Parent on Behalf of Student v. Gustine Unified School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION

May 29, 2026

On December 12, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Student, naming Gustine Unified School District. On December 30, 2025, OAH granted the parties’ joint request for a continuance. On February 10, 2026, OAH granted Student’s request for a second continuance. Administrative Law Judge Jeanie Min heard this matter by videoconference on February 18, 19, 24, 25, and 26, March 3, 4, 5, 19, 24, 25, and 26, 2026.

Attorney Jennifer Settani-Stephens represented Student. Parents attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Student appeared at the hearing for a portion of one day to testify. Attorneys Marcy Gutierrez and Michelle Breitmaier represented Gustine. Law clerk Citlali Perez appeared on March 24, and 26, 2026. Director of Special Education Nicholas Freitas attended all hearing days on Gustine’s behalf, except on February 18, 19, 24, and the afternoon of March 4, 2026. Assistant Superintendent Lisa Filippini attended the hearing during Freitas’ absence, except February 19, 2026, when Director of Curriculum and Instruction Kim Medeiros attended the hearing on Gustine’s behalf and Filippini briefly attended in the morning. OAH provided two Spanish language interpreters for Parents on all hearing days.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued until April 27, 2026, for written closing briefs. The parties submitted closing briefs on time. The record was closed, and the matter submitted, on April 27, 2026.

ISSUES

A free appropriate public education is referred to as a FAPE. An individualized education program is referred to as an IEP.

The ALJ renumbered the issues for clarity in the Decision. Additionally, during hearing, both parties established that Issues 2 and 7 pertained to an IEP dated October 26, 2023, that Parents consented to on December 13, 2023. At the prehearing conference, this IEP was referred to as the December 13, 2023 IEP, and Issues 2 and 7 were clarified accordingly. This IEP will be referred to as the October 26, 2023 IEP throughout this Decision. The ALJ redefined Issues 2 and 7 for clarity. The ALJ did not make any substantive changes to the issues. (M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189 (Antelope Valley).)

1. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of A. functional behavior? B. occupational therapy? C. speech and language? D. one-to-one aide?

2. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE in the October 26, 2023 IEP by failing to offer A. extended school year? B. goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy?

3. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer A. extended school year? B. goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy? C. appropriate mathematics goals?

4. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer A. extended school year? B. goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy? C. appropriate mathematics goals?

5. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE, between December 13, 2023 and December 12, 2025, by failing to place Student in a special day class for all academic subjects?

6. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE, between August 2024 and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer A. a one-to-one aide? B. push-in or pull-out resource specialist program support?

7. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE, through December 12, 2025, by materially failing to implement specialized academic instruction, as identified in the IEP dated A. October 26, 2023? B. November 5, 2024? C. October 21, 2025?

8. Did Gustine deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parent’s ability to participate in the decision-making process when Gustine failed to A. issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ requests for placement in a special day class? B. issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ requests for a one-to-one aide? C. provide appropriate Spanish language interpretation at IEP team meetings? D. translate documents, including IEPs and assessment reports, into Spanish?

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

• 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 and OAH policy is that decisions do not include citations to the record. Pursuant to the applicable web content accessibility guidelines, OAH decisions are written in an accessible font and format.

Student was 15 years old and in ninth grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within Gustine’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under other health impairment and specific learning disability.

ISSUE 1A

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR?

Student contends Gustine should have conducted a functional behavior assessment to address negative mental health and profound inattentive behaviors. Student also contends Parents requested a functional behavior assessment. Student argues Gustine was on notice that Student required a functional behavior assessment, yet failed to conduct one, denying Student a FAPE.

Gustine contends Student did not require a functional behavior assessment. Gustine argues Student’s behaviors were mild and did not impede his learning or the learning of others. Gustine further contends it appropriately assessed Student’s behavior, including social-emotional behavior and adaptive behavior.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of functional behavior, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025.

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 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 (Rowley); Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. 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.)

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 determination of what tests are required is made 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.) However, a procedural violation results in a denial of a FAPE only if the violation: (1) impeded the child’s right to a FAPE; (2) significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process; or (3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2); W.G., et al. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School Dist., etc. (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 (Target Range), superseded in part by statute on other grounds.)

For a child who is already eligible for special education, the IDEA provides for reevaluations to be conducted no more frequently than once a year, but at least once every three years, unless the parents and the school district agree that it is unnecessary. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) 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.) In California, a school district is not required to reassess more often than every three years unless one of the following occurs:

• A parent requested reassessment;

• A teacher requested reassessment; or

• A local educational agency determined the educational or related services needs of the child, including improved academic achievement and functional performance, warranted reassessment. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1), (2); M.S. v. Lake Elsinore Unified School District (9th Cir. 2017) 678 Fed. Appx. 543, 544 (nonpub. opn.) (Lake Elsinore).)

In Lake Elsinore, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a district court decision regarding a school district’s obligation to assess between the mandated three-year assessments. The underlying district court case concerned a student’s challenge to a school district’s failure to identify all the student’s disabilities or suspected disabilities, where the student’s behaviors had become progressively more aggressive and posed a threat to her health and safety. The parents expressed their concerns at multiple IEP team meetings that the student developed new behaviors and behaviors were becoming increasingly severe. The student attacked strangers in public and violently scratched, pinched, and grabbed people’s necks. The student had begun ripping off her nails and had a one-inch bald spot on her scalp from pulling out her own hair. By the next year, the student developed new troubling behaviors, such as swiping objects off a table and breaking them. In the year after that, even the school district concluded the student’s behaviors had worsened and were not being sufficiently addressed by the behavior plan that was in place up until that time. (M.S. v. Lake Elsinore (C.D. Cal., July 24, 2015, Case No. 13–CV–01484–CAS (SPx) 2015 WL 4511947, at *7.) The district court held that the school district denied the student a FAPE by failing to assess the student's behavior during the period at issue, because the student’s functional performance warranted a reevaluation. (Id. at *8.)

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It held that the local education agency “Lake Elsinore had no duty under 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2) to conduct a reevaluation of M.S. because the local educational agency did not determine that reevaluation was necessary, M.S.’s parents did not request a reevaluation (as M.S. concedes), M.S.’s teacher did not request a reevaluation, and fewer than three years had elapsed since [the previous] evaluation.” The Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in holding that the school district had a duty to reevaluate the student under these circumstances, and the school district had not procedurally violated the IDEA by failing to do so. (Lake Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed. Appx, at p. 544.)

A functional behavior assessment focuses on identifying the function or purpose behind a child’s behavior. (United States Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) Questions and Answers on Discipline Procedures, June 1, 2009, Q. E-2 (OSERS Q & A).) The process typically involves looking closely at a wide range of child-specific factors such as social, affective, and environmental. (Ibid.) The functional behavior assessment assists the IEP team in determining the extent of the special education and related services that the child needs, including a behavior intervention plan to help reduce or eliminate the problem behavior. (Id. at Q. E-4)

Aside from mandated initial and three-year assessments, special education law also requires school districts to conduct a functional behavior assessment in an additional circumstance related to the findings of a manifestation determination team. (20 U.S.C. § 1415 (k)(1)(F); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(f)(1)(i) (2006).) This circumstance did not apply to Student.

School psychologist Joe Borges explained that a social-emotional assessment was different from a functional behavior assessment. Borges conducted approximately 50 functional behavior assessments during his 24 years as a credentialed school psychologist. A functional behavior assessment was conducted to determine the function of a behavior, or the reason a behavior occurred. A social-emotional assessment assessed a student’s mental health, such as self-regulation and depression, to develop goals for these areas of deficits. Borges further explained that behavioral and social-emotional components were often assessed together.

Student’s last three-year review prior to December 12, 2023, was conducted on October 28, 2022. Student’s next three-year review was due on or before October 28, 2025. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii), 1414(c)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (k), 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Thus, Gustine was not required to conduct reassessments until the 2025-2026 school year.

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS STUDENT’S BEHAVIOR, FROM DECEMBER 12, 2023, UNTIL THE NEXT THREE-YEAR REVIEW

For the period between December 12, 2023, two years before Student filed the complaint, through October 21, 2025, neither Parents nor a teacher requested a functional behavior assessment. The evidence also did not show that Gustine made any determination that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted reassessment in behavior.

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS STUDENT’S BEHAVIOR, FROM OCTOBER 21, 2025, THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2025

School psychologist Johanna Macias conducted Student’s three-year psychoeducational reassessment, dated October 21, 2025. Macias held a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology and a dual Master of Arts degree in school counseling and school psychology, with a pupil personnel services credential.

To assess Student’s behavior, Macias administered the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition. The components of the Behavior Assessment System for Children offered a comprehensive system for identifying, evaluating, monitoring, and remediating behavioral and emotional problems. Many of the attention and impulsivity concerns that were reported across settings were determined to be manifestations of symptoms and challenges experienced by individuals diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, such as Student. Macias also observed Student during the assessment sessions. Student followed directions appropriately and displayed good levels of engagement, focus, and persistence. In every session, Student exhibited a positive and friendly attitude. Student asked clarifying questions and requested directions to be repeated, when uncertain about test items. Macias did not observe behavioral concerns that warranted a functional behavior assessment to understand the reasons for the occurrence of Student’s behaviors. Student responded well to redirection, did not hurt himself or others, or elope. The assessment did not indicate social maladjustment. Macias opined that a functional behavior assessment was not warranted. Macias reviewed her report at the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting.

As a part of the three-year review, Gustine also conducted a therapy assessment, dated October 15, 2025. A therapy assessment was also called a biopsychosocial assessment. The assessment reviewed difficulties in the areas of responsibility, emotional regulation, social skills, peer pressure, self-esteem, hyperactivity, and attention and focus. Mental health clinician Jacob Fontes conducted the assessment, but did not testify at hearing. His findings were contained in the report. Fontes described Student as respectful, humorous, playful, and demonstrating interest in social interactions with peers and adults. Fontes found Student’s ability to interact and behave in a healthy or helpful manner was still developing, but Student demonstrated empathy when his behavior was corrected. Fontes noted that this was a positive attribute because it showed that Student did not purposely attempt to cause harm. Fontes determined behavioral and emotional dysregulation impacted Student’s functioning at school and recommended 90 minutes per month of school-based therapy. Fontes did not make a recommendation for further testing.

Neither Parents nor Student’s teachers requested reassessment in functional behavior after the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment. Gustine did not determine Student’s educational or related services needs warranted reassessment between October 21, 2025, and December 12, 2025.

Student failed to meet the burden of establishing that Gustine was legally required to conduct a functional behavior assessment. Student argued that his negative mental health and inattentive behaviors were areas of suspected disability that Gustine should have assessed. However, Student ignores the statutory conditions necessary to trigger Gustine’s obligation to assess prior to a three-year review. Absent any of the triggering events, Gustine was not required to conduct a functional behavior assessment between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Moreover, Gustine assessed Student’s behavior as a part of its three-year reassessments. Student failed to present any evidence that a functional behavior assessment was the only appropriate assessment to address Student’s needs in mental health and inattention.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to conduct a functional behavior assessment between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Student did not prevail on Issue 1A.

ISSUE 1B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY?

Student contends he struggled with fine motor skills, but Gustine did not assess him in this area. Specifically, Student argues he struggled to handwrite legibly, zip and button, tie shoelaces, and use scissors. Student argues Gustine failed to conduct an occupational therapy assessment after observing these deficits, which denied him a FAPE.

Gustine contends Student did not need an occupational therapy assessment. Gustine argues no member of the IEP team, including Parents, indicated that Student had any challenges with gross or fine motor development. Gustine argues it appropriately screened Student’s motor skills in the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment and determined Student did not require further assessment in this area.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to assess Student in the area of occupational therapy.

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS STUDENT IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, FROM DECEMBER 12, 2023, UNTIL THE NEXT THREE-YEAR REVIEW

Neither Parents nor a teacher requested an occupational therapy assessment between December 12, 2023, and October 21, 2025, the time of Student’s three-year review. Gustine made no determination that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted an occupational therapy assessment during this period. Gustine was not required to assess Student’s gross and fine motor skills prior to Student’s three-year review. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1), (2); Lake Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed. Appx. at p. 544 (nonpub. opn.).)

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS STUDENT IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY, FROM OCTOBER 21, 2025, THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2025

Student’s motor skills were assessed as a part of the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment. School psychologist Macias administered the Beery Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Sixth Edition, which measured visual-fine motor skills. The Beery Test of Visual Perception was a supplemental test that provided a measure of visual perceptual skills. The Beery Test of Motor Coordination was a supplemental test that provided a measure of motor coordination skills. Macias administered these tests on September 23, and October 13, 2025. While Student’s scores on these tests were low, his scores were primarily impacted by his lack of attention to detail and pausing to stretch his hands during timed tasks. Macias observed that Student was able to cut with scissors, use a pencil with a mature grip, glue paper, and play football. Macias opined Student did not present as a child with fine motor challenges and did not believe further occupational therapy assessment was warranted based on these scores.

Neither Parents nor a teacher requested reassessment in occupational therapy after the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment. Gustine also did not make any determination that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted reassessment in this area. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A)(i); 34 C.F.R § 300.303(a)(1) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(1), (2); Lake Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed. Appx. at p. 544 (nonpub. opn.).) Student failed to prove that Gustine was legally required to conduct an occupational therapy assessment, or assess Student’s gross and fine motor skills, at any point prior to or following the three-year reassessment, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025.

Student argued that Gustine was aware of Student’s fine motor challenges, specifically in handwriting, buttoning, zipping, typing shoes, and cutting with scissors, but did not conduct an assessment. Again, Student misunderstands the statutory conditions to trigger Gustine’s assessment obligations. There were no requests by Parents or teacher for an occupational therapy assessment, or a determination by Gustine that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted an occupational therapy assessment. Student failed to present evidence that a statutory condition was met such that Gustine was required to assess Student’s motor skills outside of the three-year review. Furthermore, Gustine assessed Student’s motor skills as a part of its October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to assess Student in the area of occupational therapy. Student did not prevail on Issue 1B.

ISSUE 1C

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF SPEECH AND LANGUAGE?

Student contends he struggled with pronunciation and that his speech was unintelligible at times. Student argues Gustine was aware of Student’s speech and language deficits, which required further assessment. Student contends Parents made frequent requests for assessment in this area. Student argues Gustine denied him a FAPE by failing to conduct a comprehensive speech and language assessment.

Gustine contends Student was able to communicate his thoughts, self-advocate, and communicate with peers and adults. Gustine contends Student did not demonstrate a need to be assessed in speech and language.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of speech and language, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025.

Between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, Parents requested a speech and language assessment at the start of the 2025-2026 school year, around September 2025, prior to Student’s three-year review. Gustine denied the request through prior written notice.

The evidence did not show that at any other time between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, Parents or a teacher requested a speech and language assessment, or that Gustine determined Student’s educational or related services needs warranted a speech and language assessment. Student argued that Parents and two special education teachers voiced concerns about Student’s speech and language skills, which put Gustine on notice to conduct an assessment. However, merely expressing a concern did not trigger Gustine’s duty to assess, unless Parents or teacher requested an assessment, or Gustine determined an assessment was necessary. (Lake Elsinore, supra, 678 Fed. Appx. at p. 544 (nonpub. opn.).)

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE WAS NOT A SUSPECTED AREA OF DISABILITY BETWEEN DECEMBER 12, 2023, AND SEPTEMBER 2025

The evidence did not show that, based on the information available at that time, Gustine had reason to suspect Student had speech and language needs that warranted assessment after Parents’ September 2025 request. (Timothy O., supra, 822 F.3d at pp. 1119-21; see Vasheresse, supra, 211 F.Supp.2d at pp. 1157-1158.) The information available to Gustine at the time did not give Gustine suspicion that Student had a speech and language impairment that affected his educational performance. (See Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1032.)

Student’s IEPs dated October 26, 2023 and November 5, 2024 did not reflect speech and language concerns around Student’s rate of speech or intelligibility. Student communicated well at school. Student communicated his thoughts and ideas clearly during class and was a main contributor to classroom discussions. Student communicated his needs and wants appropriately, sought assistance when needed, and asked clarification questions.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2024 DIAGNOSTIC CENTER ASSESSMENT

On November 3, 2023, school psychologist Barco sent a referral for assessment to the Diagnostic Center, Central California. The assessment was conducted on August 27, and September 3, and 4, 2024, referred to as the September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center assessment. The Diagnostic Center comprehensively assessed Student. Its assessment included a speech and language assessment by a licensed speech-language pathologist. The assessor did not testify, but the findings of the assessment were contained in the assessment report. To assess Student’s receptive and expressive language skills, the assessor administered the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, Second Edition. The IEP team reviewed the September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center assessment report in developing the November 5, 2024 IEP.

Student’s language skills were in the average range on standardized testing in receptive vocabulary, synonym knowledge, and sentence comprehension. Student’s language skills were in the low average range in antonym knowledge, expressive vocabulary, deriving meaning from context, inferencing, and understanding and defining words with double meanings. Student’s language skills were in the deficient range in idiomatic language, sentence expression, grammar, and nonliteral language.

Overall, Student demonstrated deficient expressive language skills as he struggled to recall words, sequence his thoughts, and generate grammatically correct sentences. The assessor noted that, at times, Student appeared to stutter. However, the assessor determined that this difficulty appeared to be attributed to Student’s expressive language weaknesses, rather than a fluency disorder. Student exhibited a couple articulation errors. However, the assessor determined that the errors did not warrant the need for direct intervention, as Student’s overall speech intelligibility was not affected.

Student’s pragmatics, or the social use of language, were an area of strength. The assessor observed that Student easily initiated and maintained a topic of conversation and had a good sense of humor. Student was kind, respectful, and easily able to communicate for a myriad of reasons, such as greeting, requesting, gaining attention, and initiating.

Ultimately, the Diagnostic Center recommended that receptive and expressive language needs may be embedded into literacy-based goals addressed within Student’s academic program, in addition to accommodations and instructional strategies to facilitate language learning.

At hearing, there was lay testimony by Parents, a neighbor, and Student’s teachers about Student’s speech being fast, slightly stuttered, or unclear at times. Student did not offer expert testimony to opine on Student’s speech and language skills and rebut the Diagnostic Center’s findings that Student’s overall speech intelligibility was not affected by his articulation errors and did not warrant any direct intervention. Student did not offer expert testimony to counter the Diagnostic Center’s finding that any stuttering was a result of expressive language deficits, rather than a fluency disorder. Student did not offer expert testimony to establish that Student’s speech and language needs changed in a way that required Gustine to determine a need for reassessment.

Speech and language was not a suspected area of disability between December 12, 2023, and September 2025. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that the information Gustine had available to it, between December 12, 2023, and September 2025, when Parents requested a speech and language assessment, informed Gustine that Student did not require further testing in the area of speech and language. Student’s teachers testified that Student participated in class, communicated well, and had intelligible speech. Student intelligibly testified for half a day during the hearing.

OCTOBER 21, 2025 PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT

As a part of the October 21, 2025 three-year psychoeducational assessment, Student was assessed in oral expression, which was an area noted as low average in the Diagnostic Center assessment report. School psychologist Macias determined Student’s low performance in oral vocabulary and verbal analogies were due to word retrieval difficulties, limited vocabulary, limited background knowledge, or limited educational opportunities and experiences.

Macias also administered the Behavior Assessment System for Children rating scales as a part of the psychoeducational assessment. Functional communication was assessed. The at-risk score in functional communication in the school setting was primarily due to Student’s difficulty with obtaining information. In school, Student communicated clearly, described his feelings accurately, and often initiated conversations.

There were no requests by Parents or a teacher for a speech and language assessment, or a determination by Gustine that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted a speech and language assessment, between October 21, 2025, and December 12, 2025. Gustine was not required to reassess Student’s speech and language after the three-year review.

Between December 12, 2023, and September 2025, when Parents requested a speech and language assessment, Student did not have a suspected speech and language disability. Until December 12, 2025, there were no further requests for reassessment in speech and language by Parents or a teacher, or a determination by Gustine that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted a reassessment outside of the three-year review.

Moreover, Student’s speech and language, as well as oral expression and functional communication, were assessed between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Even if Gustine should have assessed pursuant to Parents’ request, the failure to assess would be a procedural violation. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1031; Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae S., 158 F.Supp. 2d 1190, 1196.) A procedural violation does not automatically require a finding that a FAPE was denied. Student failed to present evidence that Student’s right to a FAPE was impeded, Parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process was significantly impeded, or Student was deprived of an educational benefit. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2); see Target Range, supra, 960 F.2d at p. 1484.)

Student failed to meet the burden of persuasion that Gustine denied him a FAPE, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to assess in the area of speech and language. Student did not prevail on Issue 1C.

ISSUE 1D

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO ASSESS STUDENT IN THE AREA OF ONE-TO-ONE AIDE?

Student contends he required a one-to-one aide to access his education and Gustine failed to conduct an assessment to determine this area of need. Student argues that moving from special day classes to general education classes in and of itself should have prompted a consideration of additional supports. Student argues Gustine was aware that he required a one-to-one aide and failed to assess this area of need.

Gustine contends it conducted a special circumstances instructional aide assessment pursuant to Parent’s request and found that Student was not in need of a one-to-one aide. Gustine contends Student did not demonstrate any need for a one-to-one aide that would warrant conducting an updated special circumstances instructional aide assessment.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student for the need of a one-to-one aide, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025.

OCTOBER 26, 2023 SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANCE ASSESSMENT

Gustine, generally, conducted special circumstances instructional assistance assessments to determine a student’s need for a one-to-one aide. Special circumstances instructional assistants were one-to-one aides who supported students with significant to severe needs in health and personal care, behavior, instruction, or inclusion and mainstreaming.

Gustine conducted a special circumstances instructional assistance assessment for Student, dated October 26, 2023. School psychologist Barco assessed Student’s need for a one-to-one aide during the school day. Barco reviewed the assessment report at the October 26, 2023 IEP team meeting.

As a part of the assessment, Barco interviewed mother, Student, and Student’s special education teacher, and observed Student in various classes on multiple days. Barco observed Student in general education history class, twice in the English language arts special day class, physical education, one transition period, and one lunch period. Barco obtained input from Student’s general education history teacher, general education science teacher, two special education teachers, physical education teacher, band teacher, and a paraprofessional. Barco assessed mild to no concerns in health and personal care, behavior, instruction, or inclusion and mainstreaming. Barco determined Student did not require additional one-to-one staff support. During Barco’s classroom observations, Student required redirection from teachers in each observed class period. However, Student followed adult direction well and only occasionally required additional encouragement or prompts. Barco explained that Student required extra attention from teachers, but it was a mild concern. The IEP team discussed that Student’s teachers and classroom aides would redirect Student, when needed.

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ASSESS STUDENT’S NEED FOR A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE, FROM DECEMBER 12, 2023, UNTIL THE NEXT THREE-YEAR REVIEW

Parents requested a one-to-one aide at some time in 2024 or 2025, but did not point to a specific date when they made their request. Education specialist Jesus Aguilar believed Student would benefit from a one-to-one aide and voiced his impression to Pamela Perry, special education instructional coach at Gustine, and the school site principal, at some time during the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. Aguilar was also not specific regarding the date he made the request. Neither Parents nor Aguilar requested that Gustine conduct an assessment to determine Student’s need for an aide.

A request for a service may, potentially, prompt a school district to conduct an assessment to determine the student’s need for that service and the level of services required. Student argued that Gustine failed to appropriately address concerns by assessing the need for a one-to-one aide. Whether Gustine appropriately responded to Parents’ request for a one-to-one aide is a separate issue from whether Gustine failed to assess Student in this area. Student conflates the issues and misunderstands the third prong of the statutory conditions triggering a school district’s duty to assess. A school district is not required to reassess more often than every three years, unless the school district determined the educational or related services needs of the child warranted reassessment. Whether Gustine should have made such a determination is not a part of the analysis. Here, the evidence did not show that Gustine made a determination that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted an assessment, after these requests for a one-to-one aide.

The evidence did not establish that either Parents or a teacher requested a special circumstances instructional assistance reassessment, or assess Student’s need for a one-to-one aide, between December 12, 2023, and October 21, 2025, the time of Student’s three-year review. Gustine was not required to assess this area prior to Student’s three-year review.

OCTOBER 21, 2025 PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT

The October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report contained health and development information gathered by the district nurse. The nurse reported Student’s allergies and medical history, but did not indicate any current health concerns that required a one-to-one aide for health or personal care in the school setting.

School psychologist Macias interviewed Student, Parent, and Student’s general education English teacher, and observed Student in the general education English class, and twice in the general education math class. Macias administered cognitive, processing, and social-emotional behavioral assessments.

Student engaged in off-task behaviors and required redirection and direct support from the general education teacher, special education co-teacher, or paraprofessional in the class. Macias also observed Student working quietly and independently. Student was kind and social with his peers, although at times, he engaged in cursing and in abrasive social language when talking to his peers, like “Shut up or I will smack you.” However, the report did not indicate concerns with antisocial behavior, such that Student required direct, one-to-one adult support to address behaviors.

Student presented significant deficits in the areas of inattention. Overall, Macias determined that Student’s levels of impulsivity or inattention did not significantly interfere with classroom instruction or his peers’ learning. Student’s levels of inattention primarily impacted his own performance in the educational setting. Student also presented significant deficits in fluid reasoning, comprehension-knowledge, phonological processing, auditory working memory, listening comprehension, and visual-motor integration skills, all of which impacted academic performance in reading, math, and written expression.

Macias recommended the following to address Student’s educational needs:

• Break down instructions and tasks into short, manageable steps.

• Repeat and rephrase key information throughout the lesson.

• Provide written instructions and visual aids alongside verbal directions.

• Provide outlines or study guides before new material is introduced.

• Establish clear daily routines for self-care and other important activities, using a task list or schedule until the routine is generalized.

• Preferential seating near the teacher and away from distractions (doors, windows, noisy areas).

• Minimize background noise during instruction.

• Allow extra time for assignments and tests.

• Offer frequent check-ins to ensure understanding.

• Encourage self-advocacy skills (e.g., asking for repetition or clarification).

• Due to significant weaknesses in fluid reasoning, problem solving should be detailed and explained in great detail and often until Student demonstrates mastery and application of the skill across settings. This will require repetition of concepts.

• Use concrete, everyday examples while discussing abstract concepts.

• To capitalize on Student’s long-term recall, it is recommended that repetition and practice of new material is incorporated so that he is able to encode, store, and retrieve new information. Provide Student with rich details when verbally presenting information as it supports the likelihood of learning and retaining the information.

• To boost Student’s ego and self-reliance, provide frequent and specific positive praise. Provide achievable and important opportunities that will foster Student with feelings of success. Over time, increase the complexity of tasks and highlight the progression of his success.

• Continue teaching Student coping skills to regulate emotions.

• Model problem solving and positive self-talk. Macias recommended several supports to bolster Student’s independent living skills, address inattention or distractibility, and assist Student’s academic performance in the classroom. Macias did not make recommendations for direct, one-to-one adult support for health and personal care, behavior, instruction, or inclusion and mainstreaming.

GUSTINE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO REASSESS STUDENT’S NEED FOR A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE, BETWEEN OCTOBER 21, 2025, AND DECEMBER 12, 2025

Neither Parents nor a teacher requested reassessment of Student for the need of a one-to-one aide after the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment. Gustine also did not make any determination that Student’s educational or related services needs warranted reassessment in this area. Student failed to prove that Gustine was legally required to conduct a special circumstances instructional assistance assessment or assess Student’s need for a one-to-one aide, following the three-year reassessment.

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gustine was required to assess Student’s need for a one-to-one aide, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to assess in the area of a one-to-one aide. Student did not prevail on Issue 1D.

ISSUES 2A-2B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE OCTOBER 26, 2023 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR AND GOALS TO ADDRESS INATTENTION, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE, AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY?

Student challenges the FAPE offer made in the October 26, 2023 IEP, specifically Gustine’s failure to offer extended school year and goals to address needs in the areas of inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy.

Gustine contends the October 26, 2023 IEP did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer extended school year, or goals to address inattention, speech and language, or occupational therapy. Gustine argues Student did not require extended school year or goals in these areas.

Whether a school district’s offer constituted FAPE is determined by looking to what was reasonable at the time the IEP was developed, not in hindsight. (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149, citing Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Educ. (3rd Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1041.) This is often referred to as the snapshot rule.

STUDENT’S CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

The IEP team met on October 26, 2023, and November 3, and 17, 2023, to develop the October 26, 2023 IEP. By November 17, 2023, Gustine made its FAPE offer.

On December 13, 2023, at Parents’ request, Parents and an education specialist met to answer Parents’ questions. It was unclear if any other IEP team member participated. The IEP specifically notes that this was not an IEP team meeting and Gustine made no new FAPE offers at this meeting. The education specialist answered Mother’s questions regarding a camp, an acronym, and state standardized tests that Student would take during the school year. Mother requested administrative changes to the IEP, such as fixing typographical errors and changing formatting. Parents consented, with exceptions, to the IEP on December 13, 2023.

The statute of limitations for special education cases in California is two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis for the request. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(6)(B) and (f)(3)(C); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).) Both the IDEA and California Special Education law establish exceptions to the statute of limitations in cases in which the parent was prevented from filing a request for due process. The statute of limitations does not apply in cases where a party is prevented from filing a complaint due to specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint; or when a party is prevented from filing due to the local educational agency’s withholding of information that was required by statute to be provided to the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D); Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (l)(1) and (2).)

Common law or equitable exceptions to the statute of limitations do not apply to IDEA cases. (D.K. v. Abington School Dist. (3d Cir. 2012) 696 F. 3d 233, 248.) In particular, the common law exception to the statute of limitations that applies when a violation is continuing is not applicable in IDEA cases. Thus, a party may not challenge the appropriateness of an IEP created outside of the statute of limitations period even though the IEP’s provisions were in effect within the limitations period. (K.P., etc., v. Salinas Union High School Dist. (N.D.Cal. April 8, 2016, Case No.5:08-cv-03076-HRL) 2016 WL 1394377, interpreting the California statute of limitations, Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l).)

Student filed his complaint on December 12, 2025. Based on the two-year statute of limitations, Student was limited to claims arising on or after December 12, 2023. The October 26, 2023 IEP was developed outside the two-year statute of limitations.

Gustine did not make an offer of extended school year at the October 26, November 3, or November 17, 2023 IEP team meetings. The IEP team agreed to table the discussion to Spring 2024. Student’s special education teacher planned to gather data after the Thanksgiving break and Winter break, and meet after the Spring break to review the data and discuss whether Student required extended school year for Summer 2024. There was no evidence presented that the IEP team met in Spring 2024 to discuss extended school year. The evidence did not show that the October 26, 2023 IEP was reopened in Spring 2024 to discuss and make an offer of extended school year.

Student made no arguments that any exceptions to the statute of limitations applied to Issues 2A and 2B. The December 13, 2023 meeting did not create another instance for Student to challenge the October 26, 2023 IEP, as no additional FAPE offers were made. Accordingly, each of Student’s claims involving the offer of goals and services in the October 26, 2023 IEP, in effect on December 13, 2023, are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Student did not prevail on Issues 2A and 2B.

ISSUES 3A, 4A

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP AND THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR?

Student contends he experienced learning loss after long breaks. Student argues Gustine should have offered extended school year.

Student argued, for the first time in his closing brief, that Gustine predetermined its decision to not offer extended school year. Student was limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consented. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 57-58, 62; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) Predetermination constitutes a separate and distinct legal issue from the issue alleged here. Gustine did not consent to adding a new issue. As such, predetermination of extended school year is not analyzed in this Decision.

Gustine contends Student did not require extended school year, and that there was no documented evidence of regression or inability to recoup necessary skills in a timely manner upon return from extended school breaks, including the summer.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP or the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer extended school year.

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

The IEP is a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a child with a disability, and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs. (School Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Department of Educ. of Mass. (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 368 [105 S.Ct. 1996] (Burlington).) An IEP is a written document for each child with exceptional needs that includes a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1).) 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 (2007), 300.321 (2007), and 300.501 (2006).)

Consistent with federal regulations, California special education regulations require that extended school year services be provided for each student with exceptional needs who requires special education and related services in excess of the regular academic year. (34 C.F.R. § 300.106 (2006); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3043.) A student needs extended programming if interruption of their educational programming may cause regression, rendering it impossible or unlikely that they will attain the level of self-sufficiency and independence that would otherwise be expected in view of their disabling condition. (Ibid.) The purpose of extended school year placement and services is to prevent regression and recoupment difficulties during the summer break. (Letter to Myers, U.S. Dept. of Ed., Office of Special Ed. Programs (Dec. 18, 1989).)

THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP

In developing the November 5, 2024 IEP, the IEP team discussed Student’s need for extended school year services and reviewed the extended school year worksheet. Case manager and education specialist Aguilar asked whether Student required extended school year. The IEP team determined that Student did not require extended school year because:

• Student could regain skills lost over the break that would be expected based upon his disability in a short amount of time,

• Did not display a loss of previously taught skills,

• Was not in a crucial stage in learning such that an interruption in school may cause loss of skill, and

• Could maintain skills without the need for extended school year. At hearing, Aguilar opined that Student would not remember what was taught during the school year after an extended break. Aguilar did not raise these concerns during the development of the November 5, 2024 IEP. Aguilar did not elaborate or explain the basis for this opinion explicitly, but he testified that Student was generally forgetful. Aguilar observed that Student required reminders of assignment instructions and reteaching of concepts from the prior day. Aguilar believed Student should have qualified for extended school year. However, Aguilar did not further explain whether Student grasped a topic after reteaching, allowing Student to retain the concept long-term. Aguilar did not elaborate whether Student needed instructions to be repeated because his memory was affected, or he was inattentive. Aguilar only taught Student for three months, during Aguilar’s first year as a teacher. By the time of hearing, Aguilar’s teaching experience consisted of the few months spent at Gustine and one year and one month at another district. Aguilar had not yet obtained special education teaching credentials by the time of hearing. Aguilar had a limited time with the Student and limited experience in education. Aguilar’s opinion as to Student’s abilities and needs requiring extended school year was not persuasive.

In fact, Student was comprehensively reassessed the following school year and the findings of the assessment explained the struggles Aguilar mentioned.

THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP

At the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting, school psychologist Macias reviewed the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report. Macias assessed Student’s memory and opined that Student was able to learn, when presented information with rich, contextual details. Student demonstrated challenges where information was presented in isolation or unrelatedness, such as auditory number memory. Student also struggled to process oral directions. To address this deficit, Macias explained Student should be repeated the information and checked for understanding. Student struggled with short-term memory, particularly recalling non-contextual and unrelated information. Student’s auditory comprehension was a relative area of strength, when Student was presented with more detail.

Student’s long-term memory was average. Student had grade-appropriate functioning in long-term storage and retrieval fluency. Student was able to listen to a detailed story and answer questions and repeat back details of the story. Macias explained that Student learned when provided information in a meaningful manner. In class, when exposed to details and provided more information, Student was able to “record it” in his brain. When Student could store the information in his long-term memory, he could retrieve the information.

Student casted doubt on the accuracy of the long-term memory test because it was tested over only one session. Macias explained that the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities, a standardized test, did not have a mechanism to administer the long-term memory tests over multiple sessions. Student did not present any expert witness to rebut the accuracy of the subtest.

Parents did not present any contrary input at the IEP team meeting. The IEP team discussed extended school year eligibility and determined that Student was not eligible for extended school year because there was no evidence of significant regression or poor recoupment of skills after an academic break. While not determinative of the issue, the IEP team meeting notes did not indicate that Parent disagreed with the eligibility determination.

Student testified generally that he forgets easily. Student stated that if he were taught something new in class, he would forget it in an “instant”, as “if [he] [were] hypnotized.” Student believed he would “just forget” what he was working on after a summer break. However, Student also testified in detail about lessons he learned before the hearing. In Student’s ninth-grade English class, Student researched human experiments during World War II. Student stated he chose this topic for his project because he saw a documentary on Netflix. Student recalled dressing up around Thanksgiving time and presenting a nine-minute speech on his project.

Gustine had a Presidents’ Day holiday break from February 16, to February 20, 2026. Student testified on February 25, 2026. Student recalled in detail what he learned in his math and science classes prior to the break. In math, Student worked on identifying and solving addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division functions. Student also worked on equations with negative numbers, specifically identifying the equation “-5 + 20.” Student also plotted points on a graph to create a triangle and described, at hearing, the steps taken to graph a triangle. In science, Student learned how strong animals survived in environments. Student recalled an online assignment to “rule the world by rabbits,” which required Student to provide vitamins and food to strengthen the rabbits.

Parents were concerned about Student’s memory problems, and specifically his short-term memory. However, Student did not present evidence that those memory problems rose to a level causing regression, if his educational programming was interrupted, rendering it impossible or unlikely that he would attain the level of self-sufficiency and independence that would otherwise be expected in view of his disabling condition, that would necessitate an uninterrupted educational program into the summer. While Student presented testimony regarding his struggles with retaining information, Student did not offer evidence that he experienced regression and difficulty with recoupment that necessitated extended school year.

The evidence showed that Student’s long-term recall was average, when assessed, and Student demonstrated at hearing that he could recall information after an extended period of time. Student did not prove that he had a tendency to regress and inability to recoup information. Student did not prove Gustine denied him a FAPE by failing to offer extended school year in either the November 5, 2024 IEP or the October 21, 2025 IEP. Student did not prevail on Issues 3A and 4A.

ISSUE 3B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER GOALS TO ADDRESS INATTENTION, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE, AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY?

Student contends he required goals in the November 5, 2024 IEP to address his needs related to attention, speech and language, and occupational therapy. Student referred to occupational therapy goals to mean goals to address gross and fine motor skills. Student was primarily concerned with his fine motor skills, specifically his ability to handwrite legibly, zip and button, tie shoelaces, and use scissors.

Gustine contends Student did not require goals in inattention, speech and language, or occupational therapy, as Student did not exhibit any needs in these areas that warranted IEP goals.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer goals in inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy, including goals for gross and fine motor skills.

The IEP must include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a).)

The purpose of annual goals is to permit the IEP team to determine whether the pupil is making progress in an area of need. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a).) The goals must be measurable and designed to meet the student’s needs so that the student can be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet each of the other educational needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(2)(i).)

The IEP must also describe how progress towards the goals developed will be measured and reported. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(3).) The IEP shall show a direct relationship between the present levels of performance, the goals and objectives, and the specific educational services to be provided. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040.)

The IEP team need not draft IEP goals in a manner that the parents find optimal, as long as the goals are objectively measurable. (Bridges ex rel. F.B. v. Spartanburg County School Dist. Two (D.S.C., Sept. 2, 2011, No. 7:10-CV-01873-JMC) 2011 WL 3882850.) The IDEA requires IEP goals to target a student’s needs, but the IDEA does not require an IEP to contain every goal from which a student might benefit. (Capistrano Unified School Dist. v. S.W., et al. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1133 (Capistrano).) Moreover, a local educational agency is not required to develop goals for areas covered by the general curriculum for which the student can benefit from their education using accommodations or modifications. (Fed. Regs., Appendix A, Part 300 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999), [discussing language also contained in the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA at 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)].)

The November 5, 2024 IEP was developed over several IEP team meetings. The IEP team met on November 5, and 20, and December 3, 2024, and January 9, March 28, and May 6, 2025, to develop Student’s annual IEP. The IEP team identified Student’s present levels of academic and functional performance, and determined Student required IEP goals in reading, writing, mathematics, social-emotional functioning, self-advocacy, and mental health. The IEP team discussed goals over two IEP team meetings, and Parents agreed with the proposed goals at the December 3, 2024 meeting.

The November 5, 2024 IEP included the following offer of services: 950 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction, 60 minutes per month of individual counseling with a school psychologist, and 30 minutes per week of intensive individual counseling with a mental health clinician. The IEP also offered several program accommodations and modifications, and Student supports.

INATTENTION

The November 5, 2024 IEP did not offer goals for inattention. When presenting Student’s present levels of performance and educational progress, Student’s teachers did not voice any concerns about Student’s attention in class. Parents were active participants in the IEP team meetings and did not note attention as an area of concern. As the IEP team discussed accommodations, Mother specifically requested that Student sit in the front of the classroom so that he was not distracted, and that teachers ask Student clear and short questions. These accommodations were added. Beyond these, Parents did not bring to the rest of the IEP team any requests or need for attention goals, services, or additional accommodations and modifications.

The IEP offered the following accommodations to address any needs in focus or attention:

• Providing directions in a variety of modalities, such as verbal, visual, or written;

• Visual cues;

• Presenting information in small chunks or one direction at a time;

• Frequent breaks during assessments, as needed;

• Separate setting for assessments or testing, when necessary;

• Checking for understanding by having Student restate or paraphrase information;

• Extended time to do assignments or assessments, within a reasonable amount of time;

• Reduce distractions to Student;

• Ask clear, short, and direct questions; and

• Flexible seating to ensure auditory and visual access. Student did not show that, at the time the November 5, 2024 IEP was developed, he required goals to address inattention. Barco explained that Student was easily redirected, during the period of time she worked with Student. The September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center report stated Student was “very social” throughout the observation, initiated interactions with peers, demonstrated “lots of” verbal engagement with adults, participated in all academic activities, and was compliant with all task demands and directives from the instructors.

Even assuming Student had attention needs, an IEP need not contain every goal from which Student might benefit. Furthermore, Student’s IEP contained multiple accommodations to address focus and distractibility. Student did not present evidence that these accommodations were inadequate, or that Student was unable to benefit from his education using these accommodations, such that Student required IEP goals to address attention. (Fed. Regs., Appendix A, Part 300 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999).) Student did not present evidence that a failure to include inattention goals in his IEP denied him a FAPE.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

During the development of the November 5, 2024 IEP, no IEP member reported speech and language concerns or expressed a need for a speech and language goal. The IEP reflected, under the section titled Communication Development, that Student communicated his needs and wants appropriately, participated in classroom discussions, and clearly communicated his thoughts and ideas. The IEP team considered the September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center assessment in developing IEP goals.

The September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center assessment found that Student did not demonstrate speech and language needs that necessitated speech and language goals in communication or articulation, or direct intervention. Student’s pragmatics, or the social use of language, were an area of strength. The assessor observed that Student easily initiated and maintained a topic of conversation, and easily communicated for a myriad of reasons, such as greeting, requesting, gaining attention, and initiating.

The Diagnostic Center assessment report recommended that Student’s language needs be embedded into his academic program, particularly as the report noted Student’s use of idiomatic language, sentence expression, and grammar were deficient. The IEP specifically included an accommodation to use sentence frames or verbal and written expression activities to facilitate accurate grammar and remaining on topic. The IEP offered the following goals that addressed Student’s language, such as grammar and sentence expression, in his academic program: Annual Goal 4 in Writing stated: By November 5, 2025, when given a writing assignment, with support from staff, Student will write a short paragraph (three to five sentences) that clearly explains a topic using accurate spelling, syntax, and correct punctuation, with 80 percent accuracy, in three out of five trials, as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted data.

Annual Goal 5 in Reading stated: By November 5, 2025, when given a passage at Student’s independent reading level, he will accurately decode and read words containing long and short vowel sounds as measured with 80 percent accuracy, as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records across three out of five trials.

Annual Goal 6 in Reading stated: By November 5, 2025, when given a passage and guided reading questions at Student’s independent reading level, he will be able to accurately cite relevant textual evidence to support his answer with 80 percent accuracy in three out of four trials, as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records.

Student did not present evidence that these goals were insufficient or that he had needs that required additional speech and language goals.

At hearing, there was lay testimony by Parents, a neighbor, and Student’s teachers about Student’s speech being fast, slightly stuttered, or unclear at times. Student did not offer expert testimony to opine on Student’s speech and language skills and rebut the Diagnostic Center report’s findings that Student’s overall speech intelligibility was not affected by his articulation errors and did not warrant any direct intervention. Student did not offer expert testimony to counter the Diagnostic Center’s finding that Student’s stuttering was a result of expressive language deficits. Student did not offer expert testimony to establish that Student’s speech and language needs required IEP goals. Student testified intelligibly for half a day.

Student argued, generally, that he required speech goals because he struggled to pronounce some words, spoke quickly, and could be unintelligible at times. However, Student did not explain whether he required speech goals to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet his other educational needs. In fact, the evidence showed that Student ably participated in class discussions, shared his thoughts, and communicated with peers and adults.

Even if Student could have benefitted from speech and language goals, particularly to address articulation errors or stuttering and expressive language deficits, mentioned in the Diagnostic Center report, an IEP need not contain every goal from which Student might benefit. Furthermore, Student did not present evidence that a failure to include speech goals in his IEP denied him a FAPE.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

During the time the November 5, 2024 IEP was developed, Student demonstrated age-appropriate gross and fine motor skills. In physical education, Student completed all exercises and activities, including hitting a pickleball with a racket with consistency and jumping onto boxes. In the classroom, Student utilized classroom supplies, including a pencil, ruler, calculator, scissors, glue stick, and a computer. The team reported that Student possessed all the gross and fine motor skills necessary to be successful in a classroom setting.

The November 5, 2024 IEP included 20 minutes of monthly consultation between the physical education teacher and an education specialist, to support Student in appropriately tying shoes and drawstrings. This service was added at Mother’s request, but there was no further information documented regarding the necessity of this service, or whether any teachers observed such difficulties in the school setting. At hearing, Father explained that Student did not know how to properly tie shoelaces, and that Student simply tied knots and hid the unlaced tips inside each shoe. This service was removed by the next annual IEP.

Parents testified that Student did not know how to button properly and struggled with zippers. For example, Student wore pants that did not have zippers and preferred t-shirts over button-up shirts. Mother expressed her concerns over Student’s pencil grip and handwriting legibility. While Parents testified to their concerns about Student’s gross and fine motor skills in these areas, Parents did not raise these concerns to the IEP team.

Student testified to the same. However, Student felt that he could zip correctly, although he did not like zippers. Student testified he was unable to cut in a straight line when he used “little scissors.” Student testified he felt nervous holding a pencil and struggled with correctly writing some letters, specifically “e” and “f”.

While Student may have struggled with buttons or scissors, these struggles did not hinder Student in the school setting. Teachers reported Student independently used the bathroom and, therefore, properly dressed and undressed. Student utilized his backpack, which had a zipper. Student appropriately used writing utensils, glue, and scissors. Moreover, Student did not offer evidence drawing a nexus between his inability to correctly write some letters and any motor skills deficits. Student presented no expert witness to interpret or opine on whether the difficulty stemmed from motor skills deficits or from Student’s specific learning disability. While Student's handwriting was messy, the evidence did not show that this was an area of concern that required an IEP goal. The November 5, 2024 IEP offered Student a scribe and speech-to-text assistive technology.

Student did not show that he required occupational therapy goals to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet his other educational needs. The evidence established the contrary. Student utilized classroom supplies, participated in the classroom and in physical education, and independently maneuvered throughout the school day. Student’s IEP offered monthly consultation to support Student in appropriately tying shoes and drawstrings and supports and accommodations for writing. Further, Student did not show that he was unable to benefit from his education, even with these services, supports, and accommodations, such that Student required IEP goals in occupational therapy. Student did not present evidence that a failure to include occupational therapy goals in his IEP denied him a

FAPE.

Student did not demonstrate that he required IEP goals to address inattention, speech and language, or occupational therapy, to address gross and fine motor skills to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet each of the other educational needs. Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy. Student did not prevail on Issue 3B.

ISSUE 3C

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE MATHEMATICS GOALS?

Student specifically challenges the algebra goal that was offered in the November 5, 2024 IEP. Student argues the algebra goal was not appropriate because this goal was overly ambitious and was not created with regard to Student’s skill level at the time of its creation. Thus, the algebra goal was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and, therefore, denied Student a FAPE. Moreover, Student contends he should have been offered mathematics goals which supported the development of foundational math skills, such as a goal in division.

Gustine contends the algebra goal was appropriate because it was drafted with consideration of Student’s academic baselines and aligned with state academic content standards for eighth grade.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by offering an algebra goal.

MATHEMATICS IN THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP

On August 20, 2024, Student took an IReady diagnostic test in math. His scores were low. The IReady tests were taken without accommodations to provide a baseline of Student’s abilities. Student performed at an overall first-grade level in math. In number and operations, Student performed at a second-grade level. In algebra and algebraic thinking, measurement and data, and geometry, Student performed at a first-grade level.

The IEP team provided an annual review of Annual Goal 3 in the area of Calculation, which stated: By October 26, 2024, given a hundreds chart and a multiplication table, Student can multiply whole numbers and relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used with at least 70 percent accuracy in three out of five trials as measured by student work samples and teacher records. Student met this goal. When given a hundreds chart and a multiplication table, Student was able to multiply whole numbers and relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used, with 100 percent accuracy in three out of five trials. Student utilized a multiplication chart and could also multiply problems such as “5 x 5,” “8 x 8,” “3 x 3,” and “9 x 8.”

The IEP team reviewed Student’s present levels of performance and academic functioning. Student’s general education math teacher was not present at the IEP team meetings. Education specialist Aguilar reported on her behalf. Aguilar reported that Student followed the math lesson, with support. Student copied notes, attempted the warm-up exercises and activities in class, and tried his best. In Unit 1, Student scored the following on the first assessments in each topic area:

• 71 percent, five correct answers out of seven questions, on the relationship between congruent figures and understanding that a figure that undergoes rigid transformations is congruent.

• 100 percent, seven correct answers out of seven questions, on identifying the three types of transformations: translations, rotations, and reflections.

• 71 percent, five correct answers out of seven questions, on applying a transformation and then identifying the new vertices on the polygon.

• 100 percent, seven correct answers out of seven questions, on identifying angle sums and exterior angle of triangles. At the end of Unit 1, Student could identify congruent figures and apply transformations correctly 85 percent of the time. In Unit 2, Student could dilate figures; multiply the sides of different polygons by two, three, four, five, and 10; and verbally produce the answer, then draw the new dilated polygon.

Student had the following accommodations in class, as prescribed in the October 26, 2023 IEP:

• Providing directions in a variety of modalities;

• Visual cues;

• Calculation devices;

• Presenting information in small chunks or one direction at a time;

• Scribe for test and assessments, when needed;

• Frequent breaks during assessments, as needed;

• Speech-to-text technology for reading, writing, and listening;

• Separate setting for assessments or testing, when necessary; and

• Access to a hundreds number table and multiplication table during classes and assessments. At the November 20, 2024 IEP team meeting, the team discussed and proposed new mathematics goals. The IEP offered two mathematics goals:

Annual Goal 2 in Algebra stated: By November 5, 2025, when given a linear equation with one variable, Student will be able to solve for the variable with 80 percent accuracy across four out of five trials, as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records.

The baseline noted that Student struggled with foundational math skills and demonstrated limited understanding of algebraic concepts, including variables and equations. He was unfamiliar with identifying the slope and y-intercept in linear equations and had difficulty isolating variables to solve basic one-step equations. When given a linear equation, Student required substantial guidance to interpret and solve it, indicating readiness to begin learning foundational skills in algebra with targeted support.

Three short-term objectives were noted:

• By February 2025, when given linear equations in slope-intercept form (??=????+??), Student will correctly identify the slope and y-intercept with 75 percent accuracy in four out of five trials.

• By June 2025, when given one-step and two-step linear equations (e.g., 2??+3=11), Student will solve for the variable with 70 percent accuracy across four out of five trials.

• By September 2025, when given a linear equation, Student will solve for the variable and accurately plot the solution on a coordinate plane with 75 percent accuracy in three of five trials. Annual Goal 3 in Calculation stated: By November 5, 2025, given a multiplication table and scratch paper as needed, Student will multiply multi-digit whole numbers, up to three digits by two digits for multiplication, with 70 percent accuracy in three out of five trials, as measured by student work samples and teacher records.

The baseline noted that Student could multiply single-digit whole numbers accurately with the support of a hundreds chart and multiplication table, achieving 70 percent accuracy in three out of five trials. However, he struggled with multi-digit multiplication beyond two-digit by one-digit problems and had limited experience with division, particularly with understanding the process and applying strategies independently. Student required guidance to set up and solve problems involving larger numbers.

Three short-term objectives were determined:

• By March 2025, using a multiplication table as a support, Student will accurately solve two-digit by one-digit multiplication problems, explaining each step in his process with 70 percent accuracy across three out of five trials.

• By June 2025, with guidance and the use of scratch paper, Student will accurately multiply two-digit by two-digit numbers in three out of five trials, demonstrating his steps in writing and achieving at least 65 percent accuracy.

• By September 2025, given a set of multi-digit division problems with two-digit divisors, Student will set up and solve the problems using scratch paper with 65 percent accuracy across three out of five trials, with support as needed to understand the division process.

THE ALGEBRA GOAL WAS APPROPRIATE

Annual Goal 2 in Algebra was measurable and reasonably calculated to address Student’s math deficits and permit Student to advance through the general curriculum. The goal was also appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances and afforded Student the chance to meet challenging objectives.

Student’s progress report on the prior calculation goal demonstrated that Student could multiply whole numbers with 100 percent accuracy in three out of five trials, using a multiplication chart, and was able to reason the process of multiplication. During the development of the November 5, 2024 IEP, Student’s present levels of performance showed that Student had mastered geometric concepts such as polygon transformations and angle sums. Student could also successfully identify congruence, apply transformations, and identify new vertices on transformed polygons. Student learned dilations, and could dilate polygons by using multiplication.

Student demonstrated his ability to successfully multiply, using supports and accommodations. Student demonstrated his understanding of geometric concepts. Student was ready to learn new concepts to permit Student to advance through the general curriculum. At the time the math goals were developed, it was logical for Student to move on to the next step in math. In geometry, Student learned to identify types of transformations, namely translations, rotations, and reflections. Student was unfamiliar with algebraic concepts like an unknown variable, slope, and y-intercept. It was appropriate for Student to first work on identifying these concepts when presented a linear equation and then work on solving for an unknown variable in a basic one-step equation.

The annual goal, to solve for a variable in a one-variable linear equation, was attainable within a year. Three short-term objectives would measure Student’s progress toward the annual goal. In the next three months, Student would learn to correctly identify the slope and y-intercept in an equation. By the end of the school year, Student would learn to solve for a variable in a one-step and two-step linear equation. At the beginning of the following school year, Student would solve for the variable and learn to plot the solution on a coordinate plane. Student’s progress in the short-term objections and toward the annual goal could be objectively measured through the accuracy of Student’s answers in his work samples and teacher-charted records.

Student’s eighth-grade general education math teacher did not testify at hearing. Aguilar testified. Aguilar opined it was not realistic to expect Student to understand grade-level math, as it was questionable to expect Student to jump from elementary-level skills to eighth grade-level algebra. Aguilar further opined that it was inappropriate for Student to be taught algebraic concepts without first teaching foundational math skills, like division.

Aguilar presented Student’s present levels of performance and participated in developing the math goals at the November 5, and 20, 2024 IEP team meetings. The IEP team meeting notes did not show any of the concerns Aguilar testified about. While Student would be expected to know foundational math skills, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, to apply in higher-level math, Student’s then-present levels of performance showed that Student grasped these concepts and applied them correctly, with supports. Student concurrently worked on arithmetic operations through his IEP goal in calculation, while successfully learning grade-level mathematical concepts in geometry. Aguilar did not reconcile his opinion that Student should not work on higher-level math goals without first teaching foundational math skills, with the fact that Student was working on calculation goals while successfully learning geometric concepts.

Student’s present levels of performance reviewed at the November 5, and November 20, 2024 IEP team meetings and documented in the IEP were more persuasive in establishing Student’s then-current functioning, than Aguilar’s recall one and a half years later. Student learned grade-level mathematical concepts in his eighth-grade general education class. Student did not present persuasive evidence that his abilities were different from what was documented, rendering the algebra goal inappropriate. The IEP team continued to offer a calculation goal to support Student’s educational needs in arithmetic skills. Student did not demonstrate how including an algebra goal in his IEP denied him a FAPE.

THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 IEP DID NOT NEED TO INCLUDE A SEPARATE DIVISION GOAL

Student struggled with division without supports and accommodations. Student may have benefited from a division goal. However, an IEP is not required to contain every single goal a student might benefit from, particularly where the need is addressed in the student’s curriculum. (Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at 1133; Fed. Regs., Appendix A, Part 300 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999).) Arithmetic operations, specifically division, was addressed and taught in Student’s general education math curriculum. Furthermore, the November 5, 2024 IEP contained a calculation goal to address Student’s foundational math skills, including division. The third short-term objective incorporated division into the calculation goal.

Student did not show that he was unable to benefit from his education, when provided accommodations and modifications to the curriculum, such that a separate division goal was required in the November 5, 2024 IEP. Student did not show that he was denied a FAPE because the IEP did not offer a division goal.

At the time of the development of the IEP, the algebra goal was reasonably calculated in light of Student’s abilities, measurable, and met his educational needs. The IEP did not need to include a specific division goal, as the general curriculum addressed arithmetic operations. Moreover, Student’s IEP contained an annual calculation goal, contrary to Student’s contention that his IEP did not offer goals that supported the development of Student’s foundational math skills.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer appropriate mathematics goals. Student did not prevail on Issue 3C.

ISSUE 4B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER GOALS TO ADDRESS INATTENTION, SPEECH AND LANGUAGE, AND OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY?

Student contends he required goals in the October 21, 2025 IEP to address his needs related to attention, speech and language, and occupational therapy for gross and fine motor skills. Student referred to occupational therapy goals to mean goals to address gross and fine motor skills. Student was primarily concerned with fine motor skills.

Gustine contends Student did not warrant goals in inattention, speech and language, or occupational therapy, as Student did not exhibit any needs in these areas.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer goals in inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy, including goals for gross and fine motor skills.

The IEP team met on October 21, and November 4, 2025, to develop Student’s three-year IEP, referred to as the October 21, 2025 IEP. The IEP team reviewed the September 15, 2025 health assessment, October 6, 2025 academic assessment, October 15, 2025 therapy assessment, and October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment reports. The IEP team identified Student’s presented levels of academic and functional performance, and determined Student required IEP goals in math, writing, reading, transition, mood regulation and reasoning, and mental health.

The October 21, 2025 IEP included the following offer of services: 950 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction, 60 minutes per month of individual counseling with a school psychologist, 90 minutes per month of intensive counseling with a mental health clinician, 30 minutes per month of individual and group college awareness services, and 30 minutes per month of individual and group career awareness services. The IEP also offered several program accommodations and modifications, and Student supports.

INATTENTION

School psychologist Macias reviewed the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report with the IEP team at the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting. Macias reported Student exhibited “high levels of concentration” during direct testing. Macias obtained Student’s voluntary cooperation and readiness prior to commencing the tasks. Once Student initiated the tasks, he followed directions appropriately and displayed good levels of engagement, focus, and persistence. When Student was asked to focus more during a task, he complied. For example, on one occasion, Macias redirected Student to focus as he appeared to be “squirmy.“ Student quickly readjusted and calmed his body for the subtest and subsequent tasks. During classroom observations, Student engaged in off-task behaviors, requiring redirection and direct support to remain on task.

Macias administered the Behavior Assessment System for Children rating scales to obtain input from Student’s special education teacher, Mother, and Student. Clinically significant scores across raters represented consistent concerns that may require additional support or intervention. At-risk scores across raters and settings suggested potential areas of concern that may require monitoring. Raters reported average, at-risk, and clinically significant concerns throughout the areas assessed. However, there were no areas of concern that the raters consistently identified as clinically significant, such that Student required additional support or intervention. Overall, raters indicated concerns in distractibility, inattention, and concentration. Macias interpreted these scores and explained that many of the attention and impulsivity concerns reported were manifestations of Student’s attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, which may disrupt academic performance and functioning in other areas.

Macias determined that Student’s levels of inattention or impulsivity did not significantly interfere with classroom instruction or his peers’ learning. Student’s levels of inattention primarily impacted his own performance in the educational setting. The assessment results indicated that Student presented significant deficits in the area of attention.

Macias recommended the following to address Student’s educational needs:

• Break down instructions and tasks into short, manageable steps.

• Repeat and rephrase key information throughout the lesson.

• Provide written instructions and visual aids alongside verbal directions.

• Provide outlines or study guides before new material is introduced.

• Establish clear daily routines for self-care and other important activities, using a task list or schedule until the routine is generalized.

• Preferential seating near the teacher and away from distractions (doors, windows, noisy areas).

• Minimize background noise during instruction.

• Allow extra time for assignments and tests.

• Offer frequent check-ins to ensure understanding.

• Encourage self-advocacy skills (e.g., asking for repetition or clarification).

• Due to significant weaknesses in fluid reasoning, problem solving should be detailed and explained in great detail and often until Student demonstrates mastery and application of the skill across settings. This will require repetition of concepts.

• Use concrete, everyday examples while discussing abstract concepts.

• To capitalize on Student’s long-term recall, it is recommended that repetition and practice of new material is incorporated so that he is able to encode, store, and retrieve new information. Provide Student with rich details when verbally presenting information as it supports the likelihood of learning and retaining the information.

• To boost Student’s ego and self-reliance, provide frequent and specific positive praise. Provide achievable and important opportunities that will foster Student with feelings of success. Over time, increase the complexity of tasks and highlight the progression of his success.

• Continue teaching Student coping skills to regulate emotions.

• Model problem solving and positive self-talk. During the development of the October 21, 2025 IEP, the IEP team was aware of and agreed to Student’s needs in the area of attention. The IEP team reported that Student responded well to redirection and quickly resumed focus when redirected. The IEP team incorporated Macias’ recommendations and included the following accommodations to support Student:

• Providing directions in a variety of modalities, verbal, visual, or written;

• Visual cues;

• Presenting information in small chunks or one direction at a time;

• Frequent breaks during assessments, as needed;

• Separate setting for assessments or testing, when necessary;

• Checking for understanding by having Student restate or paraphrase information;

• Notes, outlines, and instructions supplied in order for Student to copy down and follow;

• Graphic organizer;

• Visual organizer;

• Alternate response options, such as reading, writing, and listening;

• Extended time to do assignments or assessments, within a reasonable amount of time;

• Reduce distractions to Student;

• Ask clear, short, and direct questions;

• Use sentence frames or verbal expression or written expression activities to provide with structure to facilitate accurate grammar and remaining on topic; and

• Flexible seating to ensure auditory and visual access. Student had attention needs at the time the October 21, 2025 IEP was developed.

However, an IEP need not contain every goal from which Student might benefit. (Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at 1133.) Furthermore, Student’s IEP contained multiple accommodations to address focus, attention, and distractibility. Student did not present evidence that these accommodations were inadequate, or that Student was unable to benefit from his education using accommodations. (Fed. Regs., Appendix A, Part 300 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999).) Student did not meet his burden of proving that he required attention goals to receive a FAPE.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

During the three-year October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment, Student was assessed in oral expression, which was an area noted as low average in the September 4, 2024 Diagnostic Center assessment report. The assessment found Student’s low performance in oral vocabulary and verbal analogies to be due to word retrieval difficulties, limited vocabulary, limited background knowledge, or limited educational opportunities and experiences.

The Behavior Assessment System for Children rating scales were also administered as a part of the psychoeducational assessment. Functional communication was assessed. The at-risk score in functional communication in the school setting was primarily due to Student’s difficulty with obtaining information. In school, Student communicated clearly, described his feelings accurately, and often initiated conversations.

The IEP team likewise reported that Student verbally communicated well with his peers and teachers. Student clearly communicated his thoughts and ideas, appropriately conveyed his needs and wants, and participated in class discussions. Student had strong functional communication. The IEP continued to offer goals in writing and reading.

As discussed in Issue 3B, while lay witnesses expressed concerns about Student’s rate of speech or intelligibility, Student did not offer expert testimony to opine on Student’s speech and language skills, or the need for speech and language IEP goals, to counter the IEP team’s reports and determination. Student did not explain whether he required speech goals to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet his other educational needs. In fact, the evidence showed that Student ably participated in class discussions and communicated in the school setting.

Even if Student could have benefitted from speech and language goals, an IEP need not contain every goal from which Student might benefit. Furthermore, Student did not present evidence that he required speech and language goals in the October 21, 2025 IEP to receive a FAPE.

OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY

As a part of the October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment, Macias administered the Beery Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Sixth Edition, which measured visual-fine motor skills. The Beery Test of Visual Perception was a supplemental test that provided a measure of visual perceptual skills. The Beery Test of Motor Coordination was a supplemental test that provided a measure of motor coordination skills. Macias administered these tests on September 23, and October 13, 2025. While Student’s scores on these tests were low, his scores were primarily impacted by his lack of attention to detail and pausing to stretch his hands during timed tasks. Macias observed that Student was able to cut with scissors, use a pencil with a mature grip, glue paper, and play football. Macias opined Student did not present as a child with fine motor challenges and did not believe further occupational therapy assessment was warranted based on these scores.

The IEP team reviewed Student’s gross and fine motor skills. Student performed exercises and activities in physical education, including hitting a pickleball with a racket with consistency. In classrooms, Student completed assigned tasks and navigated the classroom environment independently. Student’s handwriting was often messy, but legible. The IEP team, including Parents, did not report concerns about Student’s motor development at the IEP team meetings.

As discussed in Issue 3B, Parents and Student testified about fine motor concerns. However, Student did not present evidence that he required IEP goals in occupational therapy, or gross or fine motor skills, to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum, and meet his other educational needs. The evidence showed that Student ably accessed the school setting and participated in his curriculum.

Even if Student could have benefitted from goals to address fine motor skills, an IEP need not contain every goal from which Student might benefit. Moreover, to assist Student’s handwriting legibility, Student’s education specialists worked on handwriting worksheets with Student during his eighth- and ninth-grade years. Student did not meet his burden of proof that he required goals in occupational therapy, or gross and fine motor skills, such that he was denied a FAPE because the October 21, 2025 IEP did not offer such goals.

Student did not demonstrate that he required IEP goals to address inattention, speech and language, or occupational therapy to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and meet each of the other educational needs. Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy. Student did not prevail on Issue 4B.

ISSUE 4C

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER APPROPRIATE MATHEMATICS GOALS?

Student specifically challenges the algebra goal that was offered in the October 21, 2025 IEP. Student argues the algebra goal was not appropriate because this goal was overly ambitious and was not created with regard to Student’s skill level at the time of its creation. Student also argues the algebra goal was significantly similar to the prior year’s goal, which was not met. Thus, the algebra goal was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and, therefore, denied Student a FAPE. Moreover, Student contends he should have been offered mathematics goals which supported the development of foundational math skills, such as a goal in division.

Gustine contends the algebra goal was appropriate because it was drafted with consideration of Student’s academic baselines and aligned with state academic content standards for ninth grade.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer appropriate math goals.

STUDENT’S PRESENT LEVELS OF PERFORMANCE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE 2025-2026 SCHOOL YEAR

At the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting, the IEP team reviewed the October 6, 2025 Education Specialist Report, administered as a part of Student’s three-year review. Education specialist Kate Gaines conducted the academic assessment and administered the Woodcock-Johnson, Fourth Edition, Tests of Achievement. In math, Student scored in the very low to low average range overall. Student’s strengths were in math facts fluency and applied problem-solving. Student demonstrated challenges in calculation and problem-solving skills, which were below grade-level expectations. The report recommended focused instruction in math computation, problem-solving strategies, and fluency.

The IEP document contained minimal reports of Student’s present levels of performance in mathematics. In a review of Student’s preacademic, academic, and functional skills, the team reported that Student could describe translations at a beginning level, and was doing well with his math skills as they pertained to his shop skills class.

Student’s general education math teacher Collin Lane testified at hearing. Lane held an authorization to teach math, and taught math at Gustine for four years. Student’s math class was co-taught by a special education teacher. The curriculum consisted of linear functions, graphing, and concrete and abstract reasoning, incorporating geometry and algebra.

Lane taught arithmetic operations, such as multiplication and division, at a ninth-grade level standard, when utilized in algebraic functions. Arithmetic operations were fundamental to algebra, and students were expected to know how to manipulate numbers using these operations, prior to learning algebra. Arithmetic foundations were taught in elementary school. Lane opined it was appropriate to teach algebraic concepts to a student with an elementary school level skillset. Lane explained that it was more beneficial to a student to scaffold the gap, rather than to remediate him. Scaffolding entailed offering supports to bridge the gap in skill level to allow a student to learn grade-level topics. Scaffolds would be slowly removed. Remediating required continued teaching at the student’s skill level, for example, the elementary school level. Lane explained that if a student is only remediated, he would be stuck at the elementary school level and unable to increase his skillsets toward grade level.

Student’s arithmetic skills were such that he could solve equations with various scaffolds. The scaffolds, or supports, included a multiplication table, calculator, and teacher assistance. Student could identify the steps needed to solve an equation, and used supports to solve the math problem. For example, Student knew how to isolate an unknown variable in solving a linear equation, but did know the solution to the division operation from memory. So, Student accessed a tool, such as a calculator, to reach a solution. Student had the ability to conceptually understand and solve a linear equation, but struggled to reach a solution independently. For example, Student did not have his multiplication tables memorized. Lane observed that Student did not rely on a calculator for one- and two-digit multiplication and division problems, but often utilized his supports for larger-number operations.

With supports and manipulatives, Student passed his assignments and tests. Student demonstrated understanding and could show his thought process in solving equations. When Student entered ninth grade, Student was not at grade level and had a limited understanding of functions. Student made academic progress in math during the first semester. For example, Student was not able to graph functions at the start of the school year, but could by the end of the first semester. Student demonstrated knowledge and proficiency, and even obtained an “A” grade during the first semester.

MATHEMATICS IN THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP

The IEP team provided an annual review of Goal 2 in Algebra, which stated: By November 5, 2025, when given a linear equation with one variable, Student will be able to solve for the variable with 80 percent accuracy across four out of five trials, as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records. Student did not meet this goal. Student demonstrated limited to no mastery of foundational algebraic concepts. Specifically, Student was unable to identify the slope and y-intercept from a linear equation and required constant prompting to interpret and solve basic one-step equations by isolating the variable. According to the IEP team, as documented in the IEP, this suggested that Student was at the novice level and needed intensive, direct instruction in fundamental algebraic syntax, variable manipulation, and the components of linear equations before moving to more complex concepts.

The IEP team also reviewed Goal 3 in Calculation, which stated: By November 5, 2025, given a multiplication table and scratch paper as needed, Student will multiply multi-digit whole numbers, up to three digits by two digits for multiplication, with 70 percent accuracy in three out of five trials as measured by student work samples and teacher records. Student did not meet this goal. Student struggled with the execution of the multiplication steps, specifically the addition and possibly the single-digit multiplication facts, even though he understood the concept of carrying over in multi-digit multiplication.

The October 21, 2025 IEP offered two mathematics goals: Annual Goal 1 in Math stated: By October 20, 2026, given a multiplication problem with decimals within tenths, a pre-filled algorithm template, and three written answer choices read aloud, Student will solve and circle the answer, for four out of five problems, in three out of four progress monitoring assessments.

The baseline noted that Student demonstrated 45 percent understanding of multiplication concepts. Student understood the idea of carrying over in multi-digit multiplication but struggled with executing the steps accurately, particularly with addition and single-digit multiplication facts.

Two short-term objectives were determined:

• By March 2026, given an addition problem with decimals within the hundredths place, a pre-filled algorithm template, and three written answer choices read aloud, Student will use a place value strategy to add the decimal numbers to solve the problem and circle the correct answer, for four out of five problem sets, on three out of four progress monitoring assessments.

• By June 2026, given a multiplication problem with whole numbers within 20, a pre-filled algorithm template, and three written answer choices read aloud, Student will use a multiplication strategy and the template to solve the problem and circle the correct answer, for four out of five [problem sets], on three out of four progress monitoring assessments. Annual Goal 2 in Math stated: By October 20, 2026, when given a simple linear algebraic equation in one variable and verbal prompting (e.g. "We need to get x by itself on one side of the equation. What operation could we do to both sides to isolate x?"), Student will solve the equation and justify each step in solving the equation by choosing the correct order of steps from a list provided for four out of five equations.

The baseline noted that Student demonstrated zero percent accuracy in math problem-solving tasks. He could identify and begin to analyze math problems from visual and auditory prompts but required frequent prompting and support to apply appropriate strategies and solve problems correctly.

Two short-term objectives were determined:

• By March, Student will identify the inverse operation needed to isolate ??x in a one-step equation and select the correct first step from a provided list with 30 percent accuracy in three out of four trials.

• By March, Student will identify the inverse operation needed to isolate ??x in a one-step equation and select the correct first step from a provided list with 50 percent accuracy in three out of four trials. Both short-term goals were to be achieved by March. No witness explained whether it was a typographical error to achieve both 30 percent accuracy and 50 percent accuracy by March.

The IEP offered calculation devices, hundreds number table, and multiplication charts as math-specific accommodations. The IEP also offered several other classroom accommodations, including visual cues, speech-to-text technology, graphic organizers, and visual organizers. The IEP also offered the following program modifications:

• Focus on mastery of more functional math concepts.

• Permit Student to rework problems for a better grade.

• Provide possible answers for fill-in-the-blank sections.

• Shorten assignments to focus on mastery of key concepts.

• Use recognition tests (true-false, multiple choice, or matching) instead of essays.

THE ALGEBRA GOAL WAS APPROPRIATE

Annual Goal 2 in Math was measurable and reasonably calculated to address Student’s math deficits and permit Student to advance through the general curriculum. The goal was also appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances and afforded Student the chance to meet challenging objectives.

It was undisputed that Student struggled with basic arithmetic operations, such as multiplication and division. Thus, Student had an annual goal to address his deficits in multiplication and arithmetic operations with complex numbers. Student was provided accommodations, modifications, and supports in his general education math class to address deficits in foundational math skills. Student concurrently worked on complex multiplication through his IEP goal and learned grade-level algebraic concepts in his general education math class.

There were no significant changes to the math goals that were previously in the November 5, 2024 IEP. Student did not meet his prior annual goals. Parents consented to the November 5, 2024 IEP on June 16, 2025, after the end of the 2024-2025 school year. Between the date of consent and the date of the next annual review, Gustine had only two months to implement the goals. Even the first short-term objective was anticipated to take three months to meet. It was neither unreasonable nor inappropriate for Gustine to continue to work on similar goals from the prior IEP because Student did not have the opportunity to work on those goals for one year.

Here, the lack of progress towards Student’s annual goal was not a certain indicator that the prior algebra goal was inappropriate. Student did not have sufficient time to work toward the annual goal. At the time the November 5, 2024 IEP was developed, Student had made significant progress in geometry, even though he struggled with multiplication and division without supports. Similarly, at the time the October 21, 2025 IEP was developed, Student had made progress up to understanding geometric concepts and gained only minimal, if any, understanding of algebraic concepts. While Student did not have sufficient time to work toward the annual goal to have gained an understanding of algebraic concepts prior to entering ninth grade, Student was starting to gain that understanding, as Lane observed.

Student argued that he would be unable to learn higher level mathematics without first mastering foundational math skills. Therefore, his math goals should have been comprised of arithmetic goals, rather than an algebra goal. At hearing, Student demonstrated that he understood the concept of multiplication and division. Student specifically conceptualized a division problem. Student illustrated that if there were five people and 10 pieces of candy, to evenly divide the candy between the people, each person would receive two pieces of candy. Evidence showed that Student’s memory and recall were affected by his disability. Student understood how to solve arithmetic equations, but often struggled to produce answers independently, a result of his disability in memorizing a multiplication table and recalling those solutions. However, when provided supports and accommodations, such as a hundreds chart and a multiplication table, Student reasoned through a math problem and arrived at a correct answer. Student’s struggles with multiplication and division should not preclude Student from being exposed to algebraic concepts, if he had an ability to gain such understanding. As discussed in Issue 3C, it was appropriate for Student to begin to learn algebraic concepts.

The algebra goal was reasonably calculated to make progress toward this goal. In the next five months, Student would identify the inverse operation needed to isolate a variable. Student’s progress on this goal could be objectively measured through the accuracy of Student’s answers when presented a number of equations, or trials.

THE OCTOBER 21, 2025 IEP DID NOT NEED TO INCLUDE A SEPARATE DIVISION GOAL

Student struggled with division without supports and accommodations. Student may have benefited from a division goal. However, an IEP is not required to contain every single goal a student might benefit from, particularly where the need is addressed in the student’s curriculum. (Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at 1133; Fed. Regs., Appendix A, Part 300 - Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999).) Arithmetic operations, specifically division, were addressed and taught in Student’s general education math curriculum. Furthermore, Annual Goal 1 in Math was a calculation goal to address Student’s foundational math skills.

Student did not show that he was unable to benefit from his education, when provided accommodations and modifications to the curriculum, such that a division goal was required in the October 21, 2025 IEP. Student did not show that he was denied a FAPE because the IEP did not offer a goal to address foundational math skills, like division.

At the time of the development of the October 21, 2025 IEP, the algebra goal was reasonably calculated in light of Student’s abilities, measurable, and met his educational needs. The IEP did not need to include a specific division goal, as the general curriculum addressed arithmetic operations. Moreover, Student’s IEP contained an annual multiplication goal, contrary to Student’s contention that his IEP did not offer goals that supported the development of Student’s foundational math skills. Student failed to prove that Gustine denied Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer appropriate mathematics goals. Student did not prevail on Issue 4C.

ISSUE 5

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BETWEEN DECEMBER 13, 2023, AND DECEMBER 12, 2025, BY FAILING TO PLACE STUDENT IN A SPECIAL DAY CLASS FOR ALL ACADEMIC SUBJECTS?

Student contends he required placement in a special day class for all academic subjects. Student argues Gustine failed to place him in his least restrictive environment since December 13, 2023, when he was placed partially in general education, and then fully in general education in August 2024.

Student argued, for the first time in his closing brief, that Gustine predetermined his placement. Student also argued, for the first time, that Gustine unilaterally changed his placement. Student is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 57-58, 62; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) Predetermination and unilateral change in placement are separate legal issues which Student did not allege in his complaint. Gustine did not consent to adding new issues. As such, predetermination and unilateral change in placement are not analyzed in this Decision.

Gustine contends it offered a general education classroom with special education supports based on assessment data, present levels of performance, and IEP team input. Gustine contends general education was an appropriate placement.

California’s implementing regulations define a “specific educational placement” as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).) A school district “must ensure that [t]he child’s placement...[i]s as close as possible to the child’s home.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.116(b)(3) (2006).) The school district “must ensure that...[u]nless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.116(c) (2006).)

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., supra, 811 F.2d at p. 1314.) A school district is not required to place a student in a program preferred by a parent, even if that program will result in greater educational benefit to the student. (Ibid.)

Both federal and state law require a school district to provide a student special education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet his needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(i) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56040.1, 56342.) A special needs student must be educated with nondisabled peers “to the maximum extent appropriate,” and the student may be removed from the general education environment only when the nature or severity of the student’s disabilities is such that education in general classes with the use of supplementary aids and services “cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” (D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unif. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2022) 56 F.4th 636, 644 (Redondo Beach) [citing 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A)]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(ii) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56040.1.)

To determine whether a special education student can be satisfactorily educated in a general education environment, the following four factors must be evaluated and balanced:

1. the educational benefits available in the general education classroom, supplemented with appropriate aids and services;

2. the nonacademic benefits of interaction with children without disabilities;

3. the effect the student has on the teacher and children in the regular class; and

4. the costs of mainstreaming the student.

(Sacramento City Unified School Dist. v. Rachel H. (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398, 1403 (Rachel H.) [adopting factors identified in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Education (5th Cir. 1989) 874 F.2d 1036, 1048-1050].) Whether education in the regular classroom, with supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily is a fact-specific inquiry. (Daniel R.R., supra, 874 F.2d at p. 1048.) Mainstreaming is a term used to describe opportunities for disabled students to engage in activities with nondisabled students. (M.L. v. Federal Way School Dist. (9th Cir. 2005) 394 F.3d 634, 640, fn. 7.)

The Ninth Circuit determined the benchmark for measuring whether a student can be educated in a regular classroom is progress towards meeting their IEP academic goals, not achieving grade-level performance. (Redondo Beach, supra, 56 F.4th at pp. 644-645.) In Redondo Beach, the student made substantial progress toward the academic goals in his IEP. Specifically, the student met four of his six academic goals and made progress on the remaining two. The Ninth Circuit determined the student received significant academic benefit in his existing general education classroom and the general education placement was the appropriate, least restrictive placement. (Ibid.)

STUDENT RECEIVED EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

The first factor under Rachel H. considers the educational benefits of full-time placement in a regular classroom supplemented with appropriate aids and services, as compared with the educational benefits of the special education classroom. The evidence established Student received educational benefit in the general education classroom supplemented with specialized academic instruction, supports, accommodations, and modifications.

From December 13, 2023, to August 30, 2024, Student was in a special day class for English and math, and in a general education setting for all other academic subjects. Since then, until December 12, 2025, Student was in general education for all academic subjects.

During the 2024-2025 school year, Student took the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress in science, English, and math. Students take the California Science Test in grades five and eight, and once in high school. Students take the Smarter Balanced for English Language Arts/Literacy and Mathematics in grades three through eight, and eleven.

On the California Science Test, Student scored a 392, nearly meeting eighth-grade standard. A score of 415 or higher met grade-level standard. The school average was 395. Student scored only three points below the school average in science.

On the Smarter Balanced for English Language Arts/Literacy, Student scored a 2457 and did not meet eighth-grade standard. A score of 2567 or higher would meet grade-level standard. The school average was 2482. During the 2023-2024 school year, Student scored a 2376. From seventh to eighth grade, Student increased his score by 81 points.

On the Smarter Balanced for Mathematics, Student scored a 2421 and did not meet eighth-grade standards. A score of 2586 or higher would meet grade-level standard. The school average was 2458. During the 2023-2024 school year, Student scored a 2323. From seventh to eighth grade, Student increased his score by 98 points.

At the November 5, 2024 annual IEP team meeting, the IEP team reviewed Student’s annual academic goals. Student met one of three academic goals, and made progress on one: Student’s Annual Goal in Calculation stated: By October 26, 2024, given a hundreds chart and a multiplication table, Student can multiply whole numbers and relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used with at least 70 percent accuracy in three out of five trials as measured by student work samples and teacher records. Student met this goal. When given a hundreds chart and a multiplication table, Student was able to multiply whole numbers and relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used, with 100 percent accuracy in three out of five trials. Student utilized a multiplication chart and could also multiply problems such as “5 x 5,” “8 x 8,” “3 x 3,” and “9 x 8.”

Student’s Annual Goal in Reading and Decoding stated: By October 26, 2024, Student will read words including long and short vowel sounds as measured with 80 percent accuracy in three out of five trials as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records. Student’s baseline established he had a bank of sight words, but they were not categorized by phonemic sound or formation, so it was difficult to measure his phonemic awareness. Student made progress on this goal. While Student did not meet 80 percent accuracy in three out of five trials, Student reached 60 percent accuracy rate in three out of five trials. The IEP noted that Student was able to sound out one and two syllable words accurately, and could understand the content of grade-level text when read aloud via text-to-speech assistive technology, a teacher, or peer. Student also wrote in his daily journal without assistance.

Student’s Annual Goal in Composition, stated: By October 26, 2024, when given a writing assignment, Student will write an informative and explanatory sentence with accurate spelling and syntax as measured by student work samples and teacher-charted records on three out of five trials with 80 percent accuracy. Student’s baseline established that, when given a prompt, Student could write informative and explanatory sentences with nearly 80 percent accuracy in content, however, this did not include spelling and syntax. Including the latter factors, Student was closer to 50 percent accuracy. Student did not meet this goal. While Student responded to a prompt in a daily journal every day in the English language arts class, Student had trouble writing an informative and explanatory sentence with accurate spelling and syntax independently. Student could not form a complete sentence with accurate spelling and coherency.

Aside from the IEP goals, Student made progress in his academic classes. In Student’s eighth-grade general education math class, Student mastered identifying three types of transformations of geometric figures, angle sums, and exterior angles of triangles. Student also successfully applied transformations and identified new vertices on a polygon, and understood that a figure that undergoes a rigid transformation is congruent. Student could also dilate figures by multiplying the sides of different polygons and drawing the new dilated polygon.

In Student’s eighth-grade general education science class, Student successfully analyzed and interpreted data of a geoscience timescale, using text-to-speech assistive technology, on how organisms changed throughout Earth’s history, through extinctions, evolution, and repopulation. Student successfully communicated lab safety rules, with minor errors. Using speech-to-text and a lab partner, Student successfully identified a correct method and plan to drop an egg without breaking it. However, Student’s explanation missed key details on how the mechanism would be constructed. Student wrote a response in his notebook to the prompt “What does the fossil record show us about diversity and complexity of life on Earth?” but struggled to write a complete and topical response. Student could read a graph, but exhibited difficulty identifying all variables represented in the data.

In Student’s eighth-grade general education history class, Student understood and distinguished cause, effect, sequence, and correlation in historical events, including short-term and long-term causal relations. Student used a variety of maps and documents to identify physical and cultural features of neighborhoods, cities, states, and countries, and explain the historical migration of people, expansion and disintegration of empires, and the growth of economic systems. Student successfully constructed various timelines of key events, people, and periods of a historical era.

At the October 21, 2025 annual IEP team meeting, the IEP team reviewed Student’s annual goals. Student only met one of five academic goals. Student did not have a full year to work on his IEP goals. Gustine received consent on June 16, 2025 to implement the November 5, 2024 IEP goals. Student met one reading goal. Student demonstrated strong oral comprehension and the ability to cite relevant textual evidence with 99 percent accuracy when responding verbally to guided reading questions. Student’s prior baseline indicated that he struggled with reading comprehension, could not consistently identify or cite relevant textual evidence independently, and often missed key details or chose unrelated information.

Although Student met only one academic IEP goal, Student demonstrated progress in his academic classes. In Student’s ninth-grade general education English class, Student learned grade-level curriculum. Student presented a research project on human experiments during World War II. Student even received an award for his presentation. The education specialist modified the reading level of ninth-grade English assignments so that Student had access to grade-level content at Student’s third-grade reading level. Student correctly answered reading comprehension questions. For example, Student read a modified article about the quinceañera and correctly identified the “ethos” and “pathos” expressed in the article. The education specialist also modified vocabulary tests, reducing multiple-choice answers from four choices to two choices.

In ninth-grade general education math, Student worked on a modified curriculum, focusing more on the mastery of functional math concepts. Student worked on identifying and solving addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division functions. Student also worked on equations with negative numbers, specifically identifying the equation “-5 + 20” in his testimony. Student could identify the steps needed to solve an equation, and used supports, like a multiplication table, calculator, or teacher assistance to solve the math problem. Student did not rely on a calculator for one- and two-digit multiplication and division problems, but often utilized his supports for larger number operations. Student also learned concepts from grade-level curriculum. For example, Student plotted points on a graph to create a triangle and described, at hearing, the steps taken to graph a triangle.

In ninth-grade general education science, Student learned grade-level material. At hearing, Student described that he learned how strong animals survived in environments. Student testified and recalled an online assignment to “rule the world by rabbits,” which required Student to provide vitamins and food to strengthen the rabbits.

The IEP identified the following academic skills:

• Spanish: Student can copy notes in Spanish. He struggles with basic spelling and sounding out the sounds in Spanish. Student is able to stay on task but sometimes he struggles to follow directions. Instead of answering the warm-up questions on his paper he takes majority of the time writing the questions.

• Math: Student can describe translations at a beginning level.

• Skills Center: When scrambled words are read to him, Student does well unscrambling them to create a sentence. He does well keeping his planner daily and has learned how to calculate his GPA.

• Science: He can write his answers and reads well in class with assistance.

• English: He is able to copy work down, answer questions when modified or read aloud. He works best with direct support from staff, Student is willing to try and read. He often volunteers. Student had deficits in reading, writing, and math, which affected his performance in other academic classes, like spelling and reading in Spanish. Parents preferred placement in a special day class, particularly for reading and math. Even if a special day class placement were to confer more educational benefit to Student, by building strong foundational skills in reading, writing, and math, Gustine was not required to place Student in Parents’ preferred program if its proposed placement was adequate. (Gregory K., supra, 811 F.2d at p. 1314.)

Student’s academic functioning, in reading, writing, and math, was several grade levels below that of his general education peers. Student worked on the same assignments as his typical peers, as modified to his academic level. Typical peers read articles at a ninth-grade reading level, while Student read the same articles modified to a third-grade reading level. Student answered reading comprehension questions, as did typical peers. Like typical peers, Student took the grade-level vocabulary test every two weeks in ninth grade. Student’s tests were modified to present two multiple-choice answers, rather than four choices.

Typical peers solved algebraic equations without support. Student worked on first understanding basic algebraic concepts, such as an unknown variable, then identifying the arithmetic operations needed to isolate the unknown variable. Student used supports, such as a multiplication table or a calculator, when needed, to solve the equation.

Student’s state standardized science score reflected Student was almost at grade level in science. However, Student’s lower functioning in reading and writing affected his performance across all academic classes that required Student to read and write. Thus, Student utilized accommodations and modifications in all academic classes. Using supports, accommodations, and modifications, Student worked on grade-level assignments in science and history. Student’s favorite class in ninth grade was Spanish. Student also struggled with spelling and sounds in Spanish.

Student worked on grade-level content, modified to his reading, writing, and math level. Student demonstrated he could grasp grade-level concepts and learn grade-level content when assignments were modified to Student’s academic level with access to accommodations. Student met and made progress on academic goals. Student received educational benefit in the general education classroom, when provided supports, accommodations, and modifications to the program. Whether a child requires significant curricular modifications or support services is irrelevant to the first Rachel H. factor. (See Redondo Beach, supra, 56 F.4th at pp. 644-645.)

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated Student received educational benefit from the general education classroom. The first factor under Rachel H. weighed in favor of placement in general education.

STUDENT RECEIVED NONACADEMIC BENEFITS IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM

The second factor under Rachel H. considers the nonacademic benefits of placement in the regular classroom. The weight of the evidence showed Student received nonacademic benefits in the general education classroom. Student interacted age-appropriately with peers, participated in classroom activities, and engaged in group work with peers.

At the time of the November 5, 2024 IEP team meeting, when Student was in all general education classes, Student met both nonacademic goals. Student met his annual social-emotional goal. Student was able to recognize triggers and used a taught coping skill to help relieve anxiety. Student met his annual independent living goal. Student successfully identified the days of the week in sequence, from each day of the week forward, regardless of which day the sequence began, with 75 percent accuracy. Student previously could not independently identify the days of the week in sequence.

At the time of the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting, when Student was in all general education classes, Student met both nonacademic goals. Student met his annual mental health goal. Student was able to identify and use a learned coping skill to deescalate when experiencing feelings of anger during four out of five opportunities. When Student did not use a coping skill to deescalate, he was able to reflect on the situation with an adult and identify alternative and healthier options to regulate his emotions. Student met his annual social-emotional and behavior goal. When introduced to a frustrating situation, Student utilized appropriate coping skills and self-advocated during four out of five opportunities. The IEP noted that Student had great awareness of coping mechanisms that helped him. In counseling sessions, Student stated his plan of action and the coping mechanisms he would employ should he become overly frustrated. Student’s teachers non-specifically reported Student effectively employed coping strategies.

According to IEP documentation, assessment reports, and teacher testimony, Student was social and engaged in the general education setting. Student participated in classroom discussions, including in group discussions. Student independently communicated his thoughts and ideas. Student sought assistance from teachers and classroom aides, when needed. All of Student’s teachers, including Aguilar who believed Student should be in a special day class, testified that Student was eager to engage in the class. Student raised his hand when teachers asked questions, and responded aloud when called on. Student was talkative and outgoing. Student interacted age-appropriately with peers and adults, often initiating.

The Diagnostic Center conducted an observation in Student’s general education history class on August 27, 2024. There was one teacher and one instructional aide. Students were seated in collaborative work groups of four students. The teacher instructed students to discuss a specific topic amongst the group. Student joined the discussion and laughed and chatted with a peer seated next to him. Student was engaged and participated in the instruction, raising his hand each time the teacher asked questions and responded aloud when called on. At the end of the class period, students were instructed to turn in their assignments. Student turned in his assignment along with the work group peer’s assignment. Then, Student transitioned to a break period. Student walked with this peer and two other peers, and were observed talking and laughing amongst themselves.

The Diagnostic Center also observed Student in a special day class on August 27, 2024, prior to Student’s move to general education for all classes. The students worked on an assignment on a laptop. Student was observed to search YouTube during the assignment. After finishing the multiple-choice questions, Student called out to the teacher, “I’m finished. Now I can sleep.” This teacher also asked questions aloud, and Student raised his hand and correctly answered each time. However, he was the only one responding and stated, “I feel like no one is looking at the questions.”

Parents believed that general education classrooms were not socially or emotionally appropriate for Student, and placement in a special day class would benefit Student emotionally. Parents based this belief on their concerns that Student was bullied in the general education classrooms. However, Student testified that inappropriate social interactions ceased, apart from a few mean comments, after his sixth-grade year. Student recalled hearing whispers when he read aloud in class, during the seventh, eighth, and ninth grades, but stated that he ignored whispers and the whispering was not distracting to him. Student displayed emotional maturity. Student stated one particular group of peers called him names, but believed they were doing this to gain attention from others. Student explained that mean comments did not stop him from working toward his goals.

Placement in a special day class for all academic subjects would significantly reduce interactions with typical peers and provide no academic instruction with nondisabled peers. In the general education setting, Student met all his nonacademic IEP goals, initiated conversations with peers and teachers, engaged in classroom discussions, and overall interacted age-appropriately with peers and adults. Student displayed emotional maturity and provided thoughtful insight at hearing. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that Student received nonacademic benefit in the general education classroom. The second factor under Rachel H. weighed in favor of a general education placement.

STUDENT DID NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT HIS PEERS AND TEACHERS

The third factor considers the effect the child with a disability has on the teacher and children in the regular class. Student did not negatively impact his teacher and peers in the classroom.

Student’s teachers reported, in the November 5, 2024 IEP, that Student was a pleasure to have in class. Student’s seventh-grade general education history and science teachers commented “Pleasure to have in class” on Student’s seventh-grade report card. The October 21, 2025 IEP described Student as “smart and funny,” and “very helpful in class.” The IEP also documented that Student consistently followed rules and directions.

As discussed above, the evidence overwhelmingly established that Student appropriately participated in the class and engaged with his peers. Student exhibited appropriate emotional and social behavior in class and listened to teachers’ instructions. No IEP team member, including Parents, voiced any concerns about behaviors impeding the learning of others, at any point between December 13, 2023, and December 12, 2025.

Student responded well to redirection, quickly resumed focus, and required few redirections. Then-school psychologist Barco implemented Student’s counseling services during the 2023-2024 school year. Barco observed that Student was easily redirected and did not display any concerning trends of behavior. School psychologist Borges did not observe maladaptive behaviors, such as oppositional defiance, self-regulation, compliance, or refusal, during his counseling sessions with Student in the 2024-2025 school year. School psychologist Macias did not observe any behavioral concerns during the 2025-2026 school year, until December 12, 2025. Macias assessed Student and found many of Student’s attention and impulsivity concerns were manifestations of his disability, but observed that Student responded well to redirection.

Student’s seventh-grade science teacher testified that Student engaged in off-task behaviors, but required redirection only three to four times a week, and not during every class. Student’s ninth-grade math teacher recalled that Student did not require more redirection than other students in the class. Education specialist Aguilar testified that Student was distractible, did not pay attention in class, and was off-task 75 percent of the time, as a manifestation of his disability. Aguilar left Gustine in December 2024 and only worked with Student between August and December 2024. General education teachers’ reports in the IEP documents and testimony at hearing were more persuasive in establishing Student’s demeanor and behavior in the general education class.

In fact, Student testified that he did not like when other students did not follow classroom rules or acted immaturely. For example, Student explained that if peers acted rowdy, the entire class would have to take a pop quiz. It was distracting to Student when peers acted “goofy” or immaturely. Student displayed maturity and stated that he knew he could not control other people, so he “let them be, as human beings.” However, Student felt it was an insult to his own intelligence to be in classes with peers who displayed a level of immaturity that he did not observe from students in other grades.

Student accessed supports, accommodations, and program modifications, such as modified assignments, speech-to-text and text-to-speech assistive technology, read aloud, and a scribe. There was no evidence that Student’s presence or utilization of these supports negatively impacted, or burdened, the teachers. Student sought assistance from teachers and classroom aides, but the evidence did not show that Student was overly reliant on adult assistance such that teachers were negatively impacted, or unable to teach other students.

The preponderance of the evidence proved Student was not a distraction to teachers and peers. The third Rachel H. factor weighs in favor of a general education placement.

COST WAS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR

The fourth Rachel H. factor considers the cost of placing the child with a disability full-time in a regular classroom. Gustine did not discuss whether the costs of mainstreaming Student was a factor considered in offering a general education placement. Student offered Aguilar’s testimony that a one-to-one aide was denied due to funding.

Aguilar testified that, when he voiced his belief that Student could benefit from a one-to-one aide to Gustine staff, his interactions “would always be very negative” and the district personnel would say Gustine was “not going to pay for it.” Aguilar believed Gustine was “really against the idea of having one-to-one [aides] at the school.” Aguilar only discussed funding for a one-to-one aide, rather than costs in the context of mainstreaming Student.

Gustine argued that Aguilar was a first-year teacher, who worked for Gustine for about four months, and would have no personal knowledge on the funding availability of Gustine. Aguilar appeared to have a bias against Gustine based on his perception of employment issues due to his constant advocacy for his students and voicing concerns. Aguilar’s testimony regarding the costs of mainstreaming Student was not credible. Gustine had not argued that the costs of mainstreaming were so excessive that a segregated placement was necessary. (Daniel R.R., supra, 874 F.2d at pp. 1048-49, citing Roncker v. Walter (6th Cir. 1983) 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 [discussing cost is a proper factor to consider since excessive spending on one disabled student deprives other disabled students].) Gustine was a proponent of general education placement. None of the other witnesses testified about costs being a factor in the placement decision. No other IEP team meeting documents, or any other documentary evidence, supported a finding that Gustine considered costs when making the placement decision. Accordingly, the fourth factor under Rachel H. is neutral.

On balance, the Rachel H. factors weigh in favor of a general education placement. Student received educational benefit from full inclusion in general education, with the use of supplementary aids and services. Student could be satisfactorily educated in the general education environment. Gustine proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its offer of a general education setting constituted an appropriate placement offer. Student failed to prove that Gustine denied him a FAPE, between December 13, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer placement in a special day class for all academic subjects. Student did not prevail on Issue 5.

ISSUE 6A

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BETWEEN AUGUST 2024 AND DECEMBER 12, 2025, BY FAILING TO OFFER A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE?

Student contends he required a one-to-one aide to access general education because he struggled with inattention. Student contends Gustine failed to offer a one-to-one aide, denying him a FAPE, between August 2024 and December 12, 2025. Student generally asserted the time period at issue began in August 2024. Therefore, the timeframe analyzed will begin on August 14, 2024, the first day of the 2024-2025 school year.

Gustine contends it conducted a one-to-one aide assessment and determined that Student did not require one-to-one staff support to access his education. Gustine contends, at subsequent points after that, Student did not demonstrate any need for a one-to-one aide. Gustine argues that a one-to-one aide would be unnecessarily restrictive and, therefore, would render his placement not the least restrictive environment.

Student did not establish that he required a one-to-one aide. Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer a one-to-one aide.

As discussed in Issue 1D, school psychologist Barco assessed Student’s need for a one-to-one aide by conducting the October 26, 2023 special circumstances instructional assistance assessment. Barco found Student required redirection, prompting, and attention from teachers. However, Student followed adult direction well. Barco assessed mild to no concerns in all areas and determined Student did not require a one-to-one aide. The IEP team reviewed the report at the October 26, 2023 IEP team meeting and discussed that Student’s teachers and classroom aides would redirect Student, when needed.

There was extensive testimony presented at hearing by Student’s general education teachers in science and math and counseling service providers that Student was easily redirected in class, engaged with other students in an age-appropriate manner, and had independent and adaptive living skills. Student did not have health or medical needs that required one-to-one adult assistance. Student was able to use the bathroom, transition between classes, and engage during lunch and recess, without adult assistance.

At times in class, Student was unfocused, off-topic, and talkative with other students. However, Student did not require frequent redirection. For example, in Student’s seventh-grade science class, Student engaged in off-task behaviors that required redirection only three to four times a week. Student’s ninth-grade math teacher recalled that Student did not require more redirection than other students in the class. The evidence did not demonstrate that Student always needed a designated one-to-one aide beside Student to redirect his focus back to tasks. Student’s teachers and paraprofessionals sufficiently redirected Student.

Mother believed Student needed a one-to-one aide because he was not progressing academically. Education specialist Aguilar opined that Student needed a one-to-one aide once he moved into a full-inclusion general education setting, as Student needed books to be read aloud and to be prompted in math. Aguilar did not explain how this level of support was different from the co-teaching model of Student’s English language arts and math classes, the specialized academic instruction Student received through his IEP, or the Skills Center class or intervention period built into Student’s class schedule. Aguilar taught Student for three and a half months and observed Student in a general education setting for less than three months, before Gustine had Thanksgiving break and Aguilar left Gustine. Aguilar did not interact with Student after leaving the district. No other teacher endorsed Aguilar’s opinion. On the other hand, Student’s science teacher, math teacher, education specialist, mental health clinician, and three school psychologists, observed Student in general education for at least one school year, and persuasively established Student’s adjustment to a general education setting and needs in such a setting. None opined that Student required a one-to-one aide in his general education classes.

Father testified regarding his concerns with Student’s ability to be independent. At home, Father continuously kept an eye on Student, as Father did not believe Student had safety awareness. For example, Student could grab a knife without care, when assisting Father in the kitchen. Father gave Student step-by-step instructions and did not leave Student to act on his own. In the morning, Parents woke Student up and reminded him to get dressed. Father did not believe that Student understood the elements of an outfit; for example, wearing a hooded sweatshirt without a shirt underneath, mismatching socks, or wearing shorts in cold weather. Father assisted in Student’s morning routine to get ready for school. Father explained that it was difficult for Student to first learn the routine, but Student was now not opposed to the routine. Father provided insight into the assistance Student received at home. However, Father’s testimony did not establish that Student was unable to complete these tasks on his own, without assistance, or explain how Student’s access to education was impeded, such that Student required a one-to-one aide during the school day. Father did not have background, training, or experience in education and did not qualify to provide expert opinions in this regard. Father’s lay opinion did not establish that Student had a need for one-to-one aide services to access his education.

Parents were concerned about bullying at school and, therefore, believed Student required a one-to-one aide to be safe. This was also Parents’ reason for initially requesting the October 26, 2023 special circumstances instructional assistance assessment. Student testified that one student in particular, and his group of friends, called him names. Student offered insight that these students acted out in this way to gain attention from others. Student testified generally that he faced inappropriate social interactions in middle school. However, after his sixth-grade year, the 2022-2023 school year, these interactions ceased, apart from a few mean comments. Student displayed emotional maturity and stated, “but that’s never stopped me. It’s never stopped me to reach my goal […] to have a business.” Student also recalled hearing whispers from fellow students when he read aloud in class, during his seventh, eighth, and ninth-grade years, but this was not distracting to him and he ignored the whispers. Between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, the evidence did not show that Student was either unsafe in his educational environment or unable to socially engage with peers, such that he required a one-to-one aide.

Furthermore, the evidence did not show that Student’s needs in health and personal care, behavior, instruction, or inclusion and mainstreaming changed since the October 26, 2023 special circumstances instructional assistance assessment was conducted. In fact, at the March 28, 2025 IEP team meeting, Mother specifically clarified that she did not want a one-to-one aide for Student, but for Student to receive reading and math instruction in a separate setting.

Student did not meet his burden of persuasion that he required a one-to-one aide, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, to access general education. Student did not establish that he had needs in health and personal care, behavior, instruction, or inclusion and mainstreaming, such that he required a one-to-one aide. Although Student engaged in off-task behaviors, such as being unfocused, talking with fellow students, or discussing off-topic topics, Student was easily redirected and also did not require frequent redirection. Student did not establish that he was either unsafe in his educational environment or was unable to socially engage with peers, such that he required a one-to-one adult assistant present with him during the school day. Student was reported to engage age-appropriately with peers, was friendly, and engaged in group activities in class. Student was able to use the bathroom, transition between classes, engage during lunch and recess, without adult assistance.

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer a one-to-one aide. Student did not prevail on Issue 6A.

ISSUE 6B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE, BETWEEN AUGUST 2024 AND DECEMBER 12, 2025, BY FAILING TO OFFER PUSH-IN OR PULL-OUT RESOURCE SPECIALIST PROGRAM SUPPORT?

Student contends Gustine failed to offer push-in or pull-out resource specialist program support to assist him to access the general education curriculum, since August 2024. Student argues he required direct support services for a finite time, optimally the entire class period, to provide instruction due to low academic reading level, low auditory comprehension, low mathematics skills, and limited attention span.

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.

Gustine contends push-in or pull-out services were in place through the specialized academic instruction offered in Student’s IEPs. Gustine contends Student had push-in or pull-out services to support Student on inclusion and progress on his goals.

The parties referred to services as being push-in or pull-out to refer to services provided within the general education setting and in a separate setting, respectively.

Student did not establish that he required a resource specialist program. Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer push-in or pull-out resource specialist program support.

The resource specialist program is authorized by statute. (Ed. Code, §§ 56361, subd. (b), 56362.) The resource specialist program provides:

• Instruction and services for those students with IEPs who are assigned to regular classroom teachers for a majority of a school day;

• Information and assistance to students and parents;

• Consultation, resource information, and material for parents and staff members;

• Coordination of special education services with regular school programs;

• Monitoring of student progress and review and revision of IEPs; and

• Emphasis at the secondary school level on academic achievement, career and vocational development, and preparation for adult life. (Ed. Code, §56362, subd. (a).) Resource specialist programs must be under the direction of a resource specialist who is a credentialed special education teacher, or who has a clinical services credential with a special class authorization. (Ed. Code, § 56362, subd. (b).)

Pursuant to Student’s IEPs dated October 26, 2023, November 5, 2024, and October 21, 2025, Student was entitled to 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week provided by an education specialist, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025. Gustine’s Assistant Superintendent Lisa Filippini explained that the term resource specialist was no longer used, and the term was now education specialist. The assigned education specialist served as Student’s case manager and consulted with Student’s general education teachers weekly. Assistant Superintendent of Special Education for Merced County Special Education Local Plan Area Dr. Laura Fong explained that, generally, specialized academic instruction at Gustine was provided by a special education teacher, but a paraprofessional with oversight by a special education teacher may also provide specialized academic instruction.

Student argued push-in or pull-out resource specialist program was necessary because he required direct support and explanation of topics due his low reading, comprehension, and math skills, compounded by off-task behaviors and limited attention span. However, Student did not establish that Gustine did not offer those services, such that Student specifically required a resource specialist program to receive a FAPE. Gustine offered 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week provided by an education specialist. Student’s general education math and general education English language arts classes were co-taught by a general education teacher and a special education teacher. The special education teacher instructed Student in a small group with other students or individually, as needed. Student sought assistance, when needed, and the general education teacher, special education teacher, or paraprofessional provided support. Student’s teachers redirected Student when he engaged in off-task behaviors, and Student followed adult direction well. Student’s IEPs offered accommodations, supports, and program modifications for Student to access his curricula. Student’s class schedule included an intervention period, or a Skills Center class, with an education specialist, which was a separate smaller group setting to receive additional academic supports and work on IEP goals.

Student did not comprehensively explain in his closing brief, or at hearing, how he required the level of support offered by a resource specialist program, that he did not receive through his current IEP services. It is not the ALJ’s responsibility to construct or develop Student’s argument. (Independent Towers of Washington v. Washington (9th Cir. 2003) 350 F.3d 925, 929 [the court cannot construct arguments for a party and will only examine issues specifically and distinctly argued in a party’s brief] (Independent Towers); see Kraim v. Virginia, et al. (S.D.W. Va. July 26, 2021, No. 3:21-cv-00326) 2021 WL 3612305, at *7 [“[J]udges are not pigs searching for truffles,” and not required to be “mind readers.”]; Agarwal v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company (D. Nev. January 18, 2013, No. 2:11–cv–01384–LDG) 2013 WL 211093, at *3 [“[I]t is not the responsibility of the judiciary ‘to sift through scattered papers in order to manufacture arguments for the parties.’”].)

Student did not present evidence demonstrating the need for either push-in or pull-out resource specialist program that was different from the services that Student was offered in his IEPs. Student did not present evidence that the specialized academic instruction or the services the education specialist provided were insufficient or inappropriate, such that Student required a resource specialist program. Furthermore, as determined in Issue 5, Student’s general education placement, with embedded specialized academic instruction, a Skills Center class or intervention period, and related services, accommodations, and modifications, constituted an appropriate placement. Student did not present evidence establishing that he required the level of support that would be provided from a resource specialist program that Student did not receive from his current IEP services.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was denied a FAPE, between August 14, 2024, and December 12, 2025, because Gustine did not offer push-in or pull-out resource specialist program support. Student did not prevail on Issue 6B.

ISSUE 7A-7C

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE, THROUGH DECEMBER 12, 2025, BY MATERIALLY FAILING TO IMPLEMENT SPECIALIZED ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION, AS IDENTIFIED IN THE IEPS DATED

OCTOBER 26, 2023, NOVEMBER 5, 2024, AND OCTOBER 21, 2025?

Student contends he did not receive the push-in instruction as indicated in the October 26, 2023 IEP, and did not receive the specialized academic instruction in general education as prescribed in the November 5, 2024 and October 21, 2025 IEPs.

Gustine contends Student received specialized academic instruction in conformance with his IEPs and received the minutes he was offered in full.

Gustine materially failed to implement specialized academic instruction pursuant to the October 26, 2023 IEP, thereby denying Student a FAPE.

As soon as possible after the development of an IEP, the district must make special education and related services available to the student in accordance with that IEP. (34 C.F.R. § 300.323(c) (2006).) Where a student alleges a FAPE denial based on an IEP implementation failure, the student must prove that the failure was “material,” which means that the services provided to a disabled child fall “significantly short of the services required by the child’s IEP.” (Van Duyn v. Baker School Dist. 5J (9th Cir. 2007) 502 F.3d 811, 822.) No statutory requirement of perfect adherence to the IEP exists, nor is there any reason rooted in the statutory text to view minor implementation failures as FAPE denials. (Id. at p. 821.) “A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child’s IEP.” (Id. at p. 815.) A material failure to implement an IEP constitutes a substantive violation of the IDEA. (Id. at pp. 819-823.)

The October 26, 2023 IEP offered Student 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week in a group setting. Student would receive 530 minutes of specialized academic instruction in a special education class for English language arts and math. Student would receive 420 minutes of push-in specialized academic instruction in the general education science and history classes. Parents consented, with an exception, to this IEP on December 13, 2023. Parents did not agree with the change to Student’s primary eligibility.

The November 5, 2024 IEP offered Student 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week in a group setting. The IEP indicated that these service minutes would be implemented from October 15, 2023, through October 26, 2024, in the general education setting. This timeframe appeared to be a typographical error, as the meeting notes indicated that the service minutes were for the 2024-2025 school year. Parents consented, with exceptions, to this IEP on June 16, 2025. Parents agreed to the FAPE offer, except they did not agree that Gustine offered Student a FAPE, specifically regarding the change to the specialized academic instruction being provided all in the general education setting. It was unclear whether Parents were not consenting to the change, or if they consented to the change but were noting that they did not agree the change constituted a FAPE. Student did not explain which was Parents’ intent. However, this Decision construed Parents’ signature as consent because the IEP was implemented and neither party presented evidence regarding a lack of consent. The November 5, 2024 IEP became Student’s effective IEP on June 16, 2025.

The October 21, 2025 IEP offered Student 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week in a group setting. Student would receive all specialized academic instruction with support in the general education setting. Parents consented to this IEP on November 4, 2025.

The parties, by stipulation, entered delivered service logs into evidence, but specifically noted that these logs were not being presented to establish the truth of the matters asserted in the logs. The parties, by stipulation, presented these service logs only to show that the copies presented were the copies that Gustine provided to Student’s counsel pursuant to a records request, which was not an issue in this matter.

Parents did not believe 950 minutes of weekly specialized academic instruction were being implemented, pursuant to Student’s IEPs. Mother testified that she did not receive a full explanation from Gustine’s IEP team members about how the 950 minutes were implemented weekly. Mother recalled that the IEP team members stated the minutes would be implemented during Student’s class periods, but that they did not specify what time and which periods. Mother’s belief that Student’s specialized academic instruction minutes were not materially implemented was based partly upon her belief that had Student received all the minutes he was entitled to, he would be advancing more academically. Mother also based her opinion on Student expressing to her that people did not have time to help him in class.

There was no persuasive evidence presented that Student did not receive 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week during the 2023-2024 school year, beginning on December 13, 2023, in conformance with the October 26, 2023 IEP.

However, Gustine materially failed to implement specialized academic instruction in the prescribed setting during the 2024-2025 school year. From December 13, 2023, to June 16, 2025, the October 26, 2023 IEP was Student’s effective IEP. Pursuant to this IEP, Student would receive 530 minutes of specialized academic instruction in the special education class for English language arts and math, and 420 minutes of push-in specialized academic instruction in the science and history classes. Until August 30, 2024, Student was in a special day class for English language arts and math. Then, Gustine changed Student’s placement to all general education classes, as Gustine dissolved its special day classes. At this time, Parents had yet to consent to a change to Student’s specialized academic instruction setting. Gustine did not implement any specialized academic instruction minutes in an English language arts or math special day class, as was offered in the October 26, 2023 IEP.

When a parent refuses to consent to a new or revised IEP, a district must continue to implement the student's previously agreed-upon program. The student is entitled to remain in his current educational placement, until the dispute is resolved. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).) This is referred to as “stay put.” The current educational placement is typically the last agreed upon and IEP. (L.M. ex rel. Sam M. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2009) 556 F.3d 900, 902; Johnson v. Special Educ. Hearing Office (9th Cir. 2002) 287 F.3d 1176, 1180 (Johnson); Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.) The definition of educational placement is not an exact one, rather it is a combination of different factors. (Johnson, at p. 1182.) In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).) When a district closes a program, the student must be offered a “comparable program” as stay put. (S.A. ex rel. L.A. v. Exeter Union School District 2010 WL 4942539, No. CV F 10-347 LJO SMS, Nov. 24, 2010, p. 18; see also Tilton by Richards v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1983) 705 F.2d 800, 805.)

Until Parents consented to the November 5, 2024 IEP, on June 16, 2025, Student was entitled to receive special education and related services in conformance with the October 26, 2023 IEP. Student was entitled to partially receive specialized academic instruction in a special day class pursuant to the October 26, 2023 IEP, until June 16, 2025, when Parents consented to all specialized academic instruction minutes being provided in the general education setting. Gustine dissolved its special day classes at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year. Student moved to general education for all classes on September 3, 2024. Gustine was required to offer Student a comparable program, after the dissolution of its special day classes. Gustine did not present evidence that implementation of specialized academic instruction in the general education setting was a comparable program to its implementation in a special day class. Gustine did not present evidence that it implemented specialized academic instruction in another comparable setting. Gustine did not present evidence that the change in setting for the provision of 530 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week constituted material implementation.

While service logs were presented, they were not submitted to establish how many minutes of specialized academic instruction Student received pursuant to his three IEPs. Neither party persuasively established that Student did or did not receive 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week. However, it was Student’s burden to prove that he did not receive the minutes to which he was entitled. Student did not show that Gustine did not materially implement 420 minutes of specialized academic instruction in the general education setting pursuant to the October 26, 2023 IEP, or 950 minutes of specialized academic instruction pursuant to the November 5, 2024 and October 21, 2025 IEPs.

Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Gustine materially failed to implement 530 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week in the prescribed setting, in conformance with the October 26, 2023 IEP, during the 2024-2025 school year, from September 3, 2024, when Student began attending all general education classes. Student did not prove that Gustine materially failed to implement the other 420 minutes of specialized academic instruction per week. Gustine denied Student a FAPE from September 3, 2024, through June 6, 2025. Student prevailed on Issue 7A.

Student did not present any evidence that the November 5, 2024 IEP was not materially implemented from June 16, 2025, through November 4, 2025, or that the October 21, 2025 IEP was not materially implemented from November 4, 2025, to December 12, 2025. Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gustine denied Student a FAPE by materially failing to implement specialized academic instruction in conformance with the November 5, 2024 IEP or the October 21, 2025 IEP. Student did not prevail on Issues 7B and 7C.

ISSUE 8A

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENTS’ ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN GUSTINE FAILED TO ISSUE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO PARENTS’ REQUESTS FOR PLACEMENT IN A SPECIAL DAY CLASS?

Student contends Gustine failed to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request to place Student in a special day class, at the November 5, 2024 IEP team meeting and multiple times throughout the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years.

Gustine contends it had no obligation to issue prior written notice because the IEP team discussed its placement offer at Student’s IEP team meeting, the change in placement was heavily discussed, and Parents consented to the change.

Gustine did not significantly impede Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process, during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years, by failing to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for placement in a special day class.

The IDEA contains numerous procedural safeguards that are designed to protect the rights of disabled children and their parents. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415.) Compliance with the IDEA’s procedural safeguards “is essential to ensuring that every eligible child receives a FAPE, and those procedures which provide for meaningful parent participation are particularly important. . . . Procedural violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process undermine the very essence of the IDEA.” (Antelope Valley, supra, 858 F.3d at p. 1195, citing Amanda J. v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 891, 892 (Amanda J.).)

A school district must provide prior written notice to parents of a child with a disability whenever the school district proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a FAPE to a child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503 (2006); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd. (a).) The purpose of the prior written notice requirement is to ensure that “parents of a child with a disability are both notified of decisions affecting their child and given the opportunity to object to these decisions.” (C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist. (3rd Cir. 2010) 606 F.3d 59, 70 (Cape Henlopen).)

Failure to provide prior written notice is “harmless” if it does “not result in a loss of educational opportunity or significantly restrict parental participation.” (Marcus I. v. Dept of Educ. (9th Cir. 2014) 583 Fed. Appx. 753, 755 (nonpub. opn.); see also J.P. ex rel. Popowitz v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (C.D.Cal. Feb. 16, 2011 No. CV 09-01083 MMM (MANx)) 2011 WL 12697384 (finding plaintiffs were not prejudiced by the failure to provide prior written notice because “the parents were active participants in the IEP meeting and contributed to and acquiesced in the conclusions reached and recommendations made.”).) When a failure to give proper prior written notice does not actually impair parental knowledge or participation, the violation is not a substantive harm under the IDEA. (Cape Henlopen, supra, 606 F.3d at p. 70.)

At the November 20, 2024 IEP team meeting, Mother asked questions about who would be teaching Student and how he would be provided the specialized academic instruction. The IEP team discussed that both a general education teacher and an education specialist would teach Student in his classes, and that Student’s special education services would be embedded in the general education setting.

At the December 3, 2024 IEP team meeting, Mother expressed concern about Student’s placement. Mother asked how Student would be taught at Student’s individual level in the general education setting if general education classes were taught at grade level. Mother voiced that Student’s prior placement in a special day class was more appropriate. Director of Special Education Nicholas Freitas explained that Gustine moved to full inclusion for students with disabilities and special day classes at Gustine were dissolved. The IEP team discussed available services and supports and explained that programs and tools were used to modify the curriculum to Student’s reading level. The IEP team discussed how Student would be supported in the general education setting, in response to Mother’s concerns about addressing both academic and emotional aspects of supporting Student in education.

At the March 28, 2025 IEP team meeting, Mother asked the IEP team to explain the meaning of a least restrictive environment. Freitas explained the least restrictive environment. Mother asked about the supports available in Student’s English and math classes. The IEP team explained Student’s program modifications and that general education teachers, special education teachers, and paraeducators were available in the classrooms to support students. At this meeting, Mother requested a special day class placement option, then specified that she sought for Student to be pulled out for reading and math. Freitas explained all sites had moved to an inclusive setting. The IEP team discussed inclusion, supports, and an intervention period. Mother asked questions about the intervention period and Father requested additional support in an after-school program. The IEP team explained that the intervention period was a separate smaller group setting, with approximately seven students, to receive additional supports and work on IEP goals. The IEP team discussed an appropriate placement option, and the meeting was continued to May 6, 2025. At the May 6, 2025 IEP team meeting, the IEP team continued to discuss full inclusion and the special education supports and services Student would receive in the general education classrooms.

At the October 21, 2025 IEP team meeting, Mother asked questions about the least restrictive environment, which was explained by school psychologist Macias. The IEP team reconvened on November 4, 2025, and continued discussing the services, supports, accommodations, and modifications that Student would receive in the general education setting with a pull-out Skills Center class.

Parents testified they did not recall receiving prior written notice from Gustine regarding its refusal to place Student in a special day class. Gustine did not offer any persuasive evidence that it issued prior written notice. Gustine’s failure to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request was a procedural violation. Nothing in the Act or the supporting regulations prohibit a public agency from using an IEP as part of the prior written notice, so long as the documents the parents receive meet all the requirements in 34 Code of Federal Regulations, section 300.503. (71 Fed. Reg. 46,691 (2006).) However, Gustine did not intend to use either the November 5, 2024 or October 21, 2025 IEPs as prior written notice and made no such arguments that the IEP documents satisfied the requirements of prior written notice. (See Loewen v. Berryhill (9th Cir. 2017) 707 Fed. Appx. 907, 908 (nonpub. opn.), citing Carmickle v. Commissioner (9th Cir. 2008) 533 F.3d 1155, 1161, fn. 2 [the court is not required to address arguments made without specificity]; see also, Independent Towers, supra, 350 F.3d at p. 929 [a court cannot manufacture arguments for a party].)

Gustine’s failure to issue prior written notice did not significantly impede Parents’ participation in the decision-making process. At least six IEP team meetings were held that discussed Parents’ request and Gustine’s position. Gustine explained why it offered a general education setting with inclusion support for Student, and the basis for its refusal to place Student in a special day class. Gustine offered to read the procedural safeguards at the beginning of each IEP team meeting, and read the safeguards to Parents, except when Parents specifically declined. The IEP team considered and discussed Parents’ request for alternative placement options, and described why Gustine refused to place Student in a special day class.

Parents participated in the IEP team meetings and engaged in lengthy discussions with the other IEP team members. Parents were knowledgeable about the reasons for Gustine’s refusal to place Student in a special day class. Gustine’s failure to issue prior written notice was not a substantive harm. Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Student was denied a FAPE during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years because Gustine failed to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for placement in a special day class. Student did not prevail on Issue 8A.

ISSUE 8B

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENTS’ ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN GUSTINE FAILED TO ISSUE PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE IN RESPONSE TO PARENTS’ REQUESTS FOR A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE?

Student contends Parents requested a one-to-one aide at the November 5, 2024 and October 21, 2025 IEP team meetings, and multiple additional times, but Gustine failed to issue prior written notice.

Gustine contends Parents did not make a request for a one-to-one aide other than the request that led to the October 26, 2023 special circumstances instructional assistance assessment. Therefore, Gustine argues it had no obligation to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request because it agreed to conduct an assessment.

Gustine did not significantly impede Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process, during the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years, by failing to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for a one-to-one aide.

Pursuant to the November 5, 2024 IEP notes, “one-to-one” was first mentioned at the March 28, 2025 IEP team meeting, in the context of Mother stating her belief that Student should receive reading and math instruction in a separate setting. Mother expressed that Parents had observed Student to “learn more when we have one-to-one.” Father explained that a family friend worked with Student individually after school at home. Following this, the IEP team discussed the least restrictive environment and the benefits of inclusion instead of a pull-out model. Mother then stated that she would like an alternative placement for Student if a one-to-one was not provided. An advocate explained the circumstances where a one-to-one aide may be needed for a student. Then Mother clarified that she did not want Student to have a one-to-one aide, but desired Student to be pulled out for reading and math. Special day class placement or specialized academic instruction provided individually, rather than in a group setting, was different from a one-to-one aide service.

At the January 9, 2025 IEP team meeting, Mother requested that an individual be present to assist Student should technical difficulties arise, such as when Student used speech-to-text technology on his computer. Special education instruction coach Perry informed Mother that Student’s case manager and instructional aides would assist Student in the classroom.

At hearing, Mother testified that she asked for a one-to-one aide more than twice, between 2023 and 2025, at an IEP team meeting. Mother did not provide more specific information regarding the time period. Mother testified that she raised her belief that Student was bullied at school and was not progressing academically, and requested a one-to-one aide for these concerns. During the statutory period between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, the IEP team meeting notes did not corroborate Mother’s testimony. Freitas testified that he issued prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for a one-to-one aide at some time in 2024 or 2025, but did not recall a date. Gustine did not submit a copy of the purported prior written notice letter into evidence. Mother did not recall whether she received prior written notice responding to a request for a one-to-one aide. Throughout her testimony, Mother struggled to recall specific dates and years to establish a clear and accurate timeline of events, or remember documents that she did or did not receive. Mother’s testimony that she did not recall whether she received prior written notice did not persuasively rebut Freitas testimony that he issued one.

Testimony was vague as to when a one-to-one aide was requested and when prior written notice was issued in response. The IEP team meeting notes did not corroborate that a one-to-one aide was requested at an IEP team meeting. However, Mother’s and Freitas’ testimonies agreed that Parents requested a one-to-one aide at some point in 2024 or 2025. Student did not present persuasive evidence that Gustine did not issue prior written notice.

Even assuming that Gustine did not issue prior written notice, it was Student’s burden of proof to further establish that the failure to issue prior written notice significantly impeded Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process. Student did not present evidence that Parents could not effectively participate in the IEP process. Multiple IEP team meetings were held, where the team discussed individual and group instruction, and explained the assistance built into the classroom setting, such as instructional aides, to support Student. Parents had the opportunity at the IEP team meetings to present their position on the benefits of individual instruction. Student failed to meet his burden of persuasion that Gustine significantly impeded Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process, thereby denying Student a FAPE, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ request for a one-to-one aide. Student did not prevail on Issue 8B.

ISSUE 8C

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENTS’ ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN GUSTINE FAILED TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE SPANISH LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION AT IEP TEAM MEETINGS?

Student contends Gustine relied on unqualified interpreters at the November 5, 2024 and October 21, 2025 IEP team meetings, resulting in inadequate interpretation of the IEP team meetings. Student argues this impeded Parents’ ability to meaningfully participate at the IEP team meetings.

Gustine contends an adequate interpreter was provided at all of Student’s IEP team meetings. Gustine contends each interpreter provided by Gustine was appropriate and adequate to provide Spanish interpretation to Parents and English interpretation to Gustine staff.

The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to participate in IEP team meetings. (34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a) & (b) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56500.4, 56341, subd. (b), 56341.5, subds. (a), (b).) Among the most important procedural safeguards are those that protect the parents’ “right to be involved in the development of their child’s educational plan.” (Amanda J., supra, 267 F.3d at p. 882.) Parents have meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when they are informed of the child’s problems, attend the IEP meeting, express disagreement regarding the IEP team’s conclusions, and request revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox County Schools (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693; Fuhrmann, supra, 993 F.2d at p. 1036 [a parent who has an opportunity to discuss a proposed IEP and whose concerns are considered by the IEP team has participated in the IEP process in a meaningful way].) Local educational agencies “shall take any action necessary to ensure that the parent or guardian understands the proceedings at a meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents or guardians . . . whose native language is other than English.” (Ed. Code, § 56341.5, subd. (i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(e) (2006).)

Assistant Superintendent Filippini oversaw student services, including interpretation, and collaborated with Mario Madrigal, who supervised and trained the interpreters. Each school site had a bilingual community liaison and the district office had two interpreters. Filippini explained each bilingual community liaison completed a selection process at the district office and were properly trained to interpret from English to Spanish and from Spanish to English. None of the interpreters testified.

Gustine held IEP team meetings on November 5, and 20, and December 3, 2024, and January 9, March 28, and May 6, 2025, to develop the November 5, 2024 IEP. Bilingual liaison Claudia Medina was present to provide interpretation at all the meetings, except on May 6, 2025, when bilingual liaison Lisa Esparza was present. At the January 9, 2025 meeting, Parents expressed dissatisfaction about the interpretation. Father expressed that the interpreter relayed what Parents stated, but did not capture the nuance or meaning behind their statements. On March 28, 2025, Parents were accompanied by Sandra Meza from Healthy House to provide interpretation. At each of the six meetings, Parents were active participants. Parents provided input and updates on Student. Parents expressed their concerns about Student’s educational program. Mother asked pointed questions about Student’s goals and services. Mother asked clarification questions. Parents signed consent with exceptions to the IEP. Parents attached a lengthy letter dated June 16, 2025, to the consent page disagreeing that the IEP offer constituted a FAPE, specifically the change to Student’s specialized academic instruction setting. Parents described their disagreement with the change of Student’s placement to full inclusion in a general education setting, the nonspecificity of the IEP regarding the class periods Student would work on IEP goals, and the lack of special day classes. Parents expressed their concern that Student’s academics would be negatively impacted.

Gustine held IEP team meetings on October 21, and November 4, 2025, to develop the October 21, 2025 IEP. Esparza was present on October 21, 2025. Two advocates also attended. On October 21, 2025, the IEP team reviewed the psychoeducational assessment conducted by school psychologist Macias. Macias was bilingually fluent in Spanish and drafted a Spanish version of the psychoeducational assessment report. Macias confirmed that an interpreter read the Spanish report to Parents and correctly interpreted the IEP team meeting. The IEP team also reviewed a health assessment report, academic assessment report, and therapy assessment report. Parents provided input throughout the presentations and asked questions. Macias proposed a mood regulation and reasoning goal, and Parents agreed with the proposal.

It was unclear from the IEP document whether a Gustine bilingual liaison was present on November 4, 2025. Two advocates attended. The IEP team reviewed Student’s standardized testing results, present levels of performance, and annual goals. Mother provided input and asked questions. The IEP team discussed new goals and Mother was an active participant in crafting the annual goals. On November 20, 2025, Parents communicated about a daily log, and this was added as a program accommodation to the IEP.

Parents were dissatisfied with the quality of Gustine’s interpreters. Mother testified that sometimes an IEP team member would speak at length in English, and the Spanish interpretation would be brief. However, Mother did not offer specific testimony pointing to the inappropriateness of the interpretation. Even assuming Gustine’s interpreters did not dutifully interpret the full contents of the IEP team meetings, Gustine’s failure to provide appropriate interpretation was a procedural violation. Such a violation only constitutes a substantive denial of FAPE if it seriously impeded Parents’ ability to participate in the IEP process. Here, Parents actively participated in the IEP team meetings, convened multiple meetings, and asked numerous questions and provided input discussing Student’s social and emotional well-being, education, and IEP accommodations, services, and goals. Parents were also accompanied by advocates. The evidence established that Parents understood the proceedings of the meeting.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gustine significantly impeded Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process, thereby denying Student a FAPE, by failing to provide appropriate Spanish language interpretation at IEP team meetings, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Student did not prevail on Issue 8C.

ISSUE 8D

DID GUSTINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY SIGNIFICANTLY IMPEDING PARENTS’ ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS WHEN GUSTINE FAILED TO TRANSLATE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING IEPS AND ASSESSMENT REPORTS, INTO SPANISH?

Student contends IEP documents were provided without full translation and some assessment reports were provided only in English. Student argues this impeded Parents’ meaningful participation in the development of Student’s IEPs and their ability to give informed consent to the IEPs.

Gustine contends all IEPs and assessment reports were translated into Spanish.

California has clarified that the obligation to ensure that a parent or guardian understands the proceedings extends to the IEP documents themselves, which must be provided to the parent in his or her primary language upon request. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3040; see Ed. Code, § 56341.5, subd. (i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(e) (2006).) The Office of Special Education Programs of the United States Department of Education has stated that the IDEA and corresponding regulations do not require translations of IEP documents, although providing such translations may help demonstrate in some circumstances that non-English speaking parents have been fully informed of the services the IEP offers. (Letter to Boswell (OSEP 2007) 49 IDELR 196; City of Chicago School District 299 (Ill State Educational Agency 2010) 110 LRP 36565; In re: Student with a Disability (NM State Educational Agency 2011) 111 LRP 39015.)

The following documents were translated into Spanish:

• October 26, 2023 IEP

• November 5, 2024 IEP

• August 19, 2025 assessment plan, proposing the three-year psychoeducational reassessment

• October 6, 2025 education specialist report

• October 15, 2025 therapy assessment report

• October 21, 2025 psychoeducational assessment report The October 21, 2025 IEP document only had one paragraph translated in Spanish, describing how Student’s disability affected his involvement and progress in general education. The rest of the IEP was in English. Neither party presented a copy of the October 21, 2025 IEP that was in Spanish.

Parents were dissatisfied that the translations were often provided in the same IEP document. The Spanish translations would immediately follow the English language paragraph, and the translations would be contained on the same page. Parents preferred an English copy and a separate translated copy of the IEP documents. Parents complained that the translations were slow, not in the format they requested, and not provided in an “organized manner.” However, the IDEA does not require Gustine to provide documents that perfectly adhere to Parents’ preferred formatting.

Although Parents were not evasive and did not appear dishonest, Parents were not credible historians. Parents were unpersuasive in establishing that they did not receive fully translated documents. Parents struggled to recall specifics when asked about documents. Mother testified she did not receive all of the November 5, 2024 IEP pages in Spanish, but did not recall which pages were in Spanish. Mother testified she received the first few pages of the October 21, 2025 IEP in Spanish, but did not recall whether the rest of the pages were in Spanish. Father did not recall whether they received the October 26, 2023 IEP or the November 5, 2024 IEP in Spanish. When presented with various documents, Parents’ answers mostly consisted of “I don’t remember.”

Mother’s testimony lacked credibility. For example, Perry attended four IEP team meetings as an IEP team member to develop the November 4, 2025 IEP. Perry was also present to develop the October 26, 2023 IEP. Perry directly answered Mother’s questions at the IEP team meetings. However, Mother did not remember Perry. Although outside of the statutory period and not at issue, Mother also testified that she had no recollection of receiving the October 13, 2023 therapy assessment in Spanish. According to the October 26, 2023 IEP team meeting notes, Mother asked whether the therapy assessment report was available in Spanish, and one was printed for Parents at the meeting.

Moreover, Parents testified that they did not recall receiving IEPs in Spanish, while also testifying that they received Spanish translations and were dissatisfied that the translations were contained on the same page, rather than in a separate document. They testified that they did not recall receiving the translated documents, but also recalled specifically that Gustine took many months to provide a translated copy of IEPs to Parents. Parents’ testimonies were contradictory.

Parents were monolingual Spanish speakers and had a limited ability to speak, understand, and write in English. Gustine provided a Spanish language interpreter at each of Student’s IEP team meetings to interpret all discussions and translate documents orally into Spanish for Parents. Mother testified that after the IEP team meetings, Parents would review the FAPE offer at home, and asked district personnel questions, if she had them. Mother testified that she would take home the English copy, and asked someone to help translate the documents, when she needed assistance. Parents did not have a Spanish copy to review at the time they consented to the IEP. However, neither federal nor state statutes require that assessments or IEP documents be translated. California regulations require IEP documents to be provided to Parents in their primary language, upon request, which Gustine did. Gustine provided a translated copy of the three-year review assessment plan, three-year review assessment reports, the October 26, 2023 IEP document, and November 5, 2024 IEP document.

Gustine’s failure to translate any documents, such as the October 21, 2025 IEP, did not amount to a procedural violation. As required under federal and state law, Gustine provided a Spanish language interpreter at the IEP team meetings and Parents fully participated in the process, as discussed above. Multiple IEP team meetings were held to develop each of Student’s IEPs. Parents requested the IEP documents to review at home prior to signing any consent to the IEP. Parents even requested a clarification meeting on December 13, 2023, provided additional input outside of an IEP team meeting on November 20, 2024, and drafted a letter on June 16, 2025, expressing their disagreements. If there had been a procedural violation, such a violation only constitutes a substantive denial of FAPE if it significantly impeded a parent’s ability to participate in the IEP process. Here, Parents actively participated in the IEP meetings, took copies of the IEPs to review before signing, provided additional input, and requested a clarification meeting. There was no denial of FAPE.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Gustine significantly impeded Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process, thereby denying Student a FAPE, by failing to translate documents into Spanish, between December 12, 2023, and December 12, 2025. Student did not prevail on Issue 8D.

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 1A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of functional behavior.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 1A.

ISSUE 1B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of occupational therapy.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 1B.

ISSUE 1C:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of speech and language.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 1C.

ISSUE 1D:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by failing to assess Student in the area of one-to-one aide.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 1D.

ISSUE 2A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 26, 2023 IEP by failing to offer extended school year.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 2A.

ISSUE 2B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 26, 2023 IEP by failing to offer goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 2B.

ISSUE 3A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer extended school year.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 3A.

ISSUE 3B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 3B.

ISSUE 3C:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the November 5, 2024 IEP by failing to offer appropriate mathematics goals.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 3C.

ISSUE 4A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer extended school year.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 4A.

ISSUE 4B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer goals to address inattention, speech and language, and occupational therapy.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 4B.

ISSUE 4C:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 21, 2025 IEP by failing to offer appropriate mathematics goals.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 4C.

ISSUE 5:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between December 13, 2023, and December 12, 2025, by failing to place Student in a special day class for all academic subjects.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 5.

ISSUE 6A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between August 2024 and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer a one-to-one aide.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 6A.

ISSUE 6B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, between August 2024 and December 12, 2025, by failing to offer push-in or pull-out resource specialist program support.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 6B.

ISSUE 7A:

Gustine denied Student a FAPE, through December 12, 2025, by materially failing to implement specialized academic instruction, as identified in the IEP dated October 26, 2023.

Student prevailed on Issue 7A.

ISSUE 7B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, through December 12, 2025, by materially failing to implement specialized academic instruction, as identified in the IEP dated November 5, 2024.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 7B.

ISSUE 7C:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE, through December 12, 2025, by materially failing to implement specialized academic instruction, as identified in the IEP dated October 21, 2025 IEP.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 7C.

ISSUE 8A:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process when Gustine failed to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ requests for placement in a special day class.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 8A.

ISSUE 8B:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process when Gustine failed to issue prior written notice in response to Parents’ requests for a one-to-one aide.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 8B.

ISSUE 8C:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process when Gustine failed to provide appropriate Spanish language interpretation at IEP team meetings.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 8C.

ISSUE 8D:

Gustine did not deny Student a FAPE by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process when Gustine failed to translate documents, including IEPs and assessment reports, into Spanish.

Gustine prevailed on Issue 8D.

REMEDIES

Under federal and state law, courts have broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide FAPE to a disabled child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); see Burlington, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 369.) This broad equitable authority extends to an Administrative Law Judge who hears and decides a special education administrative due process matter. (Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230, 244, fn. 11 [129 S.Ct. 2484, 174 L.Ed.2d 168].)

An Administrative Law Judge can award compensatory education as a form of equitable relief. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d 1025, 1033.) School districts may be ordered to provide compensatory education to a student who has been denied a FAPE. (Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., No. 3 (9th Cir. 1994) 31 F.3d 1489, 1496 (Puyallup).) Compensatory education is a prospective award of educational services designed to catch-up the student to where he should have been absent the denial of a FAPE. (Brennan v. Regional School Dist. No. 1 (D.Conn. 2008) 531 F.Supp.2d 245, 265.) An award of compensatory education need not provide a “day-for-day compensation.” (Puyallup, at p. 1497) The conduct of both parties must be reviewed and considered to determine whether equitable relief is appropriate. (Id. at p. 1496.) The award must be fact-specific and “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” (Brennan, at p. 265.)

As determined in Issue 7A, Student was denied a FAPE because Gustine did not materially implement specialized academic instruction, pursuant to Student’s October 26, 2023 IEP, by changing the setting in which Student was entitled to receive 530 minutes of specialized academic instruction. Gustine was required to provide 530 minutes, approximately 9 hours, of group specialized academic instruction per week in a special day class for English language arts and math. Student did not receive specialized academic instruction in the prescribed setting for 35 weeks, from September 3, 2024, through the last day of the school year, June 6, 2025, discounting the weeks of Thanksgiving break, Winter break, Presidents’ Day break, and Spring break, when Student was not entitled to special education services. Student should have received 18,550 minutes, approximately 309 hours, of group specialized academic instruction in an English language arts and math special day class. Gustine did not provide evidence that it provided the requisite amount of specialized academic instruction in a comparable setting.

One-to-one specialized academic instruction will be awarded as compensatory education, not group academic instruction, and the amount will be reduced taking into consideration the difference between one-to-one and group instruction. Student is awarded one hour per week of one-to-one compensatory specialized academic instruction for the 35 weeks of services provided in the wrong setting, for a total of 35 hours. These services may be provided by a certified non-public agency, or another qualified provider, as agreed between Parents and Gustine, at a rate not to exceed $160 per hour.

An order for staff training is an appropriate remedy under the IDEA. (Park, supra, 464 F.3d at p. 1034 [finding teacher training an appropriate remedy for the school district’s failure to implement the student’s IEP].) Here, Gustine denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer a comparable program when it dissolved the setting in which Student was entitled to partially receive specialized academic instruction, thereby materially failing to implement Student’s specialized academic instruction. Therefore, training is an appropriate equitable remedy to avoid similar future conduct. For Gustine’s conduct, and FAPE denial to Student, Gustine must fund a 90-minute training for Gustine’s special education administrators and special education teachers, case managers, and instructional aides. The training shall focus on implementation of IEPs with fidelity, the legal requirements for changing a student’s placement under state and federal law, and stay put. The training shall be provided by special education attorneys, or other trained individuals, who are not under contract with Gustine.

All other requests for relief are denied.

ORDER

1. Gustine must fund 35 hours of direct, individual, in-person, specialized academic instruction for Student provided by a certified non-public agency, or another qualified provider, as agreed between Parents and Gustine, at a rate not to exceed $160 per hour. Gustine must establish direct payment to any certified non-public agency or qualified provider. All hours will be available to use until June 1, 2027, and will thereafter be deemed forfeited.

2. Gustine must fund one 90-minute training for its special education administrators and special education teachers, case managers, and instructional aides, by an outside special education attorney or other trained individual not under contract with Gustine. The law firm that represented Gustine in this matter may not provide this training. The training shall focus on implementation of IEPs with fidelity, the legal requirements for changing a student’s placement under state and federal law, and stay put. This training shall be completed no later than December 31, 2026.

3. All other requests for relief are denied.

RIGHT TO APPEAL THIS DECISION

This is a final administrative decision, and all parties are bound by it. Pursuant to Education Code section 56505, subdivision (k), any party may appeal this Decision to a court of competent jurisdiction within 90 days of receipt.

Jeanie Min

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings