glaring mistakes by stating he inadvertently sent the wrong written report to Student’s attorney.

Jacobs’ careless mistakes, his reluctance to concede his mistakes, and willingness to offer expert opinions in domains for which he was not qualified rendered his testimony unreliable. For all these reasons, Jacobs’ testimony was given no weight.

PARENT’S DECISION NOT TO SEND STUDENT TO SCHOOL

Parent’s conduct also must be considered in crafting a remedy for Earlimart’s FAPE denials. Parent stopped sending Student to school on October 24, 2025. Parent elected to keep Student out of school because Earlimart did not offer one-to-one aide support that she believed was necessary to keep him safe. At hearing, Parent testified that she would not send Student to school unless he was supported by a one-to-one registered behavior technician supervised by a board certified behavior analyst. While Parent may have desired this for Student, this was not an acceptable reason to keep Student out of school.

Parent believed that the school environment was no longer safe for Student. In support of his contention, Student offered evidence about various incidents in which Student was physically aggressive to others, or other students were physically aggressive to Student. These incidents included being bitten by another child on

September 17, 2025, coming home with scratches on his neck on September 23, 2025, tripping, and hitting other children and staff, and being hit by a door opening in October 2025.

Earlimart’s nurses routinely provided basic first aid treatment when Student received a bump or scratch, such as applying an ice pack. Earlimart’s nurses regularly communicated with Parent when there was an incident, and logged the incidents in Student’s medical profile. Student did not offer persuasive testimony from any witness suggesting that Student’s physical safety was substantially at-risk justifying keeping him out of school.

Testimony from numerous Earlimart witnesses, including school nurses Acuna and Hernandez, vice principal Gutierrez, and Tulare County Office of Education program specialist Ruddy persuasively established these injuries are typical for children of his age at school, with the exception of the incident where Student was bitten by another child. Additionally, Student argued, but did not prove, that it was reasonable for Parents not to return Student to school because of his allergy to seafood and concern about the lack of training of staff working with Student. Student’s allergy to seafood was known by Earlimart. Earlimart’s nurses, relevant staff members, and food services were aware of Student’s food allergy, and staff working with Student were trained to administer the Epi-Pen medication, which was kept in the nurse’s office. While Parent was understandably concerned about Student’s health and wellbeing, Parent was not justified in withholding him from school. Therefore, the remedy in this Decision is based on the 50-week period between September 13, 2024, the date of

Earlimart’s failure to offer appropriate goals and behavior support, and December 5, 2025, the date Earlimart confirmed Student’s one-to-one aide support while the parties completed Student’s three-year reevaluation review and IEP to review the results.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

Student is entitled to compensatory education to remedy the FAPE denials in Issues 4A through 4E and 5B, which included Earlimart’s failure to offer appropriate goals in all areas of need and behavior intervention services based upon peer reviewed and researched-based interventions to the extent practicable in the IEP dated September 13, 2024, as amended during the 2024-2025 school year. Based on Earlimart’s school calendars admitted into evidence, there were 50 school weeks between September 13, 2024, and December 5, 2026. Student attended school on a part-time basis between September 13, 2024, and March 27, 2025. For this period, Student is entitled to compensatory behavior intervention services based on two and one-half hours per week for 24 weeks, totaling 60 hours. There were nine weeks between March 27, 2025, and June 5, 2025, the last day of the 2024-2025 school year. For this period, Student is entitled to compensatory behavior intervention services based on five hours per week for nine weeks, totaling 45 hours. For the 2025-2026 school year through December 5, 2025, Student is entitled to compensatory behavior intervention services based on five hours per week for the 17-week period between August 5, 2025, the first day of school, through December 5, 2025, or 85 hours. The behavior compensatory education award totals 190 hours.

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

Any individual providing compensatory behavior intervention services must either be personnel licensed to plan and design behavior intervention services as required by California Code of Regulations, title 5, Section 3051.23, subdivisions (a) and (b), or work under the supervision of a qualified provider and meet the requirements of the regulation.

Earlimart’s failure to offer Student appropriate goals to address his communication needs denied Student a FAPE. Given Student’s significant communication difficulties, including his inability to communicate verbally, Student required adequate goals to allow him to functionally communicate in the school environment and access his educational program. Accordingly, Student also is entitled to a compensatory award of speech and language services for this same period. For the period September 13, 2024, through March 27, 2025, Student attended school part time. He is entitled to speech-language compensatory education services for one hour per week, or a total of 24 hours. For the nine-week period between March 27, 2025, and June 5, 2025, Student is awarded two hours per week, for a total of 18 hours. For the 17-week period between August 5, 2025, through December 5, 2025, Student is entitled to two hours per week, or a total of 34 hours. The speech and language compensatory education award totals 76 hours. Any compensatory speech and language services must be delivered by a licensed speech-language pathologist through a nonpublic agency. Earlimart shall directly fund the services through a nonpublic agency of Parent’s choosing.

Student proved that Earlimart’s failure to offer appropriate goals and services impeded Student’s ability to access his educational program. As a further remedy for Issues 4A through 4E and 5B, Earlimart shall provide Student with 100 hours of academic tutoring through a nonpublic agency. This award represents two hours per school week from September 13, 2024, through December 5, 2025. These services shall be directly funded by Earlimart through a nonpublic agency of Parent’s choosing, or at Parent’s option, the hours shall be provided by Earlimart’s employees or contracted service providers.

At hearing, Student offered evidence about the difficulty in securing behavioral and speech-language services through nonpublic agencies given the remote location of Tulare County and its distance from more populated cities with available resources. OAH may not render a decision that results in a service for an individual to be provided by a nonpublic, nonsectarian agency if the agency has not been certified pursuant to Education Code section 56505.2. (Ed. Code, § 56505.2, subd. (a).) However, in the event Student is unable to secure services through a nonpublic agency, at Parent’s request Earlimart shall provide the compensatory services through its employees or contracted service providers. The employees or contracted service providers shall be authorized to provide behavioral interventions services as required by California Code of Regulation, title 5, section 3051, subdivision (a), or under the direct supervision service of a qualified provider as required by section 3051, subdivision (b), or be a licensed speech-language pathologist.

In addition, Student is entitled to reimbursement to Parent in the amount of $2,400 for 20 speech and language sessions charged at $120 per session provided by Gonzalez between January 20, and June 26, 2026. Student also is entitled to reimbursement of $500 for a December 2, 2025 speech and language evaluation by Speech Pathways and $100 for one individual speech session on January 8, 2026. Student also is entitled to reimbursement to Parent for $1,218.22 for 21 documented round trips to obtain Student’s speech and language evaluation and in-person speech and language sessions for a total of 1,680 miles calculated at the 2026 Internal Revenue standard mileage rate of $0.725 per miles.

STAFF TRAINING

Appropriate relief in light of the purposes of the IDEA may include an award that school staff receive training in areas in which violations were found, to benefit the specific student involved, or to remedy procedural violations that may benefit other students. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1034.) Staff training is ordered because Earlimart’s administrators, teachers, related service providers, and school psychologists departed significantly from the procedural requirements of the IDEA.

The lack of training for administrators, special education administrators, school psychologists, speech-language pathologists, special and general education teachers, program specialists, case managers, and instructional assistants directly contributed to the FAPE denials in this matter, specifically by failing to offer appropriate goals, failing to offer adequate behavior supports, and the requirements for issuing prior written notices. Staff training is appropriate to prevent prospective procedural violations for the benefit of Earlimart’s student population, including Student.

Therefore, Earlimart shall provide eight hours of training as a remedy for Issues 9B and 9C. The training will be completed by Earlimart school administrators, including school principals and assistant principals, and its special education department, including its Director of Student Support Services, program specialists, case managers, special education teachers, special education instructional assistants, related services providers, including speech-language pathologists and speech-language pathologist assistants, and school psychologists. Because of Earlimart’s violations on Issues 4A through 4E, 5B and 9B and C, the training shall address the legal requirements under the IDEA and California Education Code for:

developing adequate goals in identified areas of need, including identifying the personnel responsible for implementing the goal, drafting appropriate baselines, tracking progress, and preparing progress reports;

implementing positive behavior plans and strategies; and the requirements for issuance or prior written notices.

ORDER

1. Earlimart shall provide Student with 190 hours of compensatory behavior intervention services. Earlimart shall directly fund the services through a California Department of Education certified nonpublic agency of Parent’s choosing. Alternatively, at Parent’s request, Earlimart shall provide the services through its employees or contracted service providers. The nonpublic agency providers, the Earlimart employees and contracted service providers must be authorized to provide behavioral interventions services as required by California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 3051.23, subdivisions (a), or work under the supervision of a qualified provider and meet the requirements of subdivision (b) of that regulation.

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

2. Earlimart shall provide Student with 76 hours of compensatory speechlanguage services. Earlimart shall directly fund the services through a California Department of Education certified nonpublic agency of Parent’s choosing. Alternatively, at Parent’s request, Earlimart shall provide the services through its employees or contracted service providers. The Earlimart employees or contracted service provider shall be licensed speech-language pathologists by the state of California. 3. Earlimart shall provide Student with 100 hours of compensatory academic services. Earlimart shall directly fund the services through a California Department of Education certified nonpublic agency of Parent’s choosing. Alternatively, at Parent’s request, Earlimart shall provide the services through its employees or contracted service providers.

4. Within 30 days of this Decision, Earlimart must provide Parent a list of nonpublic agencies with which it contracts to provide compensatory services. If Parent selects a nonpublic agency Earlimart does not have a contract with, Earlimart must establish direct payment to the certified nonpublic agency Parent selected. The hours awarded in this Decision shall be available to Student until the last day of the 2027-2028 extended school year, and any unused hours are deemed forfeited thereafter. Earlimart must reimburse Parent at the federal mileage rate for transportation costs for one round trip for each compensatory behavior intervention, speech-language service, or academic tutoring session by a certified nonpublic agency.

5. Earlimart shall reimburse Parent the sum of $3,000 for a speech and language evaluation and individual speech and language services paid on Student’s behalf, and $1,218.22 in mileage reimbursement for transportation to obtain these services. Earlimart must reimburse Parent within 30 days of this Decision.

6. Within 60 days of this Decision, Earlimart shall contract with a nonpublic agency or a law firm who specializes in special education law, to provide at least eight hours training to its school administrators, including school principals and assistant principals, and its special education department, including its Director of Student Support Services, program specialists, case managers, special education teachers, special education instructional assistants, related services providers, including speechlanguage pathologists and speech-language pathologist assistants, and school psychologists. The training shall address the legal requirements under the IDEA and California Education Code for developing adequate goals in identified areas of need, including identifying the personnel responsible for implementing goals, drafting appropriate baselines and goals, tracking progress, and preparing progress reports; implementing positive behavior plans, and the requirements for issuance of prior written notices.

7. The training required by this Order shall be completed by August 31, 2027. Earlimart shall notify Parents and Parents’ attorney in writing within 10 days of the date Earlimart has completed such training. 8. All other requests for relief by Student are 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.

JENNIFER KELLY

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings