California OAH special education order · January 2, 2025
Order Clarifying Issues 2 and 6
OAH Case No. 2024110401 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH restated Issues 2 and 6 for hearing as whether Folsom-Cordova Unified denied Student a FAPE by offering insufficient accommodations in the November 2022 and November 2023 IEPs.
This case went to decision
Student v. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District: Folsom-Cordova Unified prevails on all 21 claims challenging a student's 2022 and 2023 IEPs in an intensive autism class. (2025)
Summary
At the prehearing conference, OAH ordered Student to clarify which accommodations in the November 15, 2022, and November 14, 2023 IEPs Student was challenging, and which accommodations Student said should have been offered. Student filed a notice of clarification, and Folsom-Cordova Unified responded. On the first day of hearing, the ALJ and the parties discussed the issues further. OAH then framed Issues 2 and 6 as whether the District denied Student a FAPE in each IEP by offering insufficient accommodations.
Why it matters
Families should be ready to say exactly which IEP accommodations they are challenging, because OAH may require clarification before hearing and will frame the issues itself.
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024110401
ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUES 2 AND 6
JANUARY 2, 2025
On December 20, 2024, the Office of Administrative Hearings held a prehearing conference by video. Attorney Michelle Wilkolaski appeared on behalf of Student.
Attorneys Rebecca Diddams and Katie Yoshida appeared on behalf of Folsom-Cordova Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.
At the prehearing conference, the Administrative Law Judge and the parties discussed and clarified the issues to be heard and decided at hearing, with the exception of Issues 2 and 6. OAH ordered Student to file a notice of clarification as to Issues 2 and
6. Specifically, Student was ordered to clarify the accommodations Student is
challenging that were offered in the November 15, 2022, and November 14, 2023 individualized education programs, called IEPs, and to list the accommodations Student claims should have been offered as described in Student’s due process hearing request, called a complaint.
On December 23, 2024, Student filed a Notice of Clarification as to Issues 2 and 6.
On December 31, 2024, Folsom-Cordova Unified filed a response to the notice.
On December 31, 2024, OAH began the due process hearing in this matter.
Based on the review of the complaint, Student’s notice of clarification and Folsom- Cordova Unified’s response to the notice, the parties and the ALJ discussed and further clarified Issues 2 and 6 as follows:
ISSUE 2: Did Folsom-Cordova Unified deny Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, in the November 15, 2022 IEP, by offering accommodations that were insufficient? ISSUE 6: Did Folsom-Cordova Unified deny Student a FAPE in the November 14, 2023 IEP, by offering accommodations that were insufficient?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings