Student v. Murrieta Valley Unified School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

CASE NO. 2026030986

DECISION

AUGUST 7, 2026

On March 23, 2026, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Murrieta Valley Unified School District. On April 16, 2026, OAH granted the parties’ joint request for a continuance. On May 29, 2026, OAH granted Student’s request for a continuance.

Administrative Law Judge Jeanie Min heard this matter by videoconference on June 16, 17, 18, and 23, 2026.

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

Accessibility Modified

Parent represented Student and attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Student appeared on the first day of hearing. Attorney Peter Sansom represented Murrieta Valley. Assistant Director of Special Education Steven Gooch attended all hearing days, except on June 17, 2026, and the morning of June 23, 2026, on Murrieta Valley’s behalf. In Gooch’s absence, Executive Director of Special Education Dr. Zhanna Preston attended on June 17, 2026, and Assistant Director of Special Education Denise Estevez attended on June 23, 2026, on Murrieta Valley’s behalf. At the parties’ request, OAH continued the matter to July 8, 2026, for written closing briefs. OAH closed the record and submitted the matter on July 8, 2026.

ISSUES

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

1. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to keep accurate educational records, in that Murrieta Valley identified Student by the incorrect name and failed to distinguish Student’s disability and educational history from his brother’s?

2. Did Murrieta Valley fail to timely locate, identify, or evaluate Student under its child find obligation, between the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year to the time he was initially assessed around October 2025?

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

Accessibility Modified

3. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to appropriately assess in all areas of known or suspected disability, specifically, Student’s vision impairment, as part of his initial assessment from around October 2025 to March 23, 2026?

4. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to find Student eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting?

5. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer any visual impairment services in the December 12, 2025 IEP?

6. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate visual impairment services in the February 26, 2026 IEP? 7. Did Murrieta Valley deny Student a FAPE by denying Student participation in extracurricular activities between August 2024 and March 23, 2026?

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the 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

Accessibility Modified 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, 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. The party requesting the hearing 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).) Here, 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).) Some details regarding Student or Student’s history are not included in this Decision to protect Student’s identity and the confidentiality of these proceedings. This Decision does not cite to the administrative record because it was not available before the issuance of this Decision. Pursuant to the applicable web content accessibility guidelines, OAH decisions are written in an accessible font and format. Student was 13 years old and had completed eighth grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within Murrieta Valley’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 1: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO

KEEP ACCURATE EDUCATIONAL RECORDS, IN THAT MURRIETA VALLEY

IDENTIFIED STUDENT BY THE INCORRECT NAME AND FAILED TO

DISTINGUISH STUDENT’S DISABILITY AND EDUCATIONAL HISTORY

FROM HIS BROTHER’S?

Student contends Murrieta Valley repeatedly misidentified Student by his brother’s name, creating an unreliable record and risking critical information to be misfiled, overlooked, or improperly associated. Student argues accurate identification is foundational in reliably identifying and evaluating Student. Student’s brother will be referred to as Brother in this Decision.

Murrieta Valley argues, to the extent that any of Student’s educational records inadvertently referred to Brother, it timely corrected any such clerical errors. Murrieta Valley denies that its mistake denied Student a FAPE. 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 (2006).) 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 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 (2007), 300.321 (2007), and 300.501 (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56031, 56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a), 56363 subd. (a).) 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

Accessibility Modified 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 School Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000].) California law defines special education as instruction designed to meet the unique needs of the pupil coupled with related services as needed to enable the pupil to benefit from instruction. (Ed. Code, § 56031.)

Education records under the IDEA are defined by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. (20 U.S.C. § 1232; 34 C.F.R. § 99.3.) Education records include “records, files, documents, and other materials” containing information directly related to a student, other than directory information, which “are maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for such agency or institution.” (20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A); Ed. Code, § 49061, subd. (b).) Pupil or education records maintained by school district employees in the performance of their duties include those “recorded by handwriting, print, tapes, film, microfilm or other means.” (Ed. Code, §§ 49061, 56504.) On December 12, 2025, the IEP team met to review Student’s initial special education assessment reports and eligibility. As a part of Student’s initial evaluation, school psychologist Jody Sharp conducted a psychoeducational assessment. School nurse Schlena Mitchell conducted a health assessment. Riverside County Office of Education teachers for the visually impaired Corinne Slocum and Amal Boulaid conducted a functional vision assessment and a learning media assessment. At the IEP team meeting, Slocum and Boulaid presented the functional vision and learning media assessment report. During the presentation of the report, Student was referred to by Brother’s name, which Parent corrected. The copy of the functional vision and learning media assessment report presented at hearing correctly referred to

Accessibility Modified

Student by his name. Mitchell presented Student’s health assessment report, including Student’s vision screening results, milk and seasonal allergies, and history of head injuries. The meeting concluded at 12:15 PM. The evidence demonstrated that Parent participated in the meeting, during which the team shared and analyzed the correct health information of Student.

At 12:29 PM, shortly after the IEP team meeting concluded, Sharp emailed Parent a copy of the finalized December 12, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report. This copy of the psychoeducational assessment report erroneously included Brother’s health assessment report, instead of Student’s.

Inclusion of Brother’s information in Student’s psychoeducational assessment report was a mistake, such that the assessment report was partly inaccurate. However, this minor error did not translate into any actions by Murrieta Valley that impacted Student’s education. The decision of a due process hearing officer shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received a FAPE. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(1); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E).) It was Student’s burden to prove that Murrieta Valley’s inclusion of Brother’s information denied Student a FAPE. Student did not present persuasive evidence or testimony that Murrieta Valley relied on Brother’s health assessment to make any determination about Student’s program. Student did not establish that Murrieta Valley relied on Brother’s information, including his medical history and disability, to make an eligibility determination about Student and develop Student’s educational program. In fact, the evidence established that the IEP team reviewed Student’s health assessment (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified information, not Brother’s, at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student did not present evidence that the reference to Student by Brother’s name in the presentation of the functional vision and learning media assessment report impacted any decision about Student’s education program. The mistakes constituted mere technical violations. Murrieta Valley relied on accurate information about Student’s health and assessment results when considering his eligibility and need for special education services. Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that inclusion of Brother’s information in the December 12, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report, finalized after the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting, impeded Student’s right to a FAPE, significantly impeded Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits, where the evidence did not establish that Murrieta Valley actually relied on Brother’s information to make an eligibility determination about Student.

Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to keep accurate educational records, in that Murrieta Valley identified Student by the incorrect name and failed to distinguish Student’s disability and educational history from Brother’s. Student did not prevail on Issue 1.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 2: DID MURRIETA VALLEY FAIL TO TIMELY LOCATE, IDENTIFY, OR

EVALUATE STUDENT UNDER ITS CHILD FIND OBLIGATION, BETWEEN THE

BEGINNING OF THE 2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR TO THE TIME HE WAS

INITIALLY ASSESSED AROUND OCTOBER 2025?

Student contends Murrieta Valley failed to timely assess Student under its child find obligation. Student argues Murrieta Valley should have initiated a special education assessment prior to October 2025. Student argues Murrieta Valley did not explore the reasons for Student’s absences nor any underlying issues that contributed to his school difficulties.

Murrieta Valley contends it timely proposed an initial special education assessment of Student in response to a request for assessment from Parent on September 10, 2025. Murrieta Valley argues it did not suspect Student had a disability that required special education and its obligation to assess was not triggered until Parent’s request.

The IDEA places an affirmative, ongoing duty on the state and school districts to identify, locate, and assess all children with disabilities residing in the state who are in need of special education and related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56301, subd. (a).) This duty is commonly referred to as “child find.” The purpose of child find is to provide access to special education. (Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III School Dist. (8th Cir. 2006) 439 F.3d 773, 776.) (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

A school district’s child find obligation toward a specific child is triggered when there is knowledge of, or reason to suspect, a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability. (Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae S. (D. Hawaii 2001) 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194.) The threshold for suspecting that a child has a disability is relatively low. (Id. at p. 1195.) A school district’s appropriate inquiry is whether the child should be referred for an evaluation, not whether the child actually qualifies for services. (Ibid.) The IDEA uses the term evaluation, while the California Education Code uses the term assessment. The two terms have the same meaning and are used interchangeably in this Decision. (34 C.F.R. § 300.300 (2008); Ed. Code, § 56302.5.)

The actions of a school district with respect to whether it had knowledge of, or reason to suspect a disability, must be evaluated in light of information that the district knew, or had reason to know, at the relevant time. It is not based upon hindsight. (See

Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149, citing Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Education. (3rd Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041.) A child find violation is a procedural violation of the IDEA that can result in a substantive denial of a FAPE only if the student ultimately would have been found eligible for special education. (R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 496 F.3d 932, 942 (“[A] procedural violation cannot qualify an otherwise ineligible student for IDEA relief.”).)

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

Accessibility Modified

THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR, STUDENT’S SIXTH-GRADE YEAR

Student enrolled at Murrieta Valley on February 27, 2024, during the 2023-2024 school year, in the middle of sixth grade. Student was enrolled for 63 days during the 2023-2024 school year. During this time, Student attended 42 school days. Student had 12 unexcused absences and seven excused absences. Student’s attendance rate was 66.6 percent.

Student received the following grades at the end of the second semester:

Language Arts: C

Social Studies: F, with a note that Student was absent for the final examination

Math: C-

Physical Education: B

Science: C-

Robotics: A+

THE 2024-2025 SCHOOL YEAR, STUDENT’S SEVENTH-GRADE YEAR

On August 23, 2024, a Murrieta Valley staff member informed Parent that Student would attend an intervention class for either English Language Arts or math, starting on August 26, 2024.

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

Accessibility Modified

On October 1, 2024, Student’s general education math teacher emailed Parent that Student was receiving a D+ grade in math and had turned in most of his assignments late. He informed Parent that video tutorials for class assignments and homework were posted online on Canvas for Student to review as needed. Student received the following grades at the end of the first semester:

Science: D-

Physical Education: C

Social Studies: C-, with a note that Student was missing assignments

Language Arts: C, with a note that Student was missing assignments

Theater Arts: D

Math: C-

On April 29, 2025, a school counselor emailed Parent that Student was placed in an English Language Arts support class for the next school year, based on Student’s English Language Arts grades and test scores. This class would provide support in writing skills, grammar and punctuation, reading comprehension, and be a partner class to the grade-level English Language Arts course.

During the 2024-2025 school year, Student was enrolled for 180 school days. Student attended 124 school days. Student had 47 unexcused absences and nine excused absences. Student’s attendance rate was 68.8 percent.

Student had a 1.50 grade point average at the end of the 2024-2025 school year.

Accessibility Modified

Student received the following grades at the end of the second semester:

Science: D

Physical Education: A-

Social Studies: F, with a note that Student was missing assignments

Language Arts: C, with a note that Student was missing assignments

Theater Arts: C

Math: B-

THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR, STUDENT’S EIGHTH-GRADE YEAR

On August 4, 2025, during scheduled pick-up, Parent informed school nurse Schlena Mitchell about Student’s dietary restrictions. On that same day, Parent emailed Mitchell about Student’s history of concussions and asthma. Parent’s August 4, 2025 email stated, “Here is [Student’s] verification of his head concussions and asthma.” On August 5, 2025, Mitchell confirmed receipt of the document and uploaded it onto Murrieta Valley’s student information system. However, the copy of the email chain submitted into evidence did not include any such attachment. It was unclear what specific information Parent presented to Murrieta Valley on August 4, 2025. On August 25, 2025, Parent emailed Mitchell that Student had severe asthma, which caused multiple hospitalizations, a history of concussions, and vision issues, which progressively worsened and that Student currently wore very high prescription glasses. Parent informed Mitchell that any complaint of headaches was taken seriously, which led to Parent keeping Student at home from school on August 22, and 23, 2025.

Accessibility Modified

On August 27, 2025, Parent emailed Mitchell a letter from Dr. Amelie Wagner, dated August 27, 2025, that informed Murrieta Valley that Student had a medical history of asthma and recommended that, during extreme heat conditions, Student should remain indoors to avoid triggering respiratory difficulties. The letter also stated that Student had a history of concussions and, if he reported or displayed symptoms of headaches during school hours, to notify Parent immediately so that appropriate action could be taken.

On September 8, 2025, Dr. Wagner drafted a letter informing Murrieta Valley that Student had multiple upcoming medical appointments and would be missing some school days. Student did not establish when this letter was presented to Murrieta Valley.

On September 10, 2025, Parent emailed school psychologist Jody Sharp a request for an initial special education assessment. On September 23, 2025, Sharp developed the assessment plan, proposing to assess Student in the following areas:

academic achievement, by a special education teacher;

social, adaptive, behavioral, and emotional functioning by a school psychologist;

processing, by a school psychologist;

health and development, by a nurse; and observation, interview, and a records review, by the special education team.

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

Accessibility Modified

Between the start of the 2025-2026 school year, and when Murrieta Valley initiated a special education assessment referral, on September 23, 2025, Student was absent 16 out of the 31 school days.

On September 23, 2025, Sharp emailed Parent that the assessment plan was ready to pick up at the school site’s front office, pursuant to Parent’s email that she would be at the school that day. Sharp also offered to send the assessment plan home with Student the next day, as an alternative.

The same assessment plan was also dated October 10, and 15, 2025. Parent informed Sharp that she mailed the signed assessment plan on October 13, 2025. Sharp received the mailed package on October 14, 2025, and informed Parent that the signed assessment plan was not in the package. Sharp emailed Parent the assessment plan on October 15, 2025, which Parent signed on the same day.

Also, in response to Parent’s September 10, 2025 request for assessment, Sharp sent a referral to the Riverside County Special Education Plan Area for a functional vision assessment and learning media assessment between September 17, and September 23, 2025. Amal Boulaid from the Riverside County Office of Education sent Parent an assessment plan dated October 3, 2025. Parent signed the assessment plan on October 3, 2025.

Murrieta Valley conducted its psychoeducational assessment in October, November, and December 2025. Riverside County Office of Education conducted its functional vision assessment and learning media assessment in October and December 2025.

Accessibility Modified

On December 12, 2025, Murrieta Valley convened Student’s initial IEP team meeting and reviewed the psychoeducational, health, functional vision, and learning media assessment reports. The team determined that Student was not eligible for special education. The team later determined, on February 26, 2026, that Student was eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment. Student argued that his multiple absences and poor academic performance should have alerted Murrieta Valley to a suspected disability such that it should have initiated a special education assessment under its child find obligation prior to Parent’s September 10, 2025 request for a special education assessment. However, Student did not establish that Murrieta Valley had a reason to suspect that Student’s absences were a result of a disability that required special education.

Student’s theater teacher and science teacher testified that Student performed poorly in class. They explained that Student’s significant absences resulted in Student’s inability to complete assignments or gain the information necessary to be successful on tests, which affected his grades. Student’s English teacher testified that, when Student was present in class, he read appropriately at grade level. When Student was present in class, teachers observed him to be well-mannered, social, and engaged. Additionally, a significant portion of Student’s absences were unexcused or unverified, meaning that Parent did not provide a reason for the absences.

Murrieta Valley had information about Student’s disabilities, including a vision impairment requiring high prescription glasses and causing possible progressive vision decline, dietary restrictions, allergies, and asthma. However, to trigger Murrieta Valley’s child find obligation, Murrieta Valley had to have reason to suspect that Student required special education and related services to address these known or suspected

Accessibility Modified disabilities. Student presented evidence that Murrieta Valley was aware of Student’s poor academic performance, significant absences, and multiple ailments. However, Student did not establish that Murrieta Valley suspected or should have suspected that Student had a disability that required special education to address his academic performance and absences, such that Murrieta Valley’s child find obligation was triggered. Teachers’ unrebutted testimony established that Murrieta Valley suspected Student’s poor academic performance was attributed to his significant absences. The evidence did not establish that Murrieta Valley had a reason to suspect that the absences were caused by a disability requiring special education. At hearing, it was Student’s burden to establish a nexus between the known or suspected disability and a reason to suspect special education was required to address these known or suspected disabilities. Student did not meet his burden of proof to show that Murrieta Valley should have identified Student as eligible for special education before Parent’s September 10, 2025 email. After receiving that email, Murrieta Valley acted reasonably by initiating a special education assessment. This process resulted in Student being found eligible for special education services. Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Murrieta Valley failed to meet its child find duty. Student did not prevail on Issue 2.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 3: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO

APPROPRIATELY ASSESS IN ALL AREAS OF KNOWN OR SUSPECTED

DISABILITY, SPECIFICALLY, STUDENT’S VISION IMPAIRMENT, AS PART

OF HIS INITIAL ASSESSMENT FROM AROUND OCTOBER 2025 TO

MARCH 23, 2026?

Student contends Murrieta Valley failed to appropriately assess Student’s vision impairment. Student argues Murrieta Valley failed to comprehensively assess Student’s functional vision and identify Student’s educational needs. Student generally argued that the time period of the failure began around October 2025. The time period analyzed will begin on October 3, 2025, when Parent signed the functional vision and learning media assessment plan.

Murrieta Valley contends it appropriately assessed Student’s vision impairment through its December 12, 2025 psychoeducational assessment and Riverside County Office of Education’s December 12, 2025 functional vision assessment and learning media assessment.

A local educational agency must assess a special education student in all areas of suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (f).) A disability is “suspected,” and a child must be assessed, when the district is on notice that the child has displayed symptoms of that disability or that the child may have a particular disorder. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1119-21.) That notice may come in the form of concerns expressed by parents about a child’s symptoms, opinions expressed by informed professionals, or other less formal indicators, such as the child’s behavior. The

Accessibility Modified determination of what tests are required is based on information known at the time. (Vasheresse v. Laguna Salada Union School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2001) 211 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1157-1158 [assessment adequate despite not including speech and language testing where concern prompting assessment was deficit in reading skills].) A school district’s failure to conduct appropriate assessments or to assess in all areas of suspected disability is a procedural violation. (Park v. Anaheim Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1025, 1031-1033.)

Assessments must be conducted by individuals who are both “knowledgeable of [the student’s] disability” and “competent to perform the assessment, as determined by the local educational agency.” (Ed. Code, §§ 56320, subd. (f), 56322; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(iv).

DECEMBER 12, 2025 HEALTH ASSESSMENT

A health assessment must be conducted by a credentialed school nurse or physician. (Ed. Code, § 56324, subd. (b).) A vision test must be administered by qualified individuals under contract with the school district, including registered nurses, or licensed vocational nurses, under the supervision of a credentialed school nurse. (Ed. Code, § 49452.)

School nurse Schlena Mitchell assessed Student’s health. As a part of the health assessment, Mitchell conducted a vision screening. Mitchell held both a Bachelor of Science degree and a Master of Science degree in nursing. Mitchell was a registered nurse with a school nurse credential. Mitchell was qualified to conduct a health assessment and a vision screening.

Accessibility Modified

Mitchell reviewed Student’s medical records and the health and developmental history form completed by Parent. Student suffered two severe concussions, in 2019 and 2022, but had not been experiencing post-concussive symptoms, pursuant to a review of a letter by Dr. Amelie Wagner dated July 16, 2025. Student had bilateral progressive high myopia, bilateral optic disc pallor, sequelae of a blunt trauma of eye, and amblyopia. Another Student’s doctor recommended preferential seating in the front of the classroom near the teacher and instruction board. Parent’s then-current medical concerns included asthma, for which Student had a prescription inhaler, and ear infections.

On October 16, 2025, Mitchell administered the vision screening. Student passed the distance vision screening with glasses. Student failed the near vision screening with and without glasses.

On January 20, and 29, 2026, Parent submitted additional health information. Mitchell reviewed the documents and included the findings of her review in the updated health assessment report, dated February 26, 2026. In a letter dated December 10, 2025, by Dr. Wagner, provided to Mitchell on January 20, 2026, Student had a confirmed diagnosis of Leber Congenital Amaurosis and Stargardt Disease, which resulted in progressive vision decline. Mitchell included Dr. Wagner’s recommendations of limited computer use, frequent breaks, reduced workload, and flexible attendance, in her report. On January 29, 2026, Student was given two new prescriptions and diagnosed with migraine with aura.

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

Accessibility Modified

DECEMBER 12, 2025 FUNCTIONAL VISION ASSESSMENT AND

LEARNING MEDIA ASSESSMENT

Corinne Slocum and Amal Boulaid, Riverside County Office of Education teachers for the visually impaired, conducted a functional vision assessment and learning media assessment for Student on October 27, December 2, 4, 8, and 9, 2025. Slocum and Boulaid submitted the report containing the findings of both the functional vision assessment and learning media assessment to Murrieta Valley on December 12, 2025. This report is referred to as the December 12, 2025 functional vision and learning media assessment report in this Decision.

Slocum explained the purpose of the functional vision and learning media assessments. A functional vision assessment assessed how a student used vision in a functional way to access his environment. A learning media assessment assessed how a student accessed classroom materials and education. These two assessments were generally conducted together.

Slocum had a bachelor’s degree in speech and communication disorders and a Master of Arts degree in special education with an emphasis on visual impairment. Slocum held a Clear Credential, a California education credential. Slocum conducted approximately 20 functional vision and learning media assessments per year during the nine years she was a teacher for the visually impaired. Slocum was qualified to conduct a functional vision and learning media assessment of Student.

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

Accessibility Modified

Boulaid did not testify. Slocum testified that Boulaid held the same credentials as Slocum. Slocum explained that the functional vision assessment and learning media assessment were generally conducted in pairs so that an assessor could observe visual behaviors and take notes while the other assessor conducted activities with the student. Slocum reviewed Student’s educational records provided by Murrieta Valley and medical reports provided by Parent, including available eye reports. The assessment report included information about Student’s visual disabilities, including progressive high myopia, Leber Congenital Amaurosis, and Stargardt Disease, which would result in progressive vision decline. Student wore glasses or contact lenses, which corrected his visual acuity to 20/100, meaning Student saw at 20 feet what an individual with perfect vision saw at 100 feet. Student wore glasses or contact lenses during the assessments. Slocum interviewed Student, Parent, and Student’s math teacher. Slocum observed Student in a general education history class and a general education English Language Arts class. Slocum directly assessed Student’s functional vision using California’s state protocols, which outlined areas to observe. Slocum explained that this was not a standardized assessment tool. As visual impairment presented uniquely in each student, there was no “standard” to apply.

Student demonstrated an accurate visually guided reach, as he oriented himself towards the direction of the assessors when spoken to and oriented and examined new materials visually. Student’s eyes had a healthy appearance throughout the assessment. Student successfully identified colors and did not demonstrate difficulty in doing so. Student did not display difficulty accessing low-contrast information at near point, meaning he was able to detect detail against gradations of background color. When

Accessibility Modified presented with a variety of visually cluttered materials, Student was able to locate and identify specified objects and did not display visual perception issues. Student did not demonstrate an issue with his visual field, as he was able to detect an object to the sides, above, and below when looking straight ahead without moving his head. Student did not demonstrate difficulty with ocular motor control. Student showed an ability to shift his gaze horizontally and from near point to distance, fixate on a central target, and visually track an object. Student had a normal blink response. Student could scan a page and accurately locate images hidden in a scene, as well as scan his environment at a distance to avoid obstacles in his path. The assessors observed Student in a variety of lighting scenarios.

Slocum also assessed Student’s literacy media needs and how Student’s current use of sensory information impacted or directed learning and literacy activities. Slocum determined Student’s primary learning channel and preferred mode of functioning was visual. Student gained information about his environment through visual means, such as using vision to locate objects and access learning materials. Student successfully identified items on a cluttered page at a distance of 11 to 14 inches from the page. For smaller details, Student leaned into the page to a distance of nine inches from the page. Student transcribed 10-point font and 12-point font text onto a lined paper without difficulty. Student efficiently accessed and navigated a Chromebook. Slocum observed Student preferred to set technology to reversecontrast, meaning white text on black background. (This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Accessibility Modified

Student read more words per minute when given a passage in 16-point font, as compared to passages in 12-point or 14-point font. Student’s reading speed at 16-point font, compared to 12-point or 14-point font, was at least 20 more words per minute, which meant the difference was “meaningful.” Although Student read passages in 12-point font faster than passages in 14-point font, the difference was not meaningful. As Student’s reading fluency was meaningfully different when given a 16-point font passage, Slocum recommended that Student use enlarged print on reading materials. Student displayed minimal difficulty accessing information presented at a distance. However, Student required a closer distance to identify details in a picture, especially when presented with low-contrast information. Slocum observed Student to occasionally squint when viewing items at a distance. As such, Slocum recommended preferential seating, no further than 15 feet from instruction. Slocum reviewed medical records of Student’s vision impairment and assessed Student’s functional vision in the school setting, including Student’s access to materials in a variety of print sizes, at various distances, and in technology. Student was assessed in various lighting scenarios, including transitions from outside to inside and in overhead lighting. Slocum assessed Student’s visual behaviors; visual perception; contrast sensitivity; visual field; ocular motor control, including tracking and scanning; and light sensitivity. Slocum assessed Student’s access to learning materials. Slocum recommended the following:

access to enlarged textbooks, worksheets, and reading materials;

preferential seating near instruction;

avoid the use of light-colored markers during instruction;

Accessibility Modified allow Student regular visual breaks during tasks requiring close-up focus;

access to audio books, a BookShare account, or the district digital library resource; and provide updated eye reports following eye exams to Riverside County Office of Education to ensure Student has proper visual support.

Student’s criticisms of Murrieta Valley’s assessments were not persuasive. Student argued generally that Murrieta Valley failed to comprehensively assess functional vision, and that generic psychoeducational testing was insufficient. Student identified various areas that Murrieta Valley was required to assess, including lighting, fatigue, tracking, distance access, print size, and assistive technology. However, Student did not specify what part of either the vision screening and health assessment, functional vision assessment, or learning media assessment was inappropriate or insufficient.

Student was indeed assessed in the areas that he alleged were not considered. Murrieta Valley did not merely conduct a “broad cognitive and achievement testing” to assess Student’s functional vision. Murrieta Valley referred Student for a functional vision assessment and learning media assessment to assess Student’s vision impairment and conducted a vision screening.

Student argued that the assessments were faulty because they did not fully consider Student’s vision impairment which would progressively worsen over time. In fact, the assessment report included this information, and Slocum reviewed the most

Accessibility Modified current eye report available at the time of the assessments. While Student asserted that his vision deteriorated three times since the December 12, 2025 assessments, assessments are evaluated by what was appropriate and reasonable at the time, not in hindsight. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149.)

Based on the information available to the assessors at the time, the functional vision assessment and learning media assessment were appropriately conducted. The assessments tested Student’s visual behaviors, visual perception, visual field, sensitivity, ocular motor control, and ability to access educational setting and materials.

Student was assessed in how his visual disabilities impacted his access to education. Student’s need for accommodations, modifications, or direct services was assessed. A qualified school nurse conducted a vision screening on October 16, 2025 to assess Student’s visual acuity and visual access of classroom materials and the environment. That Student’s vision purportedly deteriorated several times after the assessments, such that the recommendations in the functional vision and learning media assessment report were allegedly insufficient at a future date, did not render the assessments inappropriate. At the time the assessments were conducted, the assessors reviewed and incorporated the most current relevant information and assessed how Student’s vision affected his access to the educational environment at that time.

Accessibility Modified

Student did not meet his burden of proof to show that Murrieta Valley failed to appropriately assess in all areas of known or suspected disability, specifically, Student’s vision impairment, as part of his initial assessment from October 3, 2025, to March 23, 2026.

Student did not prevail on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO

FIND STUDENT ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION UNDER THE CATEGORY

OF VISUAL IMPAIRMENT AT THE DECEMBER 12, 2025 IEP TEAM MEETING?

Student contends Murrieta Valley should have found him eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student argues that the Murrieta Valley IEP team had the same information at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting as they did at the February 26, 2026 IEP team meeting, when they found Student eligible. Thus, Student argues, Murrieta should have found him eligible earlier.

Murrieta Valley contends Student did not qualify for an IEP at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting and that Student’s needs were determined to be appropriately met with a Section 504 plan. Murrieta Valley argues it had new information at the February 26, 2026 IEP team meeting that changed its eligibility determination.

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

Accessibility Modified

Under the IDEA, only some children with certain disabilities are eligible for special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); Ed. Code, § 56026, subd. (a).) For purposes of special education eligibility, the term “child with a disability” means a child with:

intellectual disabilities;

hearing impairments (including deafness);

speech or language impairment;

visual impairments (including blindness);

serious emotional disturbance;

orthopedic impairment;

autism;

traumatic brain injury;

other health impairment;

a specific learning disability;

deaf-blindness; or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i), (ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a) (2017).)

Similarly, California law defines an “individual with exceptional needs” as a pupil who is identified by an IEP team as “a child with a disability” pursuant to 20 U.S.C. section 1401(3)(A), who requires special education due to his or her disability, and instruction and services cannot be provided with modification of the regular school

Accessibility Modified program. (Ed. Code, § 56026, subds. (a), (b).) If a child only needs a related service and not special education, the child is not a “child with a disability” for purposes of special education eligibility. (34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(2)(i) (2017); see Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 5, § 3030(a).) Visual impairment, including blindness, under the IDEA, means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness. (34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(13) (2017).) Under the IDEA, special education is defined as specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, home, hospital, institutions, and other settings, and instruction in physical education. (34 C.F.R. § 300.39 (2006).) Eligibility under the IDEA attaches to a child eligible under one of the 13 enumerated categories listed above, as long as the child also requires specially designed instruction as a result of the disability.

A Section 504 plan is an educational program created under the federal antidiscrimination law known as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (29 U.S.C. § 794; see 34 C.F.R. § 104.1 et seq. (2000).) Generally, this law requires a school district to provide program modifications and accommodations to children who have physical or mental impairments that substantially limit a major life activity, such as learning. Special education related services are “developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.34 (2006).) Other supportive services may include indirect services such as environmental adaptations, program modifications, or accommodations. IEP services are not limited to direct services but may also include

Accessibility Modified supplementary aids or accommodations a student may need to benefit from special education. However, a student may be served through a Section 504 plan to receive accommodations as well.

Whether a school district’s offer constituted FAPE is determined by looking at what was reasonable at the time the IEP was developed, not in hindsight. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149.) This is often referred to as the snapshot rule. On December 12, 2025, the IEP team met to review the December 12, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report and the December 12, 2025 functional vision and learning media assessment report. The assessment reports related Student’s educational history, functioning, health ailments, and vision disabilities, including progressive high myopia, Leber Congenital Amaurosis, and Stargardt Disease. During the meeting, the IEP team determined Student qualified as a visually impaired student who demonstrated a need for accommodations and modifications in the classroom. The IEP team offered a Section 504 plan to support Student’s visual impairment. The IEP team determined that Student was not eligible for special education services because his visual functioning did not adversely impact his educational performance to a degree that required specially designed instruction. Parent disagreed with the eligibility determination and declined the proposed Section 504 plan. As the allotted meeting time had ended, the IEP team agreed to adjourn and reconvene as soon as possible to address Parent’s additional concerns.

An IEP team meeting was scheduled to take place on January 29, 2026. The IEP team meeting was rescheduled to February 26, 2026 because Murrieta Valley’s school psychologist was on medical leave, and Murrieta Valley was unable to proceed with the

Accessibility Modified meeting without this necessary IEP team member. Murrieta Valley members of the IEP team characterized this second meeting as a continuation of Student’s initial IEP team meeting.

On January 20, and 29, 2026, Parent provided additional information and documentation regarding Student’s disability. Murrieta Valley updated its psychoeducational assessment report with the information. The updated report included Student’s diagnoses of migraine with aura, Leber Congenital Amaurosis, and Stargardt Disease, as well as Parent’s report of Student’s struggle with the death of his sibling. On February 26, 2026, the IEP team reconvened and ultimately found Student eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment. The IEP team determined that Student’s disability adversely affected his ability to gain academic information and perform academically without visual accommodations and offered special education and related services to ensure educational benefit. On February 26, 2026, Murrieta Valley found Student eligible based on Student’s vision disabilities, including Leber Congenital Amaurosis and Stargardt Disease, which was information it already had. While it is tempting to use hindsight to criticize Murrieta Valley for not finding Student eligible earlier, the snapshot rule applies to the actions and decisions of Murrieta Valley in the performance of its child find obligations and eligibility determination at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Murrieta Valley’s actions at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting are judged by what was reasonable at the time the IEP was developed, not in hindsight. Student did not establish that it was unreasonable for Murrieta Valley to find Student ineligible for special education based on his vision impairment and instead offer a Section 504 plan to provide the recommended accommodations, at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting.

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to prove he qualified for special education services under the category of visual impairment on December 12, 2025. Student established that he met the eligibility category of visual impairment. However, Student did not prove that his education was adversely affected by his disability such that he required specially designed instruction under the IDEA.

Although Student argued that his disability affected his academics, as discussed in Issue 2, teacher testimony persuasively established that Student’s poor academic performance could be attributed to his significant number of absences. Student failed to present persuasive evidence, much less expert testimony, to establish that his education was adversely affected by his vision impairment, such that he required special education services. Parent’s suspicion that Student’s vision impairment was affecting his education was not sufficient to prove that Student was eligible for special education under the category of vision impairment on December 12, 2025.

Student argued that he required accommodations or modifications to access his educational environment, such as preferential seating close to instruction, limited computer use, breaks to reduce vision fatigue, and reduced workload. However, Student did not establish that, on December 12, 2025, he required special education, or specially designed instruction, under the IDEA, rather than accommodations under a Section 504 plan, to access education. Student failed to offer persuasive evidence that his vision impairment adversely affected his educational performance and could not be corrected without special education and related services.

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

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to establish that he did, in fact, require special education services, on December 12, 2025, such that Murrieta Valley’s ineligibility determination was not reasonable. Student failed to prove Murrieta Valley denied him a FAPE by failing to find him eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting.

Student did not prevail on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO

OFFER ANY VISUAL IMPAIRMENT SERVICES IN THE DECEMBER 12, 2025

IEP?

Student contends Murrieta Valley denied him a FAPE because it failed to offer any visual impairment services in the December 12, 2025 IEP. Student argues Murrieta Valley ignored Student’s vision impairment and did not develop an IEP reasonably calculated to address his unique needs.

Murrieta Valley contends it had no obligation to offer special education vision services through an IEP because Student was not eligible for special education on December 12, 2025.

To receive special education and related services under the IDEA, a child must be an eligible child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); Ed. Code, § 56026, subd. (a).) An IEP comprehensively describes the child’s educational needs and the corresponding special education and related services that meet those needs. (School Comm. of

Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. of Mass. (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 368 [105 S.Ct. 1996]; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A). The IEP must identify the student's special education and related

Accessibility Modified services and supplementary aids and services, including program modifications or supports. (Id. at p. 368; 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).) “Related services” are transportation and other developmental, corrective, and supportive services that are required to assist the child in benefiting from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34 (2006); Ed. Code, § 56363, subd. (a). In California, related services are called “designated instruction and services.” (Ed. Code, § 56363, sub. (a).)

As analyzed in Issue 4, Student failed to prove he should have been found eligible for special education, or specially designed instruction, and related services under the IDEA, at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting. Thus, Student failed to establish that he was entitled to receive special education and related services in the December 12, 2025 IEP, as he was not an eligible child with a disability. Student did not prove that Murrieta Valley denied Student a FAPE by not offering visual impairment services in the December 12, 2025 IEP. Student did not prevail on Issue 5.

ISSUE 6: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING

TO OFFER APPROPRIATE VISUAL IMPAIRMENT SERVICES IN THE

FEBRUARY 26, 2026 IEP?

Student contends Murrieta Valley’s offer of visual impairment services in the February 26, 2026 IEP was minimal and, therefore, insufficient. Student argues that the IEP team failed to comprehensively consider his visual needs.

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

Accessibility Modified

Murrieta Valley contends it developed an IEP offer that included an appropriate offer of visual impairment services. Murrieta Valley argues that its offer was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make appropriate progress considering his circumstances. An IEP must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) (2007).) Related services are supportive services that a disabled student requires to benefit from special education. (34 C.F.R. § 300.34 (2006).) Related services include developmental, corrective, and supportive services. (Ibid.) Related services, when needed, are determined by the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3051, subd. (a)(2).) An IEP must include a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals. It must state how the child will be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities, and to be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities described in federal regulations. (34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4) (2007).) The IEP must show a direct relationship between present levels of performance, goals, and specific educational services to be provided. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040, subd. (b).)

In developing the IEP, the IEP team must consider the strengths of the child, the concerns of the parents for enhancing the child’s education, the results of the most recent evaluation of the child, and the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a) (2017); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (a).) The IDEA accords educators discretion to select from various methods for

Accessibility Modified meeting the individualized needs of a student, provided those practices are reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. (R.P. v. Prescott Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 631 F.3d 1117, 1122.)

An IEP’s appropriateness is judged by whether it was objectively reasonable and tailored to the student’s needs at the time of creation. (Adams, supra, 195 F.3d at p. 1149.) 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. (Gregory K. v.

Longview School Dist. (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314.)

The February 26, 2026 IEP offered two 15-minute sessions of individual specialized vision services per month, provided by the County Office of Education, in a separate classroom at a public integrated facility. The IEP also offered the following supplementary aids, services, and other supports for Student’s vision:

enlarged textbooks, worksheets, and instructional reading materials to support visual access;

access to audiobooks, text-to-speech, or the district digital library;

regular visual breaks during tasks requiring sustained close-up visual focus to reduce visual fatigue;

instructors to avoid the use of light-colored markers on the whiteboard during instruction;

preferential seating near instruction with consultation with a teacher for the visually impaired for details;

consult from a teacher for the visually impaired to review updated eye reports following eye exam;

Accessibility Modified consultation from a teacher for the visually impaired with staff; and ability to wear a brimmed hat indoors to reduce overhead light sensitivity.

Student argued that Murrieta Valley’s offer of visual impairment services was minimal. However, Student did not present any evidence explaining how the offered services and supports were insufficient or inappropriate. In his closing brief, Student argued that the IEP team needed to consider assistive technology, accessible materials, visual efficiency, environmental modifications, staff implementation, and future needs.

The evidence established that Murrieta Valley considered and offered these supports, accommodations, and modifications. Murrieta Valley offered assistive technology, such as (a) audiobooks and text-to-speech technology; (b) accessible materials, specifically enlarged text, audiobooks, and darker markers on the whiteboard during instruction; and (c) visual efficiency, such as preferential seating and visual breaks. Murrieta Valley also offered (a) environmental modifications, such as preferential seating, use of brimmed hats for light sensitivity, and dark whiteboard markers; (b) staff implementation through consultation and classroom accommodations or modifications; and (c) consideration of Student’s future needs, in that a teacher for the visually impaired would review updated eye reports.

Accessibility Modified

Student failed to meet his burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Murrieta Valley’s offer of visual impairment services was inappropriate. Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate visual impairment services in the February 26, 2026 IEP.

Student did not prevail on Issue 6.

ISSUE 7: DID MURRIETA VALLEY DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY DENYING

STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES BETWEEN

AUGUST 2024 AND MARCH 23, 2026?

Student contends Murrieta Valley denied him access to extracurricular and nonacademic activities, thereby denying him a FAPE. Student alleges that he was unable to attend events because he did not meet Murrieta Valley’s grade requirements. Student argues that his inability to keep up with the demands set by Murrieta Valley for general education students was disability-based. Student generally asserted the time period at issue began in August 2024. The timeframe analyzed will begin on August 14, 2024, the first day of the 2024-2025 school year.

Murrieta Valley contends it afforded Student an opportunity to access extracurricular activities consistent with its legal obligations under the IDEA. A district must take steps, “including the provision of supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child's IEP team, to provide nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities in the manner necessary to afford children with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in those services and activities.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (2006).) Extracurricular services may include

Accessibility Modified athletics, recreational activities, and special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the public agency. (Id.) However, a district is only required to provide for participation in an extracurricular activity, such as athletics, when it is expressly a component of a student’s IEP. (Letter to Anonymous, 17 IDELR 180 (OSEP 1990).) Then, participation in the extracurricular activity is a related service. If the extracurricular activity is not a part of the student’s IEP, the district is only required to take the steps necessary to afford students with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation. (34 C.F.R. § 104.37(a)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.107 (2006); and Letter to Anonymous, 17 IDELR 180 (OSEP 1990).) Students at Murrieta Valley who had failing grades were not allowed to participate in lunchtime activities, field trips, or school-related extracurricular activities. A failing grade meant having an “F” grade in a subject or a grade point average of 2.0 or below. Parent generally testified that Student was not allowed to participate in extracurricular activities because he had failing grades. Parent generally referred to an incident where Student was not allowed on a bus. Student did not present evidence to support Parent’s testimony and establish specific incidents when he was excluded from extracurricular activities. Even assuming Student was excluded from extracurricular activities, Student presented no evidence that extracurriculars were a part of his IEP as a related service, or that extracurriculars were related to the provision of a FAPE. Student failed to meet his burden of proof to establish that Murrieta Valley denied him a FAPE by denying him participation in extracurricular activities between August 14, 2024, and March 23, 2026.

Student did not prevail on Issue 7.

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

Accessibility Modified

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:

Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to keep accurate educational records.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2:

Murrieta Valley timely located, identified, or evaluated Student under its child find obligation.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3:

Murrieta Valley appropriately assessed Student in all areas of known or suspected disability, specifically, Student’s vision impairment, as part of his initial assessment.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 3.

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

Accessibility Modified

ISSUE 4:

Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to find Student eligible for special education under the category of visual impairment at the December 12, 2025 IEP team meeting.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5:

Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer any visual impairment services in the December 12, 2025 IEP.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 5.

ISSUE 6:

The February 26, 2026 IEP offered Student appropriate visual impairment services.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 6.

ISSUE 7:

Murrieta Valley did not deny Student a FAPE by denying Student participation in extracurricular activities between August 2024 and March 23, 2026.

Murrieta Valley prevailed on Issue 7.

Accessibility Modified

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.

Jeanie Min Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings

Accessibility Modified