Student v. Ontario-Montclair School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

V.

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2026030348

DECISION

October 1, 2026 On March 4, 2026, Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Ontario-Montclair School District, called Ontario-Montclair. On April 13, 2026, OAH granted the parties’ joint request for continuance.

Administrative Law Judge Paul H. Kamoroff heard this matter by videoconference on August 18, 19, 20, 25, 26, and 27, 2026.

Parent represented Student. Attorney Cynthia Vargas represented OntarioMontclair. Alana Hughes-Hunter, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent of Special Education Local Plan Area and Equity, and Christina James, Ph.D., Director of Special Education, attended alternating hearing days on behalf of Ontario-Montclair. OAH provided Spanish language interpreters for Parent during each day of the hearing.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to September 14, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on September 14, 2026.

ISSUES

The issues have been rephrased to better reflect the issues identified in Student’s complaint. No substantive changes have been made to Student’s issues. (J.W. v. Fresno

Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443.) A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP. 1. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year, pursuant to the October 12, 2023 IEP, as amended on March 7, 2024, by:

a. Failing to offer goals for:

i.

reading;

ii. listening comprehension;

iii. auditory processing;

iv. writing;

v. math;

vi. executive functioning;

vii. expressive language; and viii.assistive technology?

b. Failing to offer services for:

i.

reading;

ii. listening comprehension;

iii. auditory processing;

iv. writing;

v. math;

vi. executive functioning;

vii. expressive language; and viii.assistive technology?

c. Failing to offer an appropriate placement?

2. Did Ontario-Montclair deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year by failing to assess for auditory processing?

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).) As the petitioning party, Student had the burden of proof for all issues. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).)

Student was 16 years old and in tenth grade at a public high school in the Chino Valley Unified School District at the time of the hearing. Student resided within OntarioMontclair’s geographic boundaries during the 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 school years, Student’s seventh and eighth grade years. Student was eligible for special education under the category specific learning disability, based upon a reading disorder.

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

ISSUE 1: DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR DENY STUDENT A FAPE PURSUANT

TO THE OCTOBER 12, 2023 IEP, AS AMENDED ON MARCH 7, 2024?

Student contends that Ontario-Montclair denied Student a FAPE during the 2023–2024 school year by failing, in the October 12, 2023 IEP, as amended in a March 7, 2024 amended IEP, to offer appropriate annual goals, services, accommodations, and placement to address Student’s needs in:

reading, listening comprehension, auditory processing, writing, mathematics, executive functioning, expressive language, and assistive technology.

Ontario-Montclair disputes these allegations. Ontario-Montclair contends the October 12, 2023 IEP was reasonably calculated to address Student’s unique educational needs and to enable Student to make appropriate progress in light of his circumstances. Ontario-Montclair further contends that Student’s challenge to the October 12, 2023 IEP is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations because Student did not file his due process complaint until March 4, 2026, more than two years after the October 12, 2023 IEP was developed and offered.

Ontario-Montclair contends that the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP did not substantively alter Student’s educational program for the remainder of the 2023–2024 school year. Rather, the March 7, 2024 meeting was conducted for the purpose of transitioning Student from eighth grade to high school for the 2024–2025 school year. Ontario-Montclair further contends that Student was making meaningful educational progress under the existing program and that no changes to his educational program were warranted at the time of the March 7, 2024 meeting.

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an eligible child that meets state educational standards at no charge to the parent or guardian. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.) Parents and school personnel develop an IEP for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031, 56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a), and 56363, subd. (a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501.) 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 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].) The development of annual goals is an important component of the IEP process. The purpose of annual goals is to permit the IEP team to determine whether the student is making progress in areas of identified need. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a).) The IDEA, however, does not require an IEP team to formulate goals in the particular manner preferred by a parent or to include every conceivable goal from which a student might potentially benefit. Rather, the goals must appropriately address the student’s identified needs and be objectively measurable. "[A]n IEP is not required to contain every goal from which a student might benefit." (Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1133, cert. denied sub nom. S.B. v. Capistrano Unified Sch.

Dist. (2022) 143 S.Ct. 98 (citations omitted).)

Both federal and state law contain a two-year statute of limitations for special education administrative actions. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).) The state statute provides that a request for due process hearing must be filed within two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis of the request. In accordance with section 1415(f)(3)(D) of title 20 of the United States Code, the time period specified in this subdivision does not apply to a parent if the parent was prevented from requesting the due process hearing due to either of the following: (1) Specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had solved the problem forming the basis of the due process hearing request;

(2) The withholding of information by the local educational agency that was required under this part to be provided to the parent.” (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).)

As a result, the statute of limitations operates to bar claims based upon facts outside of the two-year period. (J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 444-445; Breanne C. v. Southern York County School Dist. (M.D. Pa. 2009) 665 F.Supp.2d 504, 511-512; E.J. v. San Carlos Elementary School Dist. (N.D.Cal. 2011) 803 F.Supp.2d 1024, 1026, fn. 1.)

In 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held there is no automatic two-year time bar of claims based on the date of the filing of the case. (Avila v. Spokane School Dist. 81 (9th Cir. 2017) 852 F.3d 936.) The Ninth Circuit refused to uphold a strict occurrence rule which would calculate the two-year statute of limitations from the date the due process complaint was filed. Instead, they upheld the discovery rule, which requires courts limit claims to the two-year period that precedes the date when a parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint. (Id.)

The Ninth Circuit further held in J.R. v. Ventura Unified School District that a claim begins to accrue when the parent knew or reasonably should have known of the facts underlying the alleged violation, and that their child’s education was inadequate. (J.R. v.

Ventura Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2026) 173 F.4th 1039, 1050-51.)

THE OCTOBER 12, 2023 IEP

Ontario-Montclair convened Student’s three-year review and annual IEP team meeting on October 12, 2023. In preparation for the meeting, Ontario-Montclair conducted a comprehensive three-year reassessment, addressing multiple areas relevant to Student’s educational needs. Student was assessed in:

speech and language, health, academics, psychoeducational functioning, and dyslexia-related concerns.

Ontario-Montclair assigned qualified personnel to conduct the assessments. Educational specialist Christina Basulto conducted the academic assessment. Speech and language pathologist Margaret Hinojosa conducted the speech and language assessment. School psychologist Tuwesha Mitchell conducted the psychoeducational assessment, and a school nurse conducted the health assessment. Basulto and Mitchell also conducted additional testing addressing Student’s dyslexia-related needs. Each assessor prepared a written report documenting the assessment results, and those reports were provided to Parent at the October 12, 2023 IEP team meeting. On October 12, 2023, Ontario-Montclair convened Student’s annual IEP team meeting. Student was 13 years old and enrolled in eighth grade at a public middle school within Ontario-Montclair. Parent attended the meeting, along with school psychologist Mitchell, educational specialist Basulto, speech and language pathologist Hinojosa, a general education teacher, an assistant principal, and a Spanish-language interpreter.

Although Parent had identified English as her primary language in various school records, including enrollment documentation, Ontario-Montclair provided a Spanishlanguage interpreter at each IEP team meeting to ensure Parent’s full understanding of the proceedings and her participation in the IEP process.

At the beginning of the October 12, 2023 IEP team meeting, Ontario-Montclair provided Parent with notice and an explanation of her parents’ rights and procedural safeguards. Each assessor, including Mitchell, Hinojosa, and Basulto, presented and explained the results of their assessments to Parent and the other members of the IEP team.

Parent was provided a meaningful opportunity to ask questions, provide information concerning Student’s educational performance and needs, and participate in the development of the IEP. Parent exercised that opportunity. Among other things, Parent provided information concerning Student’s present levels of performance, including her observation that Student was social but experienced difficulty with reading. Parent also asked questions concerning Student’s dyslexia-related reading disorder. The IEP team addressed Parent’s questions, and Parent’s input was considered by the team and incorporated into the resulting IEP.

Following review of the three-year reassessment and Parent’s input, the IEP team determined that Student continued to qualify for special education and related services under the eligibility category of specific learning disability, based upon a reading disorder. The IEP eligibility reflected that Student had dyslexia, a lifelong learning disorder affecting the manner in which the brain processes reading, writing, and spelling.

Student was otherwise functioning successfully in the school environment. Student was neurotypical and high-performing, earning grades in the A and B range across his classes. He was social, well-liked by peers and teachers, and athletic, including participation on a high-level soccer team for students his age. After considering the assessment results, Parent’s input, teacher input, assessor input, and Student’s present levels of academic and functional performance, the IEP team identified reading and writing as areas requiring specialized support. To address those identified needs, the IEP team developed an educational program consisting of accommodations, annual goals, and specialized academic instruction.

The accommodations included checking for understanding by requiring Student to restate or paraphrase information, access to text-to-speech assistive technology during class, additional time for assignments, and having text read aloud when necessary across subject areas.

The IEP contained two annual goals, one addressing reading and one addressing writing. The reading goal required Student to cite textual evidence from written materials. The writing goal required Student to formulate complex paragraphs, including identifying, acknowledging, and distinguishing opposing claims presented in written texts. To support Student’s progress toward those goals, Ontario-Montclair offered 100 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction. The specialized academic instruction was provided within the general education setting through a collaborative classroom model in which Student’s English language arts classes were co-taught by a general education teacher and a resource specialist program teacher. The resource specialist program teacher was a credentialed special education teacher who assisted all students in the classroom. At hearing, she testified persuasively that she provided approximately 15 minutes per class, four days per week, to assist Student. She opined that this level of service was sufficient for Student to make progress on both his reading and writing goals and earn high grades in grade level curriculum. Parent signed her agreement to all parts of the IEP offer on October 12, 2023.

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

APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Student did not file his due process complaint until March 4, 2026. The complaint challenged the October 12, 2023 IEP and therefore was filed more than two years after the date on which the IEP was developed, offered, reviewed with Parent, and accepted.

Student’s complaint did not allege any exception to the two-year statute of limitations. Nor did Student present evidence at hearing establishing that Parent was prevented from timely requesting a due process hearing because of specific misrepresentations by Ontario-Montclair or because Ontario-Montclair withheld information that it was legally required to provide. Therefore, the statute of limitations applies to Student’s claims regarding the October 12, 2023 IEP. The evidence established that Parent knew, or reasonably should have known, the facts underlying each of Student’s claims concerning the October 12, 2023 IEP no later than the date of the IEP team meeting. Parent attended the IEP team meeting, and received and reviewed the assessment reports. She heard the assessors explain their findings, with the assistance of an interpreter, and participated in discussions concerning Student’s present levels of performance and educational needs. Parent reviewed the proposed goals, accommodations, services, and placement, and had an opportunity to ask questions and express disagreement. She was also informed of her procedural safeguards.

Student’s closing brief and Parent’s testimony showed that Parent was dissatisfied with Student’s educational progress and program since the fourth grade, through the tenth grade. As such, Parent confirmed that she knew of the facts that formed the basis of the complaint in October 2023, Student’s eighth grade year; and she believed Student’s program was inadequate when it was offered. (J.R. v. Ventura Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2026) 173 F.4th 1039, 1050-51.) Because Student did not file his due process complaint until March 4, 2026, the claims challenging the October 12, 2023 IEP were filed outside the applicable two-year limitations period. Finally, Student neither pleaded nor proved an applicable exception to the statute of limitations.

Based upon the foregoing, Student’s challenges to the October 12, 2023 IEP are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.

THE MARCH 7, 2024 AMENDMENT IEP

Ontario-Montclair convened an amendment IEP team meeting for Student on March 7, 2024. The purpose of the meeting was to facilitate Student’s transition from middle school to high school for the 2024–2025 school year.

Student and Parent attended the meeting. Educational specialist Basulto, who served as Student’s case carrier and resource specialist program teacher, was also present. Other team members included a school district administrator, a general education teacher, a Spanish-language interpreter, and two representatives from the high school.

The March 7, 2024 amendment IEP included changes concerning Student’s statewide testing and his anticipated classes and program for the 2024–2025 school year. High school representatives explained that the length of classes, differing schedules, and differing program supports required minor adjustments to the minutes and delivery methods on the services page of the IEP for the following 2024-2025 school year, which was not at issue for this matter. The March 7, 2024 IEP team did not modify Student’s educational program for the remainder of the 2023–2024 school year.

The meeting occurred during the spring semester of Student’s eighth-grade year. It was consistent with Ontario-Montclair’s practice to convene amendment IEP team meetings in the spring for students completing eighth grade to make program adjustments as needed to help their transition to high school. During the meeting, the IEP team reviewed Student’s participation in statewide testing, accommodations, progress toward his annual goals, and his academic performance.

Student was making meaningful educational progress at the time of the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP team meeting. Student had met each goal benchmark and was on track to meet his goals prior to the conclusion of the school year, which was earlier than the anticipated goal achievement date of October 12, 2024. Student was also doing very well academically. During his first semester of eighth grade, Student earned the following grades:

Student Leadership:

A

English Language Arts:

A

Math:

B

Physical Education:

A

Science:

A

Social Studies

A

His overall grade point average was 3.8 for the first semester of the 2023-2024 school year.

For the second semester of eighth grade, Student earned the following grades:

Student Leadership:

A

English language Arts:

A

Math:

B

Physical education:

B

Science:

B

Social Studies:

A

Student’s overall grade point average for eighth grade was 3.6. Although the final grades for the second semester were not available to the March 7, 2024 IEP team, Student’s teachers reported he was earning excellent grades in his academic courses. In addition, Student participated during classes, had friends, and did not demonstrate any social, emotional, or behavioral problems.

During the hearing, Student’s eighth grade teachers, including Lora Dahms who taught Student’s English language arts class, and Brent O’Dea who taught Student’s science class, testified in support of Student’s IEP. Each witness was familiar with Student, having taught him for a school year, and were familiar with his unique needs and IEP accommodations. Each teacher testified Student was bright, social, and earned his high grades without modification of classroom materials. Student was receptive to his IEP accommodations, such as repeated instruction and text-to-speech, and successfully accessed the general education curriculum with existing IEP accommodations and services. Along with school psychologist Mitchell and education specialist Basulto, Dahms and O’Dea persuasively testified that no changes to Student’s 2023-2024 educational program were necessary to offer Student a FAPE at the time of the March 7,

2024 amendment IEP team meeting. Nor were any changes requested by Parent, Student, school staff, or by anyone else. Parent consented to the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP, making changes for the 2024-2025 school year only, without exceptions. Additionally, school psychologist Mitchell, speech-language pathologist Hinojosa, and education specialist Basulto, credibly testified that Student’s IEP met his unique needs in light of his circumstances as a student with dyslexia. Each witness persuasively opined that no change to his supports, goals, services, or placement were necessary to provide him a FAPE as of the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP. Student failed to present any persuasive evidence to impugn the testimony of the school witnesses. In spring 2024, Student participated successfully in the general education curriculum with the accommodations and services contained in his IEP. Although Student’s general education classes contained approximately 32 students and could sometimes be noisy, Student was able to follow instructions, complete assignments, ask questions, participate, and meaningfully benefit from his IEP without the need for modifications for the remainder of the 2023-2024 school year.

During the hearing, Student failed to present any evidence to show OntarioMontclair should have modified Student’s educational program for the 2023-2024 school year as part of the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP.

The IDEA does not require a school district to maximize a student’s potential or provide the educational program that a parent or another educational expert might consider optimal. (Gregory K. v. Longview School District (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1313-1314.) Rather, the district must offer an educational program reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances. (Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 201–204; Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 402.)

Here, the evidence demonstrated that Student was making meaningful progress under the educational program offered by Ontario-Montclair. Student met his IEP benchmarks, progressed toward his annual goals, earning A and B grades, and maintained a high grade point average. Student participated in his classes, interacted appropriately with peers and teachers, and accessed the general education curriculum with the accommodations and services provided through his IEP. The evidence further established that Student’s teachers and other members of the IEP team were familiar with his educational needs and observed his performance in the classroom. The Ontario-Montclair educational professionals who testified were wellqualified in their fields, credible in their presentation, and persuasively explained their opinions using observations of Student and reference to classwork performed and assessment results. Their testimony supported the conclusion that Student’s existing accommodations and services were reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress in light of his circumstances.

There was no persuasive evidence establishing that Ontario-Montclair was required to modify Student’s educational program for the 2023-2024 school year on March 7, 2024. Nor was there evidence demonstrating that the transition-related changes incorporated into the amendment IEP impacted Student’s access to a FAPE during the remainder of the 2023–2024 school year.

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that OntarioMontclair denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate goals, services or placement in the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP.

ISSUE 2: DID ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING

TO ASSESS HIM FOR AUDITORY PROCESSING?

Student contends that Ontario-Montclair denied him a FAPE during the 2023–2024 school year by failing to assess him for an auditory processing disorder. Ontario-Montclair contends that it appropriately assessed Student as part of his three-year reevaluation conducted in October 2023, including assessment of his auditory processing and auditory comprehension abilities. Ontario-Montclair further contends that, based upon the assessment results and Student’s educational performance, no additional assessment was necessary to provide Student a FAPE. The IDEA requires a school district to assess a student in all areas of suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4).) A school district has an affirmative obligation to evaluate a student when it has reason to suspect that the student has a disability or requires special education and related services. The Ninth Circuit has explained that once a school district is on notice that a child has displayed symptoms of a disability, the district must assess the child to determine the child’s educational needs. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1118–1120.)

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

The IDEA does not, however, require a school district to conduct every conceivable assessment or to perform duplicative testing where the existing evaluation information is sufficient to identify the student’s needs and develop an appropriate educational program.

ONTARIO-MONTCLAIR’S ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT’S AUDITORY

PROCESSING

As part of Student’s three-year reevaluation, school psychologist Mitchell conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Student in October 2023. Her evaluation included assessment of Student’s language and auditory skills using the Test of Auditory Processing Skills, Fourth Edition, a standardized assessment designed to evaluate auditory processing-related skills. Student obtained a low score in auditory comprehension, falling below the average range.

Mitchell documented the assessment results in her written report dated October 12, 2023. She reviewed her findings with Parent and the other members of the IEP team during the October 12, 2023 annual IEP team meeting. Ontario-Montclair provided Parent with notice of her procedural safeguards at the beginning of the meeting and provided a Spanish-language interpreter to facilitate Parent’s participation. The IEP team considered Student’s low auditory comprehension score, together with the other information obtained through the three-year reevaluations. The IEP team also considered other identified areas of difficulty, including Student’s reading disorder and dyslexia.

The assessment results were not ignored or disregarded. Rather, they were incorporated into the IEP team’s consideration of Student’s eligibility, educational needs, accommodations, annual goals, and services. The team relied upon the collective findings of Mitchell and the other assessors, along with Parent, in developing Student’s educational program.

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Ontario-Montclair provided Parent the assessment reports by October 12, 2023, and reviewed the results with Parent during the October 12, 2023 IEP team meeting. Parent received and reviewed the assessment results, participated in the IEP team meeting at which the results were discussed, and had an opportunity to question the assessors and other members of the IEP team concerning the evaluation. Parent was aware of the low scores Student received for auditory processing, and the educational program being offered at that time. Accordingly, the facts underlying Student’s claim that Ontario-Montclair failed to appropriately assess him for auditory processing, were known, or reasonably should have been known, to Parent by October 12, 2023. Finally, Parent admitted she was dissatisfied with Student’s educational program since the fourth grade. Consequently, the statute of limitations for this issue began to accrue on October 12, 2023. (J.R. v. Ventura Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2026) 173 F.4th 1039, 1050-51.)

Student filed his due process complaint on March 4, 2026, more than two years after the school’s October 12, 2023 auditory processing assessment and IEP team meeting to review the assessment. Under the IDEA and California's two-year limitations provisions, the limitations period bars this claim because it is more than two years old. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)(B), (f)(3)(C); 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(2); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).)

As discussed in issue one, Student did not plead an exception to the statute of limitations and did not present evidence establishing that an exception applied. There was no evidence that Ontario-Montclair made specific misrepresentations that it had resolved an assessment-related problem or withheld information that it was required to provide to Parent. Therefore, there was no exception to the two-year statute of limitations for this issue. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D).)

Accordingly, Student’s claim that Ontario-Montclair failed to appropriately assess him for auditory processing is barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Moreover, if Student’s claim was not time-barred, Student did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Ontario-Montclair denied Student a FAPE by failing to conduct additional auditory-processing assessment.

Ontario-Montclair conducted a comprehensive three-year reevaluation that included assessment of auditory and language skills. The assessment identified an area of weakness in auditory comprehension, and that information was presented to and considered by the IEP team.

Student had the burden of proving the issues but failed to provide any evidence to support this claim. Student provided no evidence to show what an auditory processing assessment should include, who should conduct the assessment, why the assessment was necessary for Student, why the school’s assessment for auditory processing was inadequate, or what educational impact occurred because of Ontario-Montclair’s alleged failure to conduct further testing for auditory processing.

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

Rather, evidence overwhelmingly showed that Student made meaningful educational progress during the fall and spring semesters of the 2023-2024 school year without additional assessment for auditory processing.

At the time of the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP team meeting, Student was progressing toward his annual goals, earning A and B grades across his classes, and functioning successfully in the school environment.

School witnesses, including classroom teachers Dahms, O’Dea, and Basulto, persuasively testified they did not observe Student demonstrate any problems related to auditory processing. Although Student’s classes could be noisy and contained approximately 32 students, those conditions did not prevent Student from accessing or benefiting from his educational program. Student’s teachers credibly testified that he was able to follow instructions, complete assignments, ask questions, participate in classroom activities, and access the general education curriculum with his existing accommodations and services.

Given Student’s progress, there was no recommendation by a teacher, school staff member, Parent, or other member of the IEP team, for additional auditoryprocessing assessment or supports during the 2023–2024 school year. Student failed to present any persuasive evidence, such as an expert or observations by a percipient witness, to show that Student required additional testing for auditory processing. The evidence therefore did not establish that additional testing for auditory processing was necessary to enable Ontario-Montclair to provide Student a

FAPE.

Student failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that OntarioMontclair denied him a FAPE by failing to assess for auditory processing during the 2023-2024 school year.

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 1(a) i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, (b) i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, and (c): Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2023–2024 school year, pursuant to the October 12, 2023 IEP, as amended in the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP, by failing to offer appropriate annual goals, services, accommodations, and placement, to address Student’s needs in reading, listening comprehension, auditory processing, writing, mathematics, executive functioning, expressive language, and assistive technology.

Student’s Issue 1 was barred by the two-year statute of limitations as it applied to the October 12, 2023 IEP.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 1, as it applied to the March 7, 2024 amendment IEP.

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

ISSUE 2:

Ontario-Montclair did not deny Student a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to assess for auditory processing.

Ontario-Montclair prevailed on Issue 2.

ORDER

All of Student’s claims 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.

PAUL H. KAMOROFF

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings