J.C., ex rel. J.C. v. Vacaville Unified School District, 46 IDELR 160 (E.D. Cal. 9/14/06)

Compensatory education. The court determined that a hearing officer erred in excluding certain services from an order for compensatory education, even though the parties did not present evidence on a student's entitlement to those services. The district's concession that it failed to provide FAPE for an entire school year, coupled with its offer to provide 420 hours of compensatory education and related services, required the hearing officer to include the related services in its order. Under California law, an issue can be "heard and decided" even if the parties do not introduce evidence on the matter.

G.W. v. New Haven Unified School District, 46 IDELR 103 (N.D. Cal. 8/04/06)

LRE. A district's proposal to place an 8-year-old student who exhibited extreme and often violent behavior in a special day class at a private facility was the LRE, despite an evaluator's recommendation that the student have the opportunity to interact with "developmentally appropriate" peers. The student's substantial behavioral problems hindered prior attempts to place him in a special education class at a public school. In the private program, however, his behaviors “slowly but surely” improved.

Due Process Decisions

San Ramon Valley Unified School District , 106 LRP 49492 (SEA CA 7/18/06)

Asssessment/behavioral intervention services. The student’s assessment plan required an assessment by an autism specialist, not merely an observation. Because the district did not conduct an assessment by an autism specialist and did not prepare any written report by an autism specialist as required by the student’s plan, the student was entitled to an IEE conducted by an autism specialist at public expense.

Capistrano Unified School District, 106 LRP 49256 (SEA CA 7/11/06)

Assessment/IEE. The district's psycho-educational assessment conducted was appropriate. Though the administrator did not properly follow the publisher's testing procedures when administering certain standardized tests, those errors did not ultimately affect the outcome . The district’s speech-language assessment was also appropriate. However, the district's occupational therapy assessment was not appropriate. There was no persuasive evidence that testing procedures were followed, especially the sensory profile test. Nor was the student's mother contacted and asked to discuss or interpret the inconclusive or blank answers on the form. Therefore, the student was entitled to an IEE in the area of OT at public expense.

Poway Unified School District , 106 LRP 49439 (SEA CA 7/10/06)

Placement. The district’s offer of public placement in a Critical Skills Class (which included 76 percent of student’s time spent in special education), with designated instruction and services of direct and OT, adaptive physical education, speech services, transportation to and from school, 1:1 instructional support throughout the entire school day, and extended school year for six weeks, was designed to meet the student’s unique needs in the least restrictive environment. However, the district’s amended offer during an IEP team meeting, where it offered the same services to the student, but at a non-public school rather than at the public school, did not constitute an offer of FAPE because the district presented it on a “take it or leave it basis,” which substantially impacted on his educational opportunities. It also substantially infringed on his parents’ right to participate in the IEP process.

Cupertino Union School District, 4 ECLPR 669 (SEA CA 2006)

Methodology. Although the district did not include the parents' preferred verbal-behavior therapy (“VBT”), the district offered the student FAPE. The parents enrolled the student in a private school that offered VBT, asserting that because the district's placement offer did not include VBT, delivered through specified teaching techniques and monitored by a board-certified behavior analyst, it had not offered the student FAPE. But the hearing officer was persuaded by the testimony of district witnesses that other teaching techniques would also address the student's unique needs, including an appropriate transition plan and ESY services. But, she ordered the district to develop an IEP that provided for a three-month transition, including occupational and speech/language therapy, as well as classroom support by a comprehensive autism program tutor.

Lowell Joint School District , 106 LRP 49430 (SEA CA 5/24/06)

Preschool IEP. The district conducted appropriate assessments of a 4-year-old student with autism, obtained the parents’ participation and input, and determined the student’s needs and present levels of skills and functioning. After reviewing the student’s disability due to autism, his levels of functioning, and his educational and medical needs, the district designed an educational program to facilitate learning and academic achievement. The IEP included placement at a prekindergarten moderate learning center with related services in occupational therapy, adapted physical education, speech and language therapy, intensive behavioral intervention, and extended year services. The district also developed appropriate goals. In addition, the district incorporated into the IEP the recommendations of a physician consultant to help ensure that the school environment would meet the student’s medical, dietary, and safety needs.

Fullerton School District , 106 LRP 49229 (SEA CA 5/15/06)

Therapy/LRE. The district did not offer the student adequate speech and language services by not providing services to improve the student’s pragmatic communication to improve deficits in social interaction and skills. Its failure to provide the student with therapy in an individual setting, removed from known distractions, prevented the student from obtaining an adequate educational benefit. Therefore, the parents established that the student required two hours of speech and language therapy in an individual setting to obtain some benefit, especially in the area of social communication and pragmatic language.

Nor did the district adequately address known deficits in sensory processing in the areas oral and auditory, as well as self-stimulation behaviors. The parents established that the district failed to provide the student with an aide to assist the student in learning social modeling skills, which was needed to make some educational progress.

Finally, while the district created opportunities for the student to participate with nondisabled students, the district did not attempt to provide him with aids or support to allow him to interact with these students and receive some educational benefit from those mainstreaming opportunities.