Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT

v.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2026010716

DECISION

October 27, 2026 On January 21, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Parent on behalf of Student, naming Los Angeles Unified School District as respondent. Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Woosley heard this matter by videoconference on August 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27, 2026. Parent represented Student. Attorney Brian Davenport represented Los Angeles Unified School District. Due process specialists attended the hearing on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District, with Lisamarie Arellano attending the first day and Gustavo Da Paz attending the remaining hearing days. Spanish interpreters interpreted the proceedings throughout the hearing.

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

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to September 21, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed and the matter submitted on September 21, 2026.

In this Decision, a free appropriate public education is called a FAPE and an individualized education program is called an IEP. Los Angeles Unified School District is called Los Angeles.

ISSUES

1. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE from January 21, 2024, to January 21, 2026, by failing to timely adjust Student’s educational program in response to Student’s lack of meaningful progress?

2. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE by improperly declassifying Student as an English language learner at the February 7, 2024 amendment IEP team meeting?

3. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE by failing to respond, investigate, or mitigate the situation following Parent’s reports of bullying of Student from August 2024 to January 21, 2026?

4. Did Los Angeles deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer or convene an IEP team meeting for the 2025-2026 school year, up to January 21, 2026?

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

JURISDICTION

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

all children with disabilities have available to them a 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 (2006); 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; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) In this matter, Student had the burden of proof. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).)

BACKGROUND

Student was 11 years and 11 months old at the commencement of hearing and attended private school for sixth grade, the 2025-2026 school year. Student was eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. At all relevant times, Student resided within Los Angeles’ geographic boundaries.

ISSUE 1: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE FROM JANUARY 21,

2024, TO JANUARY 21, 2026, BY FAILING TO TIMELY ADJUST STUDENT’S

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM IN RESPONSE TO STUDENT’S LACK OF

MEANINGFUL PROGRESS?

Student contended Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by failing to adjust Student’s education program when Student failed to make meaningful progress. Los Angeles asserted that Student made meaningful progress, as indicated in his advancement toward his IEP goals and as shown in his IEP present levels of performance.

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

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

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

Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204; Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402. (Endrew)) “Special education” is instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); 34 C.F.R. § 300.39 (2017); Ed. Code, §56031.) In general, an IEP is a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed under the IDEA’s procedures with the participation of parents and school personnel. The IEP describes the child’s needs, academic and functional goals related to those needs, and a statement of the special education, related services, and program modifications and accommodations. These will be provided to enable the child to advance in attaining the goals, make progress in the general education curriculum, and participate in education with disabled and non-disabled peers. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d); Ed. Code, § 56032.)

An IEP must describe the child’s “present levels of academic achievement and functional performance” and a “statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals” designed to meet the child’s educational needs. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1), (2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a) (2006).) The IEP must also contain a description “of the manner in which the progress of the pupil toward meeting the annual goals…will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the pupil is making…will be provided.” (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3) (2006).) The IEP shall explain the extent, if any, that the pupil will not participate with nondisabled pupils in the regular class or activities (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(5); 34

C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(5) (2006)) and address any individual appropriate accommodations necessary to measure academic achievement and functional performance of the pupil on state and district-wide assessments. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(6).)

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

Longview School Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314.) For a school district’s offer of special education services to a student to constitute a FAPE under the IDEA, it must be designed to meet the student’s unique needs and be reasonably calculated to provide the student with some educational benefit in the least restrictive environment. (Ibid.)

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has endorsed the “snapshot” rule, explaining that the actions of the school cannot “be judged exclusively in hindsight … an IEP must take into account what was, and what was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was drafted.” (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149, citing Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041.)

Here, Student did not demonstrate that Student failed to make meaningful progress, which required Los Angeles to adjust his educational program. Mother testified and submitted documentary evidence related to Mother’s assertion that Student was being bullied by other students and that a general education teacher had allegedly mistreated Student, which is addressed in Issue 3. But Mother did not submit evidence or persuasive argument in support of Issue 1. Parent did not substantively address Student’s educational program and his alleged lack of meaningful progress either at hearing or in briefing.

Los Angeles submitted Student’s IEP documents as evidence. Student was nineyears old and in fourth grade at the time of his October 18, 2023, annual IEP. He was eligible for special education as a child with a specific learning disability. The team found that Student made progress toward all of his objectives and completely achieved his language development goal, his mathematics goal, and one of his articulation goals. The IEP summarized Student’s present levels of performance. The IEP team developed seven goals for the next year: three reading goals in language development, fluency, and comprehension; two speech articulation goals, one written expression goal, and one mathematics goal. Student was placed in a general education classroom at Loren Miller Elementary School. He received specialized academic instruction of 120 minutes a week for English development, reading and writing, and another 120 minutes for mathematics. A special education teacher resource specialist provided these services. Student received 120 minutes a month of speech and language services by a speech pathologist to address Student’s articulation. Student also received IEP classroom accommodations and supports. Mother signed the IEP in agreement.

Gionna Jamison was Student’s special education teacher for his specialized academic instruction. She testified at the hearing. Jamison had been teaching with Los Angeles for more than 20 years and had worked at Miller Elementary since 2018. She held a mild-to-moderate special education credential, with an autism clearance. She regularly participated in further trainings in mathematics, writing, and reading programs and interventions. For more than three years, Jamison was the resource specialist who pulled Student out of class for the specialized academic instruction provided by Student’s IEPs. On occasion, she would “push in” and sit with Student in the classroom. Jamison used Student’s IEP objectives and goals as the directional guidance for her specialized academic instruction.

Jamison participated in the development of Student’s IEPs and attended Student’s IEP team meetings until Student left Los Angeles following the 2024-2025 school year. At the October 2023 IEP team meeting, Jamison addressed Student’s academics by preparing the IEP’s present levels of Student’s performance, reported his progress toward his academic goals and objectives, and informed the IEP team of Student’s testing results and use of classroom accommodations. She participated in the IEP team’s development of new goals for the following school year. As Student’s case manager, Jamison also reviewed Student’s IEPs with his general education teachers and regularly communicated with the teachers regarding Student’s classroom performance throughout the academic year. Jamison’s education, training, and years of experience with Student qualified her to render an opinion regarding Student’s special education needs, program, and recommended services and supports. Jamison displayed knowledge of Student’s exceptional needs, demonstrated sincere concern for his educational growth, and carefully evaluated his progress during her tenure as Student’s case manager and special education resource teacher. Her testimony was credible and persuasive.

At the hearing, Jamison reviewed the October 2023 IEP’s present levels of performance. Student primarily struggled with writing, including grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. In mathematics, Student needed to remember his multiplication facts, better understand word problems and fractions, and read an analog clock. Jamison and the IEP team developed new goals for the following year in reading, writing, and mathematics. She believed these goals were appropriate and built upon Student’s progress on his goals from the prior year’s annual IEP. Generally, at that time, Student was behind grade level in all areas, especially in writing. As his special education teacher, Jamison observed Student steadily improve over the prior years, enabling the IEP team to develop new, challenging academic goals for the following year.

Student’s speech pathologist Carlos Verdugo provided Student with his IEP language and speech services since September 2023. He had a master’s degree in communicative disorders and a speech-language pathology services credential. Verdugo worked for Los Angeles as a speech language pathologist from 2023 until his departure in June 2026. His duties included assessments, development of goals, and therapy to pupils with phonological, articulatory, language, and fluency deficits. Verdugo’s education, training, and experience with Student qualified him to render an opinion regarding Student’s speech and language needs, program, and recommended services and supports. Verdugo’s testimony demonstrated he was well-informed of Student’s speech and language deficits, concerned for Student’s development, and exhibited a keen understanding of Student’s articulation development. Verdugo’s testimony was credible and persuasive.

Verdugo attended Student’s IEP team meetings, including the meeting of October 18, 2023. Student needed services to address his articulation deficits, especially when making an /r/ sound. Student was producing a /w/ sound instead. Student’s speech services also addressed his overall intelligibility and communication with others. Verdugo reported to the October 2023 IEP team that Student met both of his articulation and phonological goals from the prior year. Verdugo participated in the development of two new, challenging goals in articulation. Student demonstrated substantive improvement, as indicated by achieving his prior goals, and Verdugo designed new goals to assure continued progress.

Los Angeles convened an amendment team meeting on February 7, 2024. The IEP team formally approved the reclassification of Student as fluent English proficient and not in need of English language development, which is discussed below in Issue 2. Mother signed the IEP in agreement.

Student’s next IEP team meeting was his annual review, held on September 18, 2024. All required members were in attendance, including Mother. Student was 10years old and in a general education fifth grade class at Miller Elementary. The IEP summarized Student’s present levels of performance in reading, written language, mathematics, and articulation. Student achieved all his October 2023 IEP goals except in written expression.

Jamison reported that Student was reading at grade level, but not with informational text. Jamison explained that the new reading goal was designed to be very challenging because Student needed to be able to gather information from reading and accurately answer questions about what he had read. The new written expression goal was designed to be hard, because Student needed to write a full paragraph, not just sentences, in fifth grade. Student wrestled with his spelling and blending of long vowels. The new math goal challenged Student to fluently multiply 20 multi-digit whole numbers. Overall, Jamison informed the team that Student made substantial progress since the last annual IEP. The new academic goals pushed Student closer to fifth grade standards.

At the September 2024 IEP team meeting, speech pathologist Verdugo reported that Student made very good progress. Student was able to pronounce the /r/ sound in isolation and made progress on producing the /r/ sound in a sentence. One of the two new speech and language goals was for Student to produce the /r/ sound at a conversational level. The other was for Student to improve his intelligibility at the conversational level by using self-monitoring strategies. In Verdugo’s opinion, these goals met Student’s current needs and challenged him to continue to progress. Student’s related services included specialized academic instruction of 120 minutes a week for reading and written expression, and 120 minutes a week for mathematics. Student received 120 minutes per month of speech and language services, delivered in 30-minute sessions, once a week. The speech and language services were delivered outside the classroom with one other student. The sessions worked on improving Student’s articulation, expression, and conversational skills. Student also received IEP classroom accommodations and supports. The report of the September 2024 annual IEP stated that the three-year review would be conducted toward the end of the school year, by April 28, 2025. Mother signed the IEP in agreement.

Mother stated in the IEP team meetings that Student had alcohol poison syndrome and had been diagnosed with dyslexia. The IEPs did not mention dyslexia and Jamison did not see documentation confirming a dyslexia diagnosis. In her instruction of Student, Jamison regularly measured Student’s progress toward his benchmarks by using iReady Diagnostic’s computer-adaptive test. iReady’s diagnostic results were evidence of a pupil’s academic performance and progress. Student’s iReady scores demonstrated that Student made steady progress over the years that Jamison worked with Student.

On a Parent Concern Form dated January 15, 2025, Mother wrote she had talked to special education teacher Jamison about Mother’s belief that Student’s general education teacher was not aware of and was not following Student’s IEP. Mother also believed that the teacher was mistreating Student. Though the form included the phrase “request psychoeducational,” the form and Mother’s testimony affirmed that Mother was seeking to have Student moved to another fifth grade class. Soon thereafter, the principal moved Student to another general education fifth grade class, with teacher Saira Martinez, for the second half of the school year. Jamison confirmed that teacher Russell was aware of Student’s IEP and had been properly implementing the accommodations and supports. Jamison regularly interacted with Russell, since Jamison was providing hours of specialized academic instruction to Student each week. Also, Jamison heard Mother repeatedly assert how Russell mistreated Student and how Student was constantly bullied. Jamison never observed Student being bullied or mistreated in Russell’s classroom, or by anyone. The only person from whom Jamison heard assertions that Student was being bullied was from Mother. This is further addressed in Issue 3, below.

Student’s three-year IEP review was due by April 27, 2025. The IDEA requires reevaluations to be conducted at least once every three years unless the parent and school district agree that a reevaluation is not necessary. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Los Angeles decided to assess Student for the triennial IEP. To assess or reassess a student, a school district must provide proper notice to the parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c)(1); Ed. Code, § 56321, subd. (a).) Administrator Dinah Thomas prepared and sent an assessment plan to Parent so the assessments could be completed for a timely threeyear IEP team meeting. Parent never signed and returned the plan. As a result, Los Angeles could not assess Student before his three-year IEP team meeting. Despite not having been able to assess Student, Los Angeles convened the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, which Los Angeles now referred to as an annual IEP team meeting, not a three-year meeting. All requisite team members attended, including Mother. Student’s new general education teacher presented an update on Student’s performance in the general education class. She reported that Student’s iReady Diagnostic 2 overall score had Student reading at the grade three level and his Math at early grade five. Mother then interrupted and stopped the meeting. Mother refused to allow the speech pathologist Verdugo or the special education resource teacher Jamison to present their reports on Student to the IEP team. Mother refused to allow any further discussion by the IEP team. Mother wanted to speak about bullying. Mother continued to state a problem she had with the previous teacher, though she acknowledged it was resolved when Student was moved to another class. Mother wanted to discuss her son’s behavior. When informed that Student had no record of behavioral problems, Mother did not believe that. When presented with a copy of Student’s iReady scores, Mother said they were not true. Mother then signed the IEP meeting attendance sheet and left.

Jamison testified that Student worked hard for the remainder of the 2024-2025 school year. Fifth grade was a challenging year for Student. In her regular consultation with Student’s general education teacher, Jamison was not consistently generalizing the skills he learned in his specialized instruction into the classroom setting. By the end of the year, Student had not met his reading goal regarding informational text. He made good progress, but he just fell short. Student was able to write introductions and conclusions of paragraphs, but with spelling errors. Student met his math goal by the end of the year. For the 2024-2025 school year, Student met or made progress on all his academic goals, with written expression being Student’s primary challenge. Jamison documented this in the draft April 9, 2024 IEP and would have reported this to the April 9, 2025 IEP team, if Mother had not terminated the meeting.

No further IEP team meetings occurred during the 2024-2025 school year. In September 2025, Mother gave notice that she unilaterally enrolled Student in a private school and would seek reimbursement for the educational costs from Los Angeles. The testimonial and documentary evidence demonstrated that Student made meaningful, steady progress from January 21, 2024 through the end of the 2024-2025 school year. Once Mother unilaterally enrolled Student in private school, Student met the definition of a private school child with a disability and did not have an individual entitlement to special education and related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a) (2007); Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125,1138-40, cert. denied at 143 S.Ct. 98 (Capistrano ).) Student was no longer a public school student in the Los Angeles Unified School District as of September 2025, and Los Angeles was thereafter no longer responsible for providing a FAPE or adjusting Student’s educational program.

In Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. A.O. by and through Owens (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 1159 (A.O.), the Ninth Circuit reviewed and reaffirmed the standards to be applied in evaluating the sufficiency of a special education program. The court stated that to substantively comply with the IDEA school districts must design IEPs that are “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.” (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at 403.) Here, Student’s special education teacher Jamison and speech pathologist Verdugo developed goals with the IEP teams that built upon Student’s progress from the prior IEP. An individualized education program must still be “appropriately ambitious,” and a program that offers “merely more than de minimis” progress violates the IDEA. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at pp. 402–403.) Student’s IEP teams crafted academic and language and speech goals that were designed to challenge Student, focusing on his areas of needed improvement. Los Angeles provided related services and accommodations that supported the goals. Parent did not offer documentary evidence or persuasive testimony to the contrary. Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Los Angeles failed to timely adjust Student’s educational program in response to Student’s lack of meaningful progress. Student’s program was designed to convey a “meaningful benefit” to the Student, and his progress on the suitably ambitious goals set for him shows that he received meaningful benefit and made progress appropriate to his circumstances. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149; A.O., supra, 92 F.4th at p. 1172.) Here, Student’s goal achievement and steady improvement, as observed and reported by his teachers and measured by standardized scores, illustrated that Student was meaningfully benefitting from his program. Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 1.

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

ISSUE 2: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY IMPROPERLY

DECLASSIFYING STUDENT AS AN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER AT THE

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 AMENDMENT IEP TEAM MEETING?

Student asserts Los Angeles improperly declassified Student as an English language learner at the February 7, 2024 IEP team meeting. Yet, at hearing, Mother testified that she thought Student should not continue to be classified as an English language learner because he was proficient in English.

Los Angeles contends that Mother requested this reclassification and the February 7, 2024 IEP team agreed. Los Angeles formally reclassified Student as English language proficient in accordance with California statutory requirements. Under the California Education Code, school districts must provide language acquisition programs that lead to grade-level English proficiency and academic achievement within a reasonable time. The foundational statutes governing English learner programs are primarily located in the California Education Code, sections 300 through 335. These statutes outline the requirements for language acquisition programs, structured English immersion, reclassification of students, and parental choice. Additionally, Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 11300 through 11316, provides the specific administrative framework for implementing these laws, including definitions for integrated and designated English language development. These English language acquisition programs are not part of special education. Any student may be designated an English language learner, who would receive English language acquisition program support.

If a special education student was identified as an English language learner, the student’s English language status would be reflected in the IEP. In order to provide the special education services effectively, an IEP team needed to be aware of a student’s English proficiency in implementing the IEP’s services and support. However, language acquisition support and training are not special education related services. Mother served on the Miller Elementary School’s English Learner Advisory Committee. Mother was well aware of the various English learner designations and testified Student should no longer have been designated an English language learner. The February 7, 2024 IEP team and Mother agreed that Student should be reclassified as English proficient. English language representative Monique Alvarado and Jamison also met with Mother, reviewed the English Language Proficiency Assessment for California, and completed the IEP team English proficiency reclassification worksheet. The Los Angeles form worksheet was for English learners with IEPs. It documented and assured that the reclassification conformed with Education Code section 313’s reclassification criteria. Mother, Jamison, Alvarado, and administrator Dinal Thomas signed the document on February 7, 2024, formally reclassifying Student as English proficient.

Mother asked that Student be reclassified, participated in the February 7, 2024 IEP meeting where she and the IEP team agreed to reclassification, and signed the IEP team worksheet agreeing that Student met the statutory standard for English proficiency. Student presented no evidence demonstrating that Student’s reclassification was inappropriate or improper. Los Angeles did not deny Student a FAPE by reclassifying Student as an English language learner at the February 2024 amendment IEP. Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO

RESPOND, INVESTIGATE, OR MITIGATE THE SITUATION FOLLOWING

PARENT’S REPORTS OF BULLYING OF STUDENT FROM AUGUST 2024 TO

JANUARY 21, 2026?

Student asserted that Los Angeles failed to respond, investigate, or mitigate a situation involving other students, following Mother’s reports of bullying. Student claimed the failure to respond denied him a FAPE. Mother complained, using various modes of communications, that Student was the object of bullying. Los Angeles argued that Miller Elementary responded to Mother’s complaints, addressed the situations with the other pupils involved, and had no substantive reports of additional incidents. Miller Elementary determined that the reported incidents were not bullying.

California defines “bullying” as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct, including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act, and including one or more of the acts committed by a pupil or a group of pupils as defined in sections 48900.2 (sexual harassment), 48900.3 (hate violence) or 48900.4 (intentional harassment, threats, or intimidation), directed toward one or more pupils, that has or can be reasonably predicted to have the effect of one of more of the following:

placing a reasonable pupil or pupils in fear of harm to that pupil’s or those pupils’ person or property, causing a reasonable pupil to experience a substantially detrimental effect on his or her physical or mental health, causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with the pupil’s academic performance, or causing a reasonable pupil to experience substantial interference with the pupil’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a school.

(California Education Code section 48900, subdivision (r)(1).) A reasonable pupil includes pupils with exceptional needs, who exercise average care, skill, and judgment in conduct for a person of that age, or for a person of that age with the pupil’s exceptional needs. (Ed. Code, § 48900, subd. (r)(3.).) Under Education Code section 48900.4, harassment, threats, or intimidation is described as intentional conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to have the actual and reasonably expected effect of materially disrupting classwork, creating substantial disorder, and invading the rights of either school personnel or pupils by creating an intimidating or hostile educational environment.

Los Angeles has a bullying policy with protocols to respond to reports or claims of bullying. LAUSD Policy Bulletin BUL-5212.3, dated March 11, 2022, is Los Angeles’s official “Bullying and Hazing Policy (Student-to-Student)” that sets out prohibitions, definitions, and procedures for preventing and addressing bullying and hazing among students. However, Los Angeles is not obligated to treat every allegation of unpleasant or aggressive student conduct as “bullying.” The investigation protocol requires the administrator to determine whether the facts actually meet Los Angeles’s bullying criteria, as opposed to, for example, just involving an interpersonal conflict.

Mother presented at hearing copies of writings, emails, and texts, claiming that Student was being bullied. Yet, Mother only provided evidence of three events. Mother referred to two incidents when Student was in teacher Russell’s fifth-grade class during the first semester of 2024-2025 school year and one event after Student entered Martinez’s fifth-grade class after January 2025.

Teacher Russell testified at the hearing. She was a general education teacher credentialed in multiple subjects, from kindergarten through sixth grade. She continuously worked at Los Angeles since 2015 and had been a teacher at Miller Elementary for six years. Since Student had an IEP, Russell met with Student’s case manager Jamison at the beginning of the year to review Student’s IEP, including his eligibility, goals, services, and accommodations. She and Jamison would regularly communicate regarding Student’s specialized academic instruction and classroom performance. Russell attended Student’s September 18, 2024 IEP team meeting. Russell knowledgeably testified as to Student’s performance in the general education class. She reviewed Student’s IEP accommodations and how they were addressed in the classroom. For example, Student sat closer to the front to have better access to the teacher’s attention and to be near the board. He had more time to complete his class work and had his tasks broken down into smaller steps. His other accommodations were provided, when required by his work, such as listening to audio books. Student enjoyed reading but struggled with written expression. Student was developing his mathematical skills, which were not yet grade level. He had difficulty with multidigit numbers and multiplying decimals. But over the fall and early winter, Student improved. Russell was in a position to observe Student’s peer interactions and was knowledgeable about his friends. In January 2025, Student was moved to a different fifth grade class.

Mother reported to Russell that Pupil A stepped on Student’s foot or heel while they were in line at the auditorium. Teacher Russell talked to Pupil A, who admitted stepping on Student’s heel because Student was walking too slowly. When the class assembled in a line to move to another venue, the students lined up alphabetically. Pupil A was directly behind Student in line. Russell discreetly counseled Pupil A, who apologized to Student. Russell also changed the line order, so that Student and Pupil A were no longer next to each other.

On another occasion, the assistant principal Yesenia Gutierrez observed an incident with Pupil A. Gutierrez was supervising the lunch area, and helping clean up, when she observed Pupil A squirt some tomato sauce into Student’s open lunch pail. Gutierrez went to Pupil A and had Pupil A apologize to Student. Gutierrez told Mother and followed up with further counseling of Pupil A. No one, but Mother, believed that Pupil A was being mean spirited.

Mother continued to inquire about and focus on Pupil A. For example, Mother volunteered at the school and would often put herself in a position to monitor her son. At the annual holiday program in December 2024, Mother saw that Student and Pupil A were sitting next to each other. Mother went up to Russell and yelled they were sitting next to each other. Because Mother was yelling, Russell separated Student and Pupil A, even though nothing occurred.

Mother did not produce any evidence or testimony of any other incident involving Pupil A, whose classroom seat was far away from Student. In fact, Miller Elementary staff saw Student following Pupil A. As indicated by Pupil A and Student sitting next to each other at the holiday program, the two did not demonstrate any ongoing animosity or difficulty with each other. Student did not have any behavioral incidents the entire year and Student did not resist coming to school. Student missed only one day of school in the 2024-2025 school year, which was an excused absence. In January 2025, Student was moved to teacher Martinez’s general education fifth grade class. Mother said that she did not want Pupil B sitting next to Student because Mother said Pupil B was kicking Student. No one witnessed this alleged conduct, but Martinez assigned Pupil B to another desk to avoid unnecessary friction. Over the course of the 2024-2025 school year, Mother regularly told people that Student was being bullied on a daily basis. When asked when or by whom, Mother referred to Pupil A and the two events while in Russell’s class. Mother regularly told Jamison that Student was being bullied, but Jamison never saw any improper conduct from any student or staff. No one saw any incident where Student was mistreated, harassed, or bullied. Notably, Student never reported to any of his teachers or Miller Elementary staff that he felt bullied or was otherwise bothered by another student. In Student’s closing brief, Mother referred to other incidents of “bullying.” However, Mother was testifying in her brief, as she repeatedly did during her crossexamination of witnesses during the hearing. When asked how she knew of some alleged incident or occurrence, under direct examination, Mother commonly responded angrily, sometimes yelling that the examiner was calling her son a liar. The only incidents which were supported by admissible, credible, and persuasive evidence were these three incidents.

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

In further support of Student’s assertion that Los Angeles failed to respond, investigate, or mitigate the bullying of Student as alleged by Mother, Mother asserted that his fifth grade teacher Russell mistreated him and did not follow Student’s IEP. On October 8, 2024, Mother texted Jamison, through the teacher’s Spanishspeaking assistant Sylvia Gomez, that Russell had made an example and punished Student in front of the entire class. Jamison spoke to Russell and determined that Russell did not punish Student. Student was corrected regarding the taping of a book. Mother also accused Russell of intentionally embarrassing Student. During the year, Russell taught the class on how to use the RACE strategy in their writing. RACE stood for Restate the question, Answer the question, Cite to evidence, and Explain. Russell used the class’s assignments as tools for helping the class develop their use of the writing strategy. Russell would show some of the pupils’ assignments anonymously on the overhead so she and the class could discuss what could be learned about RACE strategy from a pupil’s paper. In early September 2024, Russell was introducing the RACE strategy to the class. One of the papers on the overhead was Student’s paper. Mother said this was intended to embarrass Student and was contrary to Student’s IEP, even though Student’s name was not on the overhead or mentioned in the discussion. The only people who knew it was Student’s paper were Russell and Student. Though the RACE strategy was for the entire class, this type of strategy was consistent with Student’s teaching accommodations regarding breaking assignments down into steps and providing guideposts for writing. The evidence did not demonstrate that Russell targeted Student to embarrass him.

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

In early January 2025, Student’s class received 28 new English language arts books and 28 new math practice journals. Since Student’s class had 28 students, Russell did not have any additional books. Russell carefully distributed the new math practice journals to the class and put the Student’s book on Student’s desk, because he was in a pull-out session with Jamison. The next day Russell asked the class to take out their math practice journals. Student could not find his book. The entire classroom was searched, including everyone’s desks. This was similar to an incident earlier in the year, when Student could not find his unit curriculum book. Russell asked Mother to check at home, but the book was never located. Russell eventually managed to obtain an extra book, which she gave to Student. Mother accused Russell of not giving Student the math journal. Mother also incorrectly asserted that Russell was not following the IEP accommodations by not giving the math journal book directly to Mother. Mother accused Russell of punishing or harming Student by intentionally denying Student a reward to which he was entitled as part of the AAA positive behavior system. AAA was a reward system for students’ Attention, Attitude, and Academics. If a pupil demonstrated 96 percent attendance, positive attitude, and solid academic performance for a month, the pupil would get an award, such as additional play time or dance time. At the end of the calendar year in December 2024, pupils who qualified under AAA were pulled out of class for a picture with a friend. Student met the AAA qualification for the award in the Spring semester’s first month. Student did not thereafter qualify for an AAA award, including the December picture with a friend. Mother questioned Russell during the hearing and asked why Student did not receive the AAA reward in December 2024, when Student had not missed any school.

Russell explained that Student did not get a December AAA reward because he did not meet the program’s standards. Student had perfect attendance and a good attitude, but Student was missing assignments. Though given extra time on assignments, such as letting Student complete class assignments as homework, Student still had missing assignments. A pupil needed to meet all three parts of the positive behavior to qualify for an AAA monthly award. Student did not. It was at this time, during her questioning of Russell, that Mother appeared to realize that Student had to meet all three standards to earn an award. But in Student’s closing brief, Mother again inaccurately claimed that Russell improperly withheld the award. Student did not receive the December 2024 AAA award because he did not meet the qualifications. Mother’s multiple assertions against teacher Russell did not establish that Student was the object of bullying or Los Angeles failed to properly respond to Mother’s allegations of bullying. Review of Mother’s unwarranted assertions against Russell exhibited relentless attacks upon Russell, personally and professionally. Late in the semester, Russell wrote a letter to the principal, explaining that Russell was receiving constant, demeaning, and critical communications from Mother. Russell shared in her letter to the principal that Mother’s daily communications forcefully expressed Mother’s displeasure, questioned Russell’s teaching, and generally asserted Russell was unfair and mistreated Student. Russell told the principal that her mental health was declining because she was stressed and overwhelmed by Mother’s constant denunciatory communications. The next day, Russell took the letter to the principal and said that it would be best for Student to be moved to another class.

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

Student was transferred to Martinez’ class in late January 2025. There, Student received the exact same IEP program, with related services from Jamison and Verdugo. Mother often cited this class change as confirmation that Student had been bullied. However, Student was not transferred because Student was being bullied or mistreated. Student was transferred to another class as an accommodation, to relieve the unfair stress upon Russell, and hopefully diminish Mother’s vexatious displeasure. Los Angeles responded to Mother’s concerns regarding three incidents with two other pupils. Miller Elementary quickly acknowledged Mother’s complaints regarding Pupil A and Pupil B, determined what occurred, and counseled the involved pupils. Mother did not present documentary or verifiable testimonial evidence of any other incidents. None of the three cited events met the statutory definition of bullying. They were not severe or pervasive physical or verbal acts or conduct, and did not amount to harassment, violence, or intimidation. The incidents were quickly addressed and did not reoccur. (Ed. Code, §§ 48900, subd. (r)(1); 48900.4.)

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by failing to respond, investigate, or mitigate the situation following Parent’s reports of bullying of Student at any time between August 2024 and January 21, 2026. Los Angeles prevailed on Issue 3.

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

ISSUE 4: DID LOS ANGELES DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO OFFER

OR CONVENE AN IEP TEAM MEETING FOR THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR,

UP TO JANUARY 21, 2026?

Student contended that Los Angeles failed to convene an IEP team meeting and make an offer of FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year. Because Los Angeles did not have an offer in place by the start of the new school year, Parent unilaterally placed Student in a private school for 2025-2026.

Los Angeles asserted that it convened an IEP meeting on April 9, 2025, but Mother appeared, canceled the meeting, and left. Los Angeles claimed that Mother prevented Los Angeles from making a FAPE offer for the next school year. Student demonstrated that Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE when it failed to have a FAPE offer in place before the commencement of the 2025-2026 school year. A parent cannot make an informed decision without a FAPE offer. Though Mother appeared and left the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, Los Angeles was still obligated to have a FAPE offer in place before the next school year. It did not. For public school children with disabilities, school districts make a FAPE available by having an IEP in effect at the beginning of each school year. (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a) (2006).) The school district where the parents reside with the child is responsible for offering the child a FAPE. (20 U.S.C. § 1413(a)(1); Ed. Code, § 48200; Union Sch. Dist. v.

Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519, 1525 (Union).)

Student’s three-year IEP review was due by April 27, 2025. Los Angeles wanted to assess Student for the three-year IEP. However, Mother did not sign and return the assessment plan. Los Angeles could not assess Student without Mother’s consent to the assessment plan. Nevertheless, Los Angeles convened the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting. The IEP document for the meeting was never finalized, but Los Angeles’s draft clearly designated the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting as Student’s annual. The IEP document also stated that Student’s next annual IEP team meeting would be April 9, 2026. Therefore, Los Angeles’s documentation clearly established that the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting was Student’s annual and the offer of FAPE would be for the following year. Pathologist Verdugo attended the meeting and testified the purpose of the meeting was to make a FAPE offer for the upcoming 2025-2026 school year. All required team members attended, including Mother. After Student’s teacher gave her report, Mother then interrupted the meeting. Mother did not want to continue and left. The last line of Los Angeles’s IEP meeting notes states “Meeting stopped until we can meet again with the parent.”

Los Angeles argued that Mother’s conduct was the reason that the April 9, 2025 meeting did not proceed and, as a consequence, no FAPE offer was made. However, two months of school remained after the April 9, 2025 IEP team meeting and Los Angeles made no attempt to reschedule. Mother made a May 5, 2026 written request for an IEP team meeting using the Loren Miller Elementary School Parent Concern Form. Los Angeles still made no effort to reschedule the IEP meeting, despite its duty to make a FAPE offer. (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a) (2006).)

Under California Education Code § 56341.5, Los Angeles was required to take steps to ensure that at least one parent or guardian is present at each IEP meeting or is afforded the opportunity to participate. (Also see 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(a).) However, if Mother was not going to cooperate and attend an IEP team meeting, Los Angeles could have started the process to hold the IEP team meeting without Mother.

Both federal and state law permit an IEP meeting to be conducted without the parent if the district is “unable to convince the parents that they should attend,” provided the district keeps records of its efforts to arrange the meeting. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322(d); Ed. Code § 56341.5(h).) Los Angeles could have offered a reasonable selection of dates and times to Mother and documented its efforts to reconvene the meeting. Los Angeles could have told Mother in writing that Los Angeles needed to complete the annual IEP and make its FAPE offer. If Mother continued not to cooperate, Los Angeles could have given formal notice of the meeting, convene and hold the meeting, and then send Mother the IEP document and offer of FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year. Instead, the record demonstrated that Los Angeles made no attempt to reconvene an IEP team meeting to make a FAPE offer for the 2025-2026 school year. A school district’s failure to make a timely offer of placement and services is a procedural violation of the IDEA. (Union, supra, 15 F.3d at p. 1527; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (j).) A procedural violation results in a FAPE denial if it impedes the child’s right to a FAPE, significantly impedes the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child, or causes a deprivation of educational benefits. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2); see (W.G. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, Missoula, Mont. (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1479, 1484.)

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

Here, Los Angeles did not provide a FAPE offer before the following school year began in August 2025. This failure significantly impeded the Mother’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE to Student. Mother needed to decide where to place Student for the following school year but there was no FAPE offer to consider before the school year began. Any offer made after the start of the 2025-2026 school year might mitigate but would not excuse the failure to have an offer in place. Thus, this procedural violation constitutes a FAPE denial. Student met his burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence that Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by failing to convene IEP team meetings and have an IEP offer of special education and related services in place before the start of the 2025-2026 school year. Student prevailed on Issue 4.

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.

ISSUE 1

Los Angeles did not deny Student a FAPE from January 21, 2024, to January 21, 2026, by failing to timely adjust Student’s educational program in response to Student’s lack of meaningful progress.

Los Angeles Unified School District prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2

Los Angeles did not deny Student a FAPE by improperly declassifying Student as an English language learner at the February 7, 2024, amendment IEP team meeting.

Los Angeles Unified School District prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3

Los Angeles did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to respond, investigate, or mitigate the situation following Parent’s reports of bullying of Student from August 2024 to January 21, 2026.

Los Angeles Unified School District prevailed on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4

Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer or convene an IEP team meeting for the 2025-2026 school year, up to January 21, 2026. Student prevailed on Issue 4.

REMEDIES

Student prevailed on Issue 4 regarding Los Angeles’s failure to hold an IEP team meeting and have an offer of FAPE in place by the commencement of the 2025-2026 school year. As a remedy, Student requests reimbursement for 2025-2026 tuition and associated costs, tutoring, Mother’s lost income, and for a neuropsychological testing report by Paul Mancillas, Ph.D. Los Angeles contends that no remedy is warranted, and that reimbursement should be denied because at all times it offered Student a FAPE. Courts have broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide a FAPE to a disabled child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); see 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).) This broad equitable authority extends to an ALJ who hears and decides a special education administrative due process matter. (Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230, p. 244, n. 11 (Forest Grove); cited by Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at 1138.)

REIMBURSEMENT OF TUITION AND EDUCATIONAL COSTS FOR 20252026 SCHOOL YEAR

Student seeks reimbursement of tuition and associated costs for the 2025-2026 school year at St. Columbkille. Los Angles argues that Student is not entitled to reimbursement of tuition and associated costs because the unilateral placement did not provide academic benefit to Student.

When a school district fails to provide a FAPE to a student with a disability, courts may grant reimbursement under title 20 of the United State Code section 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) when a school district failed to provide a FAPE and the private-school placement is appropriate. (Forest Grove supra, 557 U.S. at 242, n.9.) Reimbursement for the costs of placement or services parents independently obtained for their child are equitable remedies that courts may employ to craft “appropriate relief” for a party. The conduct of both parties must be reviewed and considered to determine whether equitable relief is appropriate. (Student W. v. Puyallup School Dist., No. 3, (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F. 3d 1489, 1496 (Puyallup).)

Los Angeles did not make a FAPE available to the Student in a timely manner prior to Mother’s unilateral private placement for the 2025-2026 school year. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c); see also Burlington, supra, 471 U.S. 359, 369 370.) A school district's failure to propose an IEP of any kind is at least as serious a violation of its responsibilities under IDEA as a failure to provide an adequate IEP. (Forest Grove, supra. 557 U.S. at pp. 238-239.)

The private school placement need not meet the same standards that apply to a public agency’s placement in order to be appropriate. (34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c) (2006).) Parental unilateral placements are reimbursable where the placement substantially complies with the IDEA by conducting quarterly evaluations, has a plan that permits the student to progress from grade to grade, and where the student makes academic progress. (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter (1993) 510 U.S. 7, pp. 11, 14 (Carter).)

The analysis of Student’s request for reimbursement of tuition and related placement costs requires determining whether Mother’s unilateral placement was appropriate within the meaning of the IDEA. Though parents are not required to establish that the unilateral private placement maximized their child’s potential and addressed every area of educational need, parents need to demonstrate that the (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

placement provided educational instruction to meet the student’s needs. Evidence of the student’s progress is relevant and may support a finding that placement was appropriate. (C.B. v. Garden Grove Unified School District (9th Cir. 2011) 635 F.3d 1155, 1159–1160 (C.B.).)

Mother testified that Student benefited from the placement at St. Columbkille, but Mother did not present a report card, a teacher’s report, or testimony from St. Columbkille personnel. The record established that Mother did not have the financial ability to search for educational placements that offered instruction and services more attuned to Student’s specific disability-related needs. It can only be inferred that Student benefited from being in an educational program for the entire school year, attending classes, and socializing with other pupils. Many courts have determined that a parental unilateral placement was appropriate under the IDEA, though all of a child’s needs were not addressed, the private teachers were not publicly certified, or the pupil had some educational benefit. (C.B., supra, at 1159–1160; Carter, supra, at 37; Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley

Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69 (9th Cir. 2003) 317 F.3d 1072, 1080) But all these courts had evidence of the student’s educational program in the unilateral private placement. Here, Student’s academic program, participation, performance, and progress at St. Columbkille remain unknown. Without any substantive evidence of Student’s educational program at St. Columbkille, Student has not demonstrated that the unilateral placement was appropriate within the meaning of the IDEA, Carter, or C.B. Student is not entitled to reimbursement of tuition or costs related to the placement.

Student’s request for reimbursement of tuition, registration fee, and technology fee for the 2025-2026 school year is denied. Student’s requests for reimbursement of Mother’s volunteer hours and fundraising efforts, as required by St. Columbkille as part of Student’s attendance, are similarly denied.

Student seeks transportation costs from his home to St. Columbkille. If the unilateral private placement itself was not appropriate, then transportation to and from that unilateral placement is not separately reimbursable as part of the unilateralplacement remedy. For example, the Ninth Circuit found that parents were entitled to transportation reimbursement for a unilateral placement because the court first found the unilateral placement to be appropriate. (S.L. v. Upland Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2014) 747 F.3d 1155, 1160.) Since Student failed to demonstrate that the unilateral placement at St. Columbkille was appropriate, Mother is not entitled to reimbursement for transportation to St. Columbkille.

Student requests reimbursement for daycare costs, $10 for each incident. Student did not submit documentary evidence or testimony which clearly indicated the nature of the daycare. It appeared to be charged when the school cared for Student, after the school day, when Mother or someone on her behalf could not timely retrieve Student. Student did not document these services, costs, and payments. Also, the reimbursement claim is for costs associated with a unilateral placement which was not appropriate. Student’s reimbursement request for daycare is denied. Student requests reimbursement in the amount of $2,000 for an independent educational assessment, called an IEE, consisting of testing and a January 10, 2026 neuropsychological test report by clinical neuropsychologist Paul Mancillas, Ph.D. An IEE may be reimbursable either because the parent independently established a statutory right to an IEE at public expense under 34 C.F.R. § 300.502 and Education Code § 56329, or, as alleged here, because reimbursement for the private evaluation constituted equitable relief reasonably related to the denial of FAPE. Student’s request for the IEE’s reimbursement is denied. The January 2026 report is not related to Los Angeles’ failure to provide a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year. Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE because it did not make any offer of FAPE before school started in August 2025, not because Los Angeles failed to make a sufficient offer of FAPE. Also, Los Angeles’ FAPE offers in the October 2023, February 2024, and September 2025 IEPs were based upon “what was, and what was not, objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was drafted.” (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at 1149, citing Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d 1031, 1041.) Since the January 2026 report was unavailable to these earlier IEP team meetings, the report could not be considered.

The January 2026 private report was also of no consequence in fashioning a remedy. Dr. Mancillas’ report did not make any recommendations regarding Student’s specialized academic instruction. Student did not demonstrate Student’s IEP program failed to provide a FAPE. The award of compensatory education and services in this decision is based upon the services Student would have received, but for Los Angeles’s failure to have a FAPE offer before the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year. Student’s request for the equitable reimbursement of the January 10, 2026 private assessment is denied.

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

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION AND SERVICES

Student requests compensatory education and services. Student was without special education and services for the entire 2025-2026 school year. California expressly authorizes a due process hearing officer to order a “compensatory remedy” for students with disabilities. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g).) Compensatory education is an equitable remedy intended to address the educational loss caused by the denial of FAPE. It need not be calculated on a strict minute-forminute or day-for-day basis; rather, the remedy should be tailored to what is reasonably necessary to place the student in the educational position the student would have occupied absent the violation. (Puyallup, supra, 31 F.3d at 1496-1497; Park v. Anaheim

Union High School District (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1025, 1033-1034.) The determination that Mother is not entitled to reimbursement for Student's unilateral private-school placement tuition and educationally associated costs, does not foreclose Student's claim for compensatory education. Tuition reimbursement and compensatory education are distinct equitable remedies. Because Los Angeles denied Student a FAPE by failing to make an offer for the 2025-2026 school year, the appropriate inquiry is whether additional specialized academic instruction is necessary to remedy the resulting educational loss. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); Puyallup, supra, 31 F.3d at 1496–1497; Park, supra, 464 F.3d at 1033.)

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

Student seeks compensatory education and services for the entire 2025-2026 school year. Los Angeles contends that the FAPE violation caused by failing to make a timely FAPE offer ceased as of the date of the April 27, 2026 FAPE offer. Los Angeles asserts that any compensatory remedy for the 2025-2026 school year should not include compensatory education or services after April 27, 2026.

The equities weigh in favor of Student. Los Angeles’ failure to make an FAPE offer before the commencement of school was not mitigated by the April 27, 2026 FAPE offer for the remainder of the 2025-2026 school year. Los Angeles’ argument assumes that the specialized academic instruction and services in the April 27, 2026 offer would have been immediately available to Student. The practical reality is that the offer would not benefit Student unless Mother immediately accepted the offer, Student promptly left St. Columbkille, Student was expeditiously reenrolled at Los Angeles, and Los Angeles commenced the specialized academic instruction and services without delay. At the time of Los Angeles’ offer, six weeks remained in the 2025-2026 school year. The likelihood of Student receiving the benefit of the specialized academic instruction and services, offered on April 27, 2026 for the remainder of the school year, were minimal. Student’s compensatory education and services are not mitigated by Los Angeles’ April 2026 offer of FAPE. The compensatory remedy will include the entire 2025-2026 school year.

Student’s IEPs at Los Angeles were based upon a regular school year and did not include extended school year. Los Angeles provided 180 days of instruction per school year, which equates to 36 weeks of school and which will be used in determining Student’s compensatory education and services.

Pursuant to Student’s last agreed upon and implemented IEP of September 18, 2024, Student received specialized academic instruction from special education teacher Jamison, two hours week for English language arts and two hours a week for mathematics. Specialized academic instruction falls within “special education,” meaning specially designed instruction provided to meet the student's unique disability-related needs. (Ed. Code, § 56031; 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(a), (b)(3).) Dr. Mancillas’ January 2026 private report did not make any recommendations regarding Student’s specialized academic instruction and did not question the sufficiency of the instruction that was provided by Los Angeles. Student did not submit evidence regarding compensatory education. The previous IEP specialized academic instruction and related services are the best indication of an appropriate response to Student’s request for compensatory education Student’s services, as provided by his last IEP, will be used in examining Student’s compensatory specialized academic instruction and related services.

Student made progress toward his reading and written language goals but, by the end of the 2024-2025 school year, he was still struggling with his written language and reading and in need of continuing services. Therefore, Student continued to be entitled to two hours a week of compensatory specialized academic instruction in English language arts. Two hours a week times 36 weeks of school equals 72 hours compensatory specialized academic instruction in English language arts. By the end of Student’s 2024-2025 school year, Student was performing at the early fifth grade level in mathematics. Los Angeles did not believe that Student needed to continue with his specialized academic instruction in mathematics for the 2025-2026 school year. However, Student’s April 9, 2025 IEP team did not review or discuss

Student's services for mathematics and Los Angeles did not make an offer for the 2025-2026 school year. Two hours a week for math will be the compensatory remedy. Two hours per week times 36 weeks of school results in an award of 72 hours of compensatory specialized academic instruction in mathematics.

Student also received speech and language services of two hours a month from speech pathologist Verdugo in the 2024-2025 school year. Language and speech services are a recognized related service (34 C.F.R. § 300.34(a) and (c)(15)) and California expressly authorizes appropriately credentialed language, speech, and hearing personnel to provide speech and language services. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051.1.) Verdugo reported that Student made great progress toward his articulation goals in 2024-2025 school year, but Verdugo opined that Student should continue to receive speech and language services. The 36 weeks of the regular school year, divided by four weeks per month, equals nine months. Student received two hours per month of speech therapy. Two hours per month times nine months of school equals 18 hours of compensatory speech and language services.

Los Angeles will fund and provide 144 hours of specialized academic instruction by a credentialed special education teacher, through a certified nonpublic agency. This compensatory specialized academic instruction may be utilized by Student, as determined to be appropriate by Mother, to meet Student’s specialized academic instructional needs. Los Angeles will also provide 18 hours of speech and language services, by a credentialed speech pathologist, through a nonpublic agency.

Student has 18 months from the date the compensatory hours of specialized academic instruction and speech services are available and able to be accessed by the Student. Any hours not used by that date shall be forfeited.

PRIVATE PLACEMENT AND FUNDING FOR 2026-2027 SCHOOL YEAR

As a remedy for Los Angeles’ failure to provide a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year, Student requested an Order directing Los Angeles to fund the private placement of Student at Fusion Academy for the 2026-2027 school year.

Los Angeles asserted that the 2026-2027 school year was not at issue in Student’s complaint and Student did not cite any facts or law which would support the requested remedy based on a 2025-2026 failure to provide Student a FAPE. Student did not demonstrate he was entitled to the funding of a prospective private placement for the 2026-2067 school year. Los Angeles failed to provide a FAPE because Los Angeles did not make a timely FAPE offer before 2025-2026 school year. This denial of FAPE does not support a remedy of prospective placement at Fusion Academy for the 2026-2027 school year. This is especially true where Los Angeles convened an IEP team meeting on April 27, 2026, at Mother’s request, and made a placement offer for the 2026-2027 school year. Mother has not responded to the offer. Any defect in that offer was not at issue in this action.

Also, hearing officers may not render a decision which results in the placement of an individual with exceptional needs in a nonpublic, nonsectarian school if the school has not been certified pursuant to Education Code section 56366.1. (Ed. Code, § 56505.2, subd. (a).) Fusion Academy is not certified as a nonpublic school and Mother is not seeking reimbursement for tuition paid to that school.

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

The four issues addressed in this due process proceeding did not concern FAPE for 2026-2027 school year. Therefore, Student may not seek a remedy for the 20262027 school year without addressing the pending timely April 27, 2026 FAPE offer and, if necessary, filing a separate due process proceeding seeking a finding that the offer did not provide FAPE.

Student’s request for prospective placement at Fusion Academy for the 20262027 school year is denied.

REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM FOR MATH TUTORING

Student seeks reimbursement in the sum of $6,000 for math tutoring from January 2024 to January 2026.

Los Angeles opposes the request, noting that the tutor was a member of the household and admittedly did not possess any skills, training, or experience which would qualify her to charge for tutoring Student in math.

Mother submitted a simple undated form “invoice,” with a handwritten note and a flat total of $6,000 for tutoring provided by a member of the household who resides with Student. The handwritten description states “Mathematics Tutoring for [Student] from January 2024 to January 2026, provided by [name of member of the household].” Beneath the description was the member of the household’s signature and phone number. The “invoice” did not list an hourly rate. Student did not submit any confirming documentation such as logs indicating if, when, or how many tutoring sessions the member of the household provided. Student did not provide proof of payment by Mother.

Through a Spanish interpreter, the member of the household testified at hearing. She acknowledged having no academic credentials and had no experience in teaching. She testified that she principally provided comfort and support to Student and occasionally helped him with his math homework. She did not state she was charging or billing for helping Student with his math homework. The ALJ later admitted the “invoice” as a courtesy to Mother, noting the exhibit would be considered and given appropriate evidentiary weight. The undated “invoice” was insufficient evidence of the member of the household’s alleged tutoring of Student, for which Mother supposedly paid. Moreover, this invoice was for alleged services going back to January 2024. Student did not show a deficiency in Student’s offered, accepted, and implemented special educational program. Los Angeles failed to provide of FAPE because of a material, procedural failure to make a timely offer of a FAPE for the 2025-2026 school year. (Union, supra, 15 F.3d at p. 1527; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (j).) The failure to make an offer of a FAPE prior to the start of the 2025-2026 has been appropriately remedied by an award of compensatory specialized instructions and services. No further remedy is appropriate. Student failed to demonstrate that Mother is entitled to reimbursement of $6,000 for alleged tutoring in math from January 2024 to January 2026.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSS OF INCOME

Student requested an award of lost income because Student was continually bullied for two years. Mother claimed that she lost her foster care license and was therefore entitled to reimbursement of the lost wages. Mother submitted a foster care payment voucher from Los Angeles County from February 15, 2023, showing a monthly payment of $1,129.

This decision finds that Student failed to demonstrate that he was bullied. Therefore, any remedy request based on Student being bullied is denied. Also, a parent’s lost wages or lost income caused by time spent caring for the student, attending meetings, or pursuing the student’s special-education rights are not treated as compensatory damages, and those damages are not available under the IDEA. In Blanchard v. Morton School District (9th Cir. 2007) 509 F.3d 934, 936-938, the parent sought damages for lost income incurred while pursuing IDEA relief for her child. The Ninth Circuit held that the IDEA’s remedial scheme did not provide for the recovery of lost income.

Student’s request for reimbursement of Mother’s alleged lost wages is denied because Student was not bullied and because consequential monetary damages are unavailable under the IDEA. (Id.) Student’s request for reimbursement for alleged lost income is denied.

ORDER

1. Within 45 days of the date of this Decision, Los Angeles Unified School District shall make available 144 hours of specialized academic instruction by a credentialed special education teacher, through a nonpublic entity. These hours may be used at the discretion of Mother for direct services to Student.

2. Within 45 days of the date of this Decision, Los Angeles Unified School District shall make available 18 hours of speech and language services, by a credentialed speech pathologist, through a nonpublic agency. These hours may be used at the discretion of Mother, for direct services to Student.

3. The compensatory hours provided by paragraphs 1 and 2 must be used no later than 18 months from the date the compensatory hours of specialized academic instruction and speech services are available and able to be accessed by the Student. Any hours not used by that date shall be forfeited. This remedy is compensatory only and does not constitute part of a stay put placement.

4. All of Student’s remaining requests for relief 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.

Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings