Earlimart School District v. Parent on Behalf of Student

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION

June 26, 2026

On October 21, 2025, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025100751, Student’s Case, naming Earlimart School District, called Earlimart. On January 28, 2026, Earlimart filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026011009, Earlimart’s Case, naming Student. On February 3, 2026, OAH granted Earlimart’s request to consolidate the cases, and designated Earlimart’s case as the primary case. On February 11, 2026, OAH granted Student’s request to continue the consolidated matter.

Administrative Law Judge Paul H. Kamoroff heard this matter by videoconference on March 24, 25, and 26, April 14, 15, 16, 21, 28, 29, and 30, and May 5, 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, and 20, 2026.

Attorneys Amanda J. Cordova and Anna M. Wood represented Earlimart. Angelica Jimenez, Earlimart’s Director of Student Support Services, attended each day of hearing on Earlimart’s behalf. Attorney Andrea M. Marcus represented Student. Parent attended each day of hearing on Student’s behalf. OAH provided a Spanish language interpreter during each day of hearing for Parent.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to June 15, 2026, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on June 15, 2026.

ISSUES

EARLIMART’S ISSUES

1. Did Earlimart’s speech and language assessment contained within the May 22, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report, meet legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language assessment?

2. Did Earlimart’s psychoeducational assessment contained within the May 22, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report, meet legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational assessment?

3. Did Earlimart’s psychoeducational assessment dated March 25, 2025, meet legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational assessment?

STUDENT’S ISSUES

4. Did Earlimart deny Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to assess Student in autism?

5. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in:

a. autism; and

b. communication?

6. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in:

a. autism; and

b. communication?

7. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his need in:

a. autism

b. communication; and

c. safety when eating?

8. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically:

a. one-to-one aide services; and

b. behavior services?

9. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically:

a. one-to-one aide services; and

b. behavior services?

10. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 25, 2026, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically:

a. one-to-one aide services;

b. behavior services; and

c. speech and language services?

11. Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through October 25, 2025, by failing to provide:

a. Parent with IEP documents translated into the Spanish language;

b. Spanish-language translation during IEP team meetings; and

c. Parent with prior written notice when denying Parent’s requests for a one-to-one aide?

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, called IDEA, its regulations, and California statutes and regulations. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006) et seq.; Ed. Code, § 56000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as 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) and (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; Ed. Code, §§ 56501, 56502, and 56505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082.) The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents, and has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 57-58, 62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) In this consolidated matter, Earlimart had the burden of proof for its issues, and Student had the burden of proof for his issues. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).)

Student was seven years old and in first grade at the time of hearing. Student resided within Earlimart’s geographic boundaries at all relevant times. Student was eligible for special education under autism and speech or language impairment. Student demonstrated severe autistic-like characteristics. As a result, he had substantial academic delays, was non-verbal, not toilet trained, and required individual adult support to complete any task.

ISSUES 1, 2 AND 3: STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS

Earlimart’s first issue asserts that Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in response to Earlimart’s 2024 speech and language assessment. Earlimart asserts its speech and language assessment contained within the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment report, met legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language assessment.

Earlimart’s second issue contends that Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in response to its 2024 psychoeducational assessment. Earlimart asserts the psychoeducational assessment contained within the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment report, met legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational assessment.

Earlimart’s third issue argues that Student is not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in response to its 2025 psychoeducational assessment. Earlimart asserts that its psychoeducational assessment dated March 25, 2025, met legal requirements such that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational assessment.

Student asserts the 2024 assessments were procedurally and substantively defective.

Earlimart’s Issues 1 and 2 were not timely filed. Earlimart’s Issue 3 was not ripe, as Earlimart failed to show that Parent requested an independent educational evaluation in relation to the 2025 psychoeducational assessment.

The IDEA requires a school district to assess a student “in all areas of suspected disability.” (See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4).) Once a school district is on “notice that a child has displayed symptoms of a... disability,” the district must assess the child to determine the child's educational needs. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified Sch. District (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1118–20.)

If a parent disagrees with a school assessment of their child, they have a right to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1)–(2)). When a parent requests an independent educational evaluation, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either file a request for a due process hearing to show that its assessment is appropriate or ensure that an independent educational assessment is provided at public expense. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502 (b)(2)(i), (ii); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (c).)

Determining if a school district’s delay is unnecessary within the meaning of the above regulation is a fact-specific inquiry. Numerous decisions have found that delays shorter than the delay in this matter constituted unnecessary delays. In Pajaro Valley Unified School District v. J.S. (N.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2006, No. C06-0380) 2006 WL 3734289 at p. 3.), the court determined the school district unnecessarily delayed filing its due process request because it waited almost three months to file the complaint. (See also Taylor v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. 2011) 770 F.Supp.2d 105, 107-108, 111 [four month delay unnecessary]; Student v. Temecula Valley Unified School Dist. (OAH, Jan. 14, 2013, No. 2012020458 [four and one half month delay unnecessary]; Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH, Dec. 14, 2012, No. 2012090139 [70 day delay unnecessary]; Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH, July 7, 2011, No.

2011020188) [90 day delay unnecessary]; Lafayette School Dist. v. Student (OAH, July 1, 2009, No. 2008120161)[74 day delay unnecessary]; Fremont Unified School Dist. v. Student (OAH, June 1, 2009, No. 2009040633) [four month delay unnecessary]; Student v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (OAH, June 20, 2007, No. 2006120420 [64 day delay unnecessary].)

Independent educational evaluations are important for informed parental participation. In Board of Educ. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, the Supreme Court placed great emphasis on the importance of the procedural protections of the IDEA, especially those that guarantee participation by parents:

“[W]e think that the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. It seems to us no exaggeration to say that Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation at every stage of the administrative process...as it did upon the measurement of the resulting IEP against a substantive standard.”

(Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 205-206.)

Earlimart’s complaint alleged Issues 1, 2, and 3, and it therefore had the burden of proof for these issues. (Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 57-61) Therefore, Earlimart had to show the following factors:

• it assessed Student;

• following the assessment, Parent disagreed with the assessment and requested an independent educational evaluation;

• following Parent’s request, Earlimart, without unnecessary delay, either funded the independent educational evaluation or filed for due process; and

• if it elected to file for due process and did so without unnecessary delay, Earlimart would have to show that its assessments were appropriately conducted.

(34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2); (b)(2)(i), (ii); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (c).)

Evidence overwhelmingly showed that Earlimart failed to meet the third factor for Issues 1 and 2, and the second factor for Issue 3. Consequently, there is no need for this Decision to consider whether the assessments were appropriately conducted.

Earlimart first assessed Student for eligibility for special education on May 27,

2022. Prior to the assessment, Parent informed Earlimart personnel that she suspected Student had autism and advised Earlimart that an autism evaluation was being conducted through the Central Valley Regional Center. Despite having notice of Parent’s concerns and the pending autism evaluation, Earlimart’s initial assessment was limited to speech and language. Based solely upon the speech and language assessment, Earlimart determined Student was eligible for special education and related services under the eligibility category of speech or language impairment.

In May 2024, Earlimart conducted a three-year review reassessment of Student. The reassessment included a speech and language evaluation and a psychoeducational evaluation, collectively documented in a multidisciplinary assessment report dated May 22, 2024. The speech and language assessment was conducted by school speech-language pathologist Crystal Bueno. The psychoeducational assessment was conducted by school psychologist Gabriela Aguilar and education specialist Michele Stephens.

On May 22, 2024, Earlimart convened an IEP team meeting to review the results of the multidisciplinary assessment. Following review of the report, Earlimart concluded that Student did not meet eligibility criteria under the category of autism and continued Student’s eligibility solely under the category of speech or language impairment. The resulting IEP offered placement in a general education setting with accommodations and 60 minutes per month of speech and language services. Parent expressed concerns that the IEP failed to address Student’s unique needs, including significant deficits in toileting and feeding skills. Nevertheless, Parent consented to implementation of the IEP.

PARENT’S REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL

EVALUATIONS

Following implementation of the May 2024 IEP, Student struggled in the general education placement. On January 14, 2025, Earlimart convened an IEP addendum meeting to address Parent’s concerns regarding Student’s educational program. During that meeting, Parent expressly disagreed with the conclusions and recommendations contained in the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment report and requested publicly funded independent educational evaluations, including an independent psychoeducational evaluation and an independent speech and language evaluation. Specifically, Parent disputed Earlimart’s determination that Student was not eligible under the category of autism.

In response to Parent’s request, Earlimart personnel, including school psychologist Danniela Duran, incorrectly advised Parent that she could not request an independent educational evaluation because the school district’s assessments were less than one year old. Duran further misrepresented that Earlimart was required to conduct another psychoeducational assessment before Parent could request an independent educational evaluation. Although Parent’s request for independent evaluations was documented in the IEP meeting notes, Earlimart took no action in response to the request other than providing inaccurate information.

Earlimart subsequently conducted an additional psychoeducational assessment, completed on March 20, 2025. In contrast to the May 2024 psychoeducational assessment, the March 2025 assessment concluded that Student met eligibility criteria for special education under the category of autism. Parent did not request an independent educational evaluation in response to the March 2025 assessment.

On December 15, 2025, Parent sent an email to Earlimart’s Director of Support Services Angelica Jimenez, requesting publicly funded independent educational evaluations in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and functional behavior. Earlimart had not previously assessed Student in occupational therapy or functional behavior. Although Parent’s email did not specify the particular assessments with which she disagreed, Earlimart made no effort to contact Parent to clarify the scope of her request or identify the assessments at issue.

On January 1, 2026, Earlimart provided Parent prior written notice stating that it would not fund any of the requested independent evaluations. On January 28, 2026, more than one year after Parent’s January 14, 2025 request for independent educational evaluations, Earlimart filed a due process complaint seeking to defend the May 22, 2024 speech and language assessment, the May 22, 2024 psychoeducational assessment, and the March 20, 2025 psychoeducational assessment, and requesting a determination that Student was not entitled to publicly funded independent evaluations in psychoeducation and speech and language.

ISSUES ONE AND TWO

A preponderance of the evidence established that Earlimart failed to file its due process complaint without unnecessary delay following Parent’s request for independent educational evaluations. Based on this finding, it is unnecessary to analyze the appropriateness of the May 2024 speech and language and psychoeducational assessments as part of Earlimart’s issues. However, as discussed in Student’s Issue 4, the May 2024 psychoeducational assessment was inappropriately conducted.

Parent requested publicly funded independent speech and language and psychoeducational evaluations during the January 14, 2025 IEP team meeting. Rather than either funding the requested evaluations or promptly filing a due process complaint to defend its assessments, Earlimart misinformed Parent that she was not entitled to request independent educational evaluations at that time. Thereafter, Earlimart waited approximately 11 months before issuing prior written notice denying Parent’s request and more than one year before filing a due process complaint. This delay was unreasonable and inconsistent with Earlimart’s obligations under federal and state special education law. By failing to act promptly, Earlimart unlawfully delayed Parent’s ability to obtain information necessary to evaluate and address Student’s educational needs.

Accordingly, with respect to Issue One, Earlimart failed to establish that the speech and language assessment contained within the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment report satisfied all legal requirements. Because Earlimart did not file for due process without unnecessary delay, Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language evaluation.

Similarly, with respect to Issue Two, Earlimart failed to establish that the psychoeducational assessment contained within the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment report satisfied all legal requirements. Because Earlimart failed to timely file a due process complaint, Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational evaluation.

ISSUE THREE

Earlimart failed to present persuasive evidence that Parent requested an independent educational evaluation in response to the March 20, 2025 psychoeducational assessment, which was a necessary prerequisite to Earlimart’s claim regarding that assessment. Parent credibly testified that her request for an independent psychoeducational evaluation was made during the January 14, 2025 IEP team meeting, prior to the completion of the March 2025 psychoeducational assessment. The request was based upon Parent’s disagreement with the findings of the May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary report, particularly Earlimart’s determination that Student was not eligible under the category of autism. The subsequent March 2025 assessment reached the opposite conclusion and found Student eligible under the category of autism. The weight of the evidence therefore does not support Earlimart’s contention that Parent requested an independent psychoeducational evaluation as a result of the March 2025 assessment. For these reasons, it is unnecessary to analyze the appropriateness of the March 2025 psychoeducational assessment.

Furthermore, as determined under Issue Two, Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational evaluation based upon Earlimart’s failure to timely file to defend the May 22, 2024 psychoeducational assessment. Consequently, Earlimart’s request for a determination that Student is not entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational evaluation arising from the March 2025 assessment is moot.

ISSUE 4

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to assess Student in autism?

Student alleges Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to assess him for autism during the 2023-2024 school year, beginning October 25, 2023. Earlimart responds that although it failed to assess Student for autism prior to or during the 2023-2024 school year, its IEP offer addressed Student’s unique needs.

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an eligible child that meets state educational standards at no charge to the parent or guardian. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.) Parents and school personnel develop an IEP for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031, 56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a), and 56363 subd. (a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501.)

In general, a child eligible for special education must be provided access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit through an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. (Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at pp. 201-204; Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402.)

Assessments are required to determine eligibility for special education, and what type, frequency, and duration of specialized instruction and related services are required to deliver a FAPE. In evaluating a child for special education eligibility and prior to the development of an IEP, a district must assess in all areas related to a suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (f).)

The determination of what tests are required is based on information known at the time. (Vasheresse v. Laguna Salada Union School District (N.D.Cal. 2001) 211 F.Supp.2d 1150, 1157-1158.) No single measure, such as a single intelligence quotient, shall be used to determine eligibility or services. (Ed. Code, § 56320, subds. (c) & (e).) Assessors must be knowledgeable about the student’s suspected disability and must pay attention to the student’s unique educational needs, such as the need for specialized services, materials, and equipment. (Ed. Code, § 56320, subd. (g).)

A disability is suspected, and a child must be assessed, when the district is on notice that the child has displayed symptoms of that particular disability or disorder. (Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School District (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1119 (Timothy O.).)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Timothy O. held a school district’s failure to assess a child for autism using standardized tests and instead relying on informal staff observation during its initial evaluation of the child resulted in substantially hindering parents’ ability to participate in the child’s educational program and seriously depriving the parents, teachers, and district staff of the information necessary to develop an appropriate educational program with appropriate supports and services. (Id.)

In March 2022, Earlimart provided Parent with an assessment plan to determine Student's eligibility for special education. Student was two years and 10 months old. Parent informed Earlimart that she suspected Student had autism and that the Central

Valley Regional Center was evaluating him for autism. Despite this information, Earlimart limited its assessment plan to speech and language.

School speech-language pathologist Bueno conducted Student's initial special education assessment. Student exhibited significant receptive and expressive language deficits and could not verbalize words. Based on that assessment, Earlimart found Student eligible for special education under the category of speech or language impairment. Earlimart did not assess Student in any other area of suspected disability and did not refer him for additional evaluations.

On May 27, 2022, the IEP team reviewed the assessment results. During that meeting, Parent again expressed concern that Student had autism. Earlimart did not investigate those concerns, offer additional assessments, or evaluate Student for autism. Instead, Earlimart continued to rely solely on the speech and language assessment and found Student eligible only under speech or language impairment.

On August 5, 2022, the Central Valley Regional Center, called Regional Center, conducted a psychological evaluation after Student's pediatrician referred him for assessment. A licensed psychologist administered multiple assessment instruments and diagnosed Student with Autism Spectrum Disorder with accompanying language impairment. The evaluation documented severe autistic-like characteristics, including repetitive behaviors, rocking, toe walking, difficulty transitioning, self-stimulatory behaviors, lack of functional speech, and profound social deficits. The evaluator concluded that Student's autism significantly affected all areas of functioning.

Parent provided the Regional Center evaluation to Earlimart on August 22, 2022. Parent again provided the report and discussed Student's autism diagnosis during an IEP team meeting on May 25, 2023.

Despite receiving notice of Student's autism diagnosis and despite repeated parental concerns, Earlimart did not assess or offer to assess Student for autism until May 2024, nearly two years after Parent first raised the issue.

Earlimart's May 22, 2024 psychoeducational assessment was unreliable and incorrectly concluded that Student did not qualify under the eligibility category of autism. School psychologist Aguilar conducted the psychoeducational assessment, with the assistance of an educational specialist. Aguilar disregarded substantial assessment data demonstrating severe autism-related deficits. For example, autism rating scales showed Student was extremely low in each area assessed; including communication, community use, functional academics, home living, school living, health and safety, leisure, self-care, self-direction, social, fine and gross motor, and adaptive domains. Per the rating scales, Student exhibited severe characteristics of autism that impacted his ability to access his education. Yet, Aguilar overlooked this data.

Aguilar also failed to administer portions of the autism assessment in accordance with required procedures. For example, on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule, she relied on notes taken by the education specialist and speech therapist, rather than her own firsthand notes as required by the testing manufacturer’s instructions when formulating test scores. She inflated test scores by giving positive scores in areas where the manufacturer’s testing instructions directed should not be used for a non-verbal child. She also inflated scores by rating indecipherable grunts as word approximations. Accordingly, Earlimart’s May 2024 psychoeducational assessment was invalid and failed to adequately assess Student for autism.

Earlimart did not identify Student as eligible under autism until March 25, 2025, when it completed a second psychoeducational assessment.

Overwhelming evidence established that Student's autism constituted an obvious and longstanding area of suspected disability. Student's communication deficits, social impairments, behavioral challenges, adaptive functioning deficits, and academic delays all stemmed from, or were substantially affected by, autism. Earlimart possessed sufficient information to suspect autism as early as August 2022, when Parent provided the Regional Center evaluation. Nevertheless, Earlimart delayed until the end of the 2023-2024 school year to conduct an autism assessment.

A school district has an affirmative obligation to assess a student in all areas of suspected disability. A district's failure to assess a suspected disability constitutes a procedural violation of the IDEA. (R.B. ex rel. F.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 496 F.3d 932.) A procedural violation denies a student a FAPE when it impedes the student's right to a FAPE, significantly interferes with parental participation, or deprives the student of educational benefit or opportunity. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2); W.G. v. Bd. of Trustees of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23 (9th Cir. 1992) 960 F.2d 1479, 1484.)

Earlimart's failure to assess Student for autism deprived the IEP team of critical information necessary to identify Student's unique needs and develop an appropriate educational program. Without an autism assessment, the IEP team lacked reliable information regarding Student's social communication deficits, behavioral needs, adaptive functioning, sensory needs, self-help deficits, and educational programming requirements. As a result, Earlimart could not develop an educational program reasonably calculated to provide Student meaningful educational benefit.

The evidence further established that Student required specialized supports, interventions, services, and goals specifically designed to address autism. Earlimart's failure to identify and assess those needs delayed appropriate programming and deprived Student of educational benefit. The lack of assessment itself resulted in a lost educational opportunity. (Carrie I. ex rel. Greg I. v. Dep't of Educ., Hawaii (D.Haw. 2012) 869 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1247.)

Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the end of the 2023-2024 school year by failing to assess him for autism.

ISSUES 5(A) AND 5(B)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address Student's needs in autism and communication?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2023-2024 school year by failing to develop appropriate annual goals addressing his autism and communication needs. Student argues that Earlimart did not develop appropriate autism-related goals because it failed to assess him for autism and the sole speech and language goal contained in his IEP did not address his significant communication deficits. Earlimart contends that the goals it offered were reasonably calculated to meet Student's needs.

For each area of identified need, an IEP must contain measurable annual goals based upon the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. (Ed. Code, § 56345.) The goals must enable the IEP team, including parents, to measure progress and determine whether the student received educational benefit. The IDEA does not require ideal goals or parent’s preferred goal statements, but it does require goals reasonably calculated to address the student's unique educational needs and ensure the IEP confers meaningful educational benefit. (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149.)

On May 25, 2023, Earlimart developed Student's IEP for the 2023-2024 school year. Student attended preschool and remained eligible for special education solely under the category of speech or language impairment. The IEP offered no specialized academic instruction, no autism-related services, and no goals addressing autism. The IEP contained only one annual goal, which targeted speech and language.

The speech and language goal required Student to use at least 50 single words in eight of 10 opportunities using a total communication approach that included verbal language, sign language, and a communication board. The goal assigned implementation responsibility to school staff, including the speech-language pathologist.

The evidence established that Student's needs far exceeded the scope of this single goal. Throughout the period at issue, Student exhibited profound developmental delays associated with autism. Student was nonverbal. He did not read, write, or complete academic tasks independently. He wore diapers, lacked independent toileting skills, required assistance with self-care, and could not independently communicate his wants, needs, or safety concerns. Student demonstrated significant deficits in social interaction, adaptive functioning, behavior regulation, task completion, transitions, and functional communication. He engaged in repetitive and self-stimulatory behaviors, including hand-flapping, vocalizations, and headbanging. He required constant adult support and frequent redirection throughout the school day. All of these were common characteristics of autism.

As discussed in Issue 4, Earlimart failed to assess Student for autism despite extensive evidence that autism constituted a suspected area of disability. That failure prevented the IEP team from addressing the full extent of Student's autism-related needs and from developing goals designed to address those needs. Consequently, the May 2023 IEP contained no goals targeting social communication, adaptive behavior, self-help skills, behavior regulation, safety, peer interaction, independence, toileting, feeding, or other areas significantly affected by Student's autism.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that Student required autism-related goals during the 2023-2024 school year. Parent, educational staff, and expert witnesses consistently described severe deficits across these multiple domains of functioning. Student's autism affected nearly every aspect of his educational program. Despite those needs, Earlimart offered no goals specifically designed to remediate the educational impact of Student's autism.

The testimony of Student's expert psychologist Dr. Gary Katz persuasively established that Student required goals addressing behavior, safety, communication, toileting, feeding, self-advocacy, social interaction, academic readiness, and functional independence. Dr. Katz reviewed Student's records and conducted an independent evaluation in January 2026. His opinions aligned with Parent's testimony, documentary evidence, and observations from multiple school personnel.

Although school psychologists Aguilar and Duran testified in opposition to Student’s expert, their testimony was not credible and did not undermine Student's evidence. Aguilar's May 2024 psychoeducational assessment improperly concluded that Student did not qualify under the category of autism despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Aguilar disregarded substantial assessment data demonstrating severe autism-related deficits. Contrary to her testimony, rating scales showed Student was extremely low in each area assessed. Student exhibited severe characteristics of autism that impacted his ability to access his education, yet Aguilar improperly disregarded this data. Additionally, as discussed in Issue 4, Aguilar failed to administer the autism assessment in accordance with required procedures. Accordingly, her testimony carried little weight for this matter.

Similarly, Duran's testimony conflicted with both her own observations and the documentary record. Although Duran testified that Student demonstrated relatively few behavioral or adaptive concerns, her written assessment documented pervasive deficits in communication, social functioning, transitions, adaptive skills, and classroom participation. Her testimony therefore lacked credibility and did not persuasively rebut the evidence regarding Student's extensive needs.

The evidence also established that Earlimart's sole speech and language goal to use 50 single words failed to address Student's unique communication needs. At the time of the May 2023 IEP, Student did not use functional words, did not communicate through sign language, and had not received assessment, training, or support in the use of augmentative or alternative communication systems. The goal did not address Student’s underlying needs and did not include acquisition of any prerequisite skills necessary to reach that goal.

Student's speech and language expert Christine Villareal, Ph.D., was a speechlanguage pathologist for over 25 years and independently assessed Student in January

2026. Dr. Villareal persuasively testified that Student required multiple communication goals addressing

• foundational language development;

• receptive language, expressive language;

• speech production, phonological development;

• sign language;

• picture-based communication;

• augmentative and alternative communication systems; and

• functional communication skills.

Her recommendations reflected Student's present levels of performance and significant communication deficits. Earlimart did not present persuasive evidence that rebutted her opinions.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Student's communication needs extended far beyond the single goal contained in the May 2023 IEP. That goal did not provide a comprehensive or reasonably calculated plan for developing functional communication skills in a nonverbal child with autism.

Because Earlimart failed to develop goals addressing autism-related needs and failed to develop adequate communication goals, Student did not receive an educational program reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit. These omissions deprived Student of educational opportunity and significantly impeded his ability to make academic and functional progress.

Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the end of the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in autism and communication.

ISSUES 6(A) AND 6(B)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer appropriate goals to address Student's needs in autism and communication?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to develop appropriate goals addressing his autism and communication needs. Earlimart contends that the goals contained in Student's IEP appropriately addressed his unique educational needs.

On May 22, 2024, Earlimart held Student's annual IEP team meeting and developed an IEP for the 2024-2025 school year. Student was four years and nine months old and preparing to enter kindergarten. Despite substantial evidence that Student had autism, Earlimart continued to find Student eligible for special education solely under the category of speech or language impairment.

At the time of the May 22, 2024 IEP, Student exhibited profound developmental delays. Student remained nonverbal and communicated primarily through vocalizations, gestures, and grunts. He did not respond consistently to his name, could not transition independently between activities, and required continuous prompting to participate in classroom tasks. Student lacked functional academic skills, remained dependent upon adults for most activities, wore diapers, demonstrated significant social deficits, engaged in repetitive and self-stimulatory behaviors, and required substantial adult assistance throughout the school day.

To address Student's needs, the May 22, 2024 IEP offered three functional-skills goals. The goals targeted responding to his name with multiple prompts, participating in classroom activities with multiple prompts, and transitioning between locations with adult support.

The IEP did not contain any speech and language goals specifically developed for the 2024-2025 school year. Earlimart asserted that the sole speech and language goal from the May 2023 IEP remained in effect for the 2024-2025 school year. However, the May 22, 2024 IEP document described this goal as being offered for the 2023-2024 school year, with the same benchmark dates and implementation timelines from the prior school year. Therefore, the May 22, 2024 IEP did not include an appropriate annual speech and language goal. Moreover, none of the functional-skills goals assigned responsibility to a speech-language pathologist.

The evidence demonstrated that Student continued to have profound communication deficits. Student remained nonverbal and lacked functional communication skills. He did not effectively use augmentative or alternative communication systems or sign language, and could not independently communicate his wants, needs, or safety concerns. Student's speech expert Dr. Villareal persuasively testified that Student required multiple communication goals addressing foundational language development;

• receptive language;

• expressive language;

• speech production;

• phonological development;

• sign language;

• picture-based communication systems;

• augmentative and alternative communication; and

• functional communication.

Earlimart did not present persuasive evidence rebutting Student’s needs in those areas. Earlimart’s failure to offer communication goals in these areas deprived Student of educational benefit and opportunity.

The evidence further established that Earlimart failed to develop adequate goals addressing Student's autism-related needs. As discussed in Issue 4, Earlimart's May 22, 2024 psychoeducational assessment improperly concluded that Student did not qualify for special education under the eligibility category of autism. Consequently, the IEP team continued to overlook the full scope of Student's autism-related educational needs.

Throughout the 2024-2025 school year, Student demonstrated significant deficits in adaptive functioning, social interaction, behavior regulation, communication, self-help skills, independence, and academic readiness. Student required assistance with toileting, feeding, transitions, task completion, and participation in educational activities. He engaged in self-stimulatory behaviors, displayed limited awareness of peers, required constant redirection, and lacked functional communication skills.

Despite these pervasive needs, the May 22, 2024 IEP offered only three narrow functional-skills goals. None of those goals adequately addressed behavior regulation, social interaction, self-advocacy, safety, feeding, toileting, adaptive functioning, communication, pre-academic readiness, or other areas significantly affected by Student's autism.

The inadequacy of the goals became apparent during the 2024-2025 school year. Earlimart convened addendum IEP meetings on December 9, 2024, January 14, 2025, January 27, 2025, and March 25, 2025. Despite Parent's repeated concerns regarding Student's lack of progress and significant needs, Earlimart did not revise Student's goals until March 25, 2025.

At the March 25, 2025 IEP team meeting, following a second psychoeducational assessment, Earlimart finally identified autism as an eligibility category and added a single adaptive-living goal. That goal required Student to demonstrate developmentally appropriate self-help skills with 80 percent independence. That single goal was inadequate to address the full range of Student’s autism-related needs. Further, the goal suffered from multiple deficiencies. Earlimart adopted the goal only two months before its expiration date, failed to identify measurable intermediate benchmarks, and failed to assign responsibility for implementation. Consequently, the goal did not meaningfully address Student's extensive adaptive deficits.

Dr. Katz, Student’s expert psychologist, persuasively testified that Student required a comprehensive set of goals addressing:

• behavior;

• safety;

• communication;

• toileting;

• feeding;

• self-advocacy;

• social skills;

• fine motor development;

• oral-motor development; and

• academic readiness.

His testimony aligned with Parent's testimony and contemporaneous classroom observations, assessment data, and documentary evidence demonstrating the severity of Student's disability.

The evidence established that Student received little educational benefit during the 2024-2025 school year. Student remained substantially dependent upon adults, made minimal progress toward independence, and continued to exhibit the same significant deficits that existed at the beginning of the school year. Earlimart's limited goals were not part of a program reasonably calculated to address Student's unique circumstances or enable meaningful progress and did not allow the IEP team to meaningfully monitor Student’s progress.

The weight of the evidence established that Earlimart failed to offer appropriate goals addressing Student's autism-related needs and failed to offer adequate goals addressing Student's communication needs. Those deficiencies deprived Student of educational benefit and opportunity and thereby denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year. Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in autism and communication.

ISSUES 7(A), 7(B), AND 7(C)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address Student's needs in autism, communication, and safety when eating?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to develop appropriate goals addressing his autism, communication, and feeding-related safety needs. Earlimart contends that the goals contained in Student's IEP adequately addressed his unique educational needs.

A student's educational needs include academic, social, behavioral, communicative, adaptive, health, and safety needs when those areas affect the student's ability to benefit from special education. (Seattle School Dist. No. 1 v. B.S. (9th Cir. 1996) 82 F.3d 1493, 1500.)

On May 13, 2025, Earlimart developed Student's annual IEP for the 2025-2026 school year. Student was five years and nine months old and preparing to enter first grade. By that time, Earlimart had identified Student as eligible for special education under the primary category of autism and the secondary category of speech or language impairment.

Student continued to demonstrate profound deficits across nearly every area of functioning. Student remained nonverbal and communicated primarily through gestures, vocalizations, and grunts. He required adult assistance to initiate and complete tasks, transition between activities, navigate the school campus, and participate in classroom instruction. Student continued to wear diapers, lacked functional academic skills, exhibited repetitive and self-stimulatory behaviors, struggled with social interaction, and required significant adult support throughout the school day.

The evidence further established that Student experienced significant feeding difficulties. Student could not independently regulate his eating. He frequently ate too quickly, overstuffed food into his mouth, and gagged, choked, or vomited while eating. School records documented feeding concerns throughout multiple school years including the following:

• May 25, 2023 IEP.

• March 5, 2024 school health assessment.

• May 22, 2024 IEP.

• March 25, 2025 psychoeducational assessment, where Duran reported observing that Student was unable to independently feed himself.

• May 13, 2025 IEP.

• August 15 2025 IEP, which added an accommodation to provide student an extra 15 minutes for his lunch break due to feeding problems.

• August 29, 2025 amendment IEP, which added an accommodation of a food journal to track the quantity of food Student was eating as he had recently gagged and vomited while eating at school.

Parent consistently reported those concerns to Earlimart staff, and school records reflected accommodations designed to address feeding-related issues, including extended lunch periods and food intake monitoring.

To address Student's needs, the May 13, 2025 IEP contained seven goals: two functional-skills goals, one adaptive-living goal, one speech and language goal, and one goal each in reading, writing, and math.

AUTISM-RELATED GOALS

Earlimart contends that the two functional-skills goals and the adaptive-living goal addressed Student's autism-related needs.

The first functional-skills goal required Student to participate in classroom activities for eight minutes with limited prompting. The second required Student to transition between locations using verbal, visual, and gestural supports. The adaptive-living goal required Student to demonstrate developmentally appropriate selfhelp skills with 80 percent independence. The two functional skills goals were identical, with updated benchmarks, to the functional skills goals contained in the May 22, 2024 IEP. The adaptive goal was identical, with updated benchmarks, to the adaptive goal offered in the March 25, 2025 IEP.

These goals addressed only a small fraction of Student's autism-related needs. The evidence established that Student's autism affected communication, behavior regulation, social interaction, adaptive functioning, safety awareness, toileting, feeding, independence, and academic participation. Yet the May 13, 2025 IEP contained no goals addressing behavior, self-regulation, peer interaction, self-advocacy, toileting, feeding, safety, social communication, fine motor development, or oral-motor development.

The limited nature of the goals becomes particularly significant when viewed in light of Student's lack of progress. The goals were repeated from prior IEPs with little or no meaningful revision. Student had not developed the skills targeted by those goals, and the IEP team acknowledged that Student continued to struggle with many of the same deficits identified during previous school years. Nevertheless, Earlimart continued to rely upon substantially identical goals rather than developing a more comprehensive program responsive to Student's documented needs related to autism.

Student’s expert psychologist Dr. Katz persuasively testified that Student required goals addressing behavior, safety, communication, toileting, feeding, self-advocacy, social skills, fine motor development, oral-motor development, and functional independence. His recommendations were consistent with the documentary evidence, classroom observations, and testimony regarding Student's functioning across educational settings.

The evidence established that the three goals offered by Earlimart to address Student’s autism-related educational needs did not adequately address the breadth or severity of Student's autism-related needs.

COMMUNICATION GOALS

The May 13, 2025 IEP contained one speech and language goal. The goal required Student to imitate or approximate words and short phrases during structured and unstructured activities in eight of 10 opportunities across three consecutive settings.

Although the goal addressed one aspect of communication development, it did not address the full scope of Student's communication needs. Student remained nonverbal and lacked reliable functional communication. He did not independently use spoken language, sign language, picture-based communication systems, or augmentative and alternative communication devices to communicate effectively across settings.

Dr. Villareal persuasively testified that Student required multiple communication goals addressing:

• foundational language development;

• receptive language, expressive language;

• speech production, phonological development;

• sign language;

• picture-exchange communication;

• augmentative and alternative communication; and

• functional communication skills.

Her recommendations reflected Student's significant communication deficits and his need for systematic instruction across multiple communication domains.

The evidence established that a single speech and language goal could not reasonably address Student's extensive communication needs. As a result, the IEP failed to provide an adequate framework for developing functional communication skills.

FEEDING AND SAFETY GOALS

The May 13, 2025 IEP did not contain any goal addressing Student's feeding difficulties or eating-related safety concerns.

The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that feeding constituted a significant area of need. Multiple school records documented Student's inability to feed himself safely and independently. School staff recorded concerns regarding Student's eating behaviors, including gagging, vomiting, and difficulties regulating food intake. Earlimart itself implemented accommodations designed to address those concerns, including providing additional time for lunch and monitoring food consumption.

Parent credibly testified that Student had experienced feeding difficulties throughout his life and that she repeatedly informed Earlimart of those concerns. Dr. Katz likewise testified that feeding and eating safety represented one of Student's most significant areas of need. He explained that Student's inability to regulate food intake created serious health and safety risks, including choking and aspiration.

Despite the longstanding nature of those concerns, Earlimart did not assess Student's feeding needs, did not develop goals addressing eating safety, and did not implement systematic instruction designed to improve Student's feeding skills as part of the May 13, 2025 IEP. Although Earlimart added accommodations and a food journal to address Student’s feeding needs, these measures did not provide the direct instruction necessary for Student to acquire and develop independent feeding skills in the educational environment. The evidence established that Student required a goal specifically addressing safe eating behaviors and independent feeding skills.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Student's needs in autism, communication, and feeding safety significantly exceeded the scope of the goals offered in the May 2025 IEP. Earlimart failed to develop goals addressing numerous areas of documented need, including behavior, social interaction, toileting, feeding, safety, self-advocacy, and functional communication. The limited goals contained in the IEP were not reasonably calculated to enable Student to make appropriate progress in light of his unique circumstances.

Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in autism, communication, and safety when eating.

ISSUE 8(A) AND 8(B)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services and behavior services?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year by failing to provide one-to-one aide services and behavior intervention services. Earlimart contends that Student did not require either service to receive educational benefit.

Special education consists of specially designed instruction that meets the unique needs of a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); 34 C.F.R. § 300.39; Ed. Code, § 56031.) When a student's behavior impedes the student's learning or the learning of others, the IEP team must consider positive behavioral interventions, supports, and strategies designed to address that behavior. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subd. (b)(1).) Related services must be provided when necessary to enable a student to benefit from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); Ed. Code, § 56363.)

Student was in preschool during the 2023-2024 school year. The operative IEP, dated May 25, 2023, offered Student only 60 minutes per month of speech and language services. The IEP did not offer an educational placement, behavioral supports, behavior intervention services, a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, or one-to-one aide support.

The evidence established that Student demonstrated profound autism-related deficits during the period at issue. Student was nonverbal and unable to communicate his needs effectively. He required adult assistance to initiate and complete activities, transition between tasks, and participate in structured instruction. Student engaged in repetitive and self-stimulatory behaviors, including hand flapping, tantrums, and head banging. He demonstrated little interest in peers, lacked functional self-help skills, and required extensive prompting and redirection throughout the school day.

The evidence further established that Student's behaviors substantially interfered with his ability to access instruction and benefit from his educational program. Student could not independently participate in classroom activities, complete tasks, communicate effectively, or engage in age-appropriate learning without significant adult support.

Psychologist Dr. Katz and Board-Certified Behavior Analyst Cody Jacobs persuasively testified that Student required intensive behavioral intervention services during the period at issue. Both experts concluded that Student required a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, direct behavior services, and systematic instruction utilizing evidence-based behavioral methodologies to appropriately address Student’s unique behavior needs. Their opinions were consistent with Student's documented presentation, educational records, and demonstrated lack of progress.

The evidence also established that Student required continuous adult support to access instruction and participate safely and meaningfully in educational activities. Student could not independently navigate classroom routines, complete tasks, communicate needs, or engage in learning activities. Under these circumstances, one-to-one aide support constituted a necessary related service rather than an optional accommodation.

Earlimart presented no persuasive evidence demonstrating that Student could access his educational program without behavioral intervention services or individualized adult support. Nor did Earlimart identify any alternative supports that adequately addressed Student's significant behavioral and adaptive deficits.

By failing to assess Student's behavioral needs, develop a behavior intervention plan, provide behavior services, or offer one-to-one aide support, Earlimart failed to address needs that directly affected Student's ability to access instruction and receive educational benefit. Those omissions deprived Student of educational benefit and opportunities and rendered the IEP insufficient to provide a FAPE.

Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services and behavior services.

ISSUE 9(A) AND 9(B)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services and behavior services?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to provide one-to-one aide services and behavior intervention services. Earlimart contends that Student did not require those services to access his educational program.

Student attended kindergarten during the 2024-2025 school year. The operative IEP, dated May 22, 2024, placed Student in a general education classroom and provided limited specialized instruction and speech and language services. Earlimart did not offer Student a one-to-one aide, conduct a functional behavior assessment, develop a behavior intervention plan, or provide direct behavior intervention services.

The evidence established that Student entered kindergarten with profound autism-related needs. Student remained nonverbal, required extensive adult prompting, and lacked functional communication skills. He struggled to transition between activities, engage in classroom instruction, participate with peers, and complete tasks independently. Student exhibited repetitive and self-stimulatory behaviors, including hand flapping, crying, and head banging. He wore diapers, required assistance with self-help skills, and depended upon adults to participate in even the most basic classroom activities.

Student's general education teacher Janie Moreno described a classroom environment in which Student required constant support throughout the school day. Student did not meaningfully participate in classroom activities, did not engage with peers, and required verbal, visual, and physical prompting to complete tasks. Student frequently cried, engaged in self-stimulatory behaviors, and required extensive redirection.

In its closing brief, Earlimart referred to Moreno’s testimony in an attempt support the placement offer. However, Earlimart overlooked that Moreno regularly sought assistance from school administrators and support staff because she could not independently address Student's significant needs within the general education environment. A preponderance of evidence showed that Student’s educational placement lacked the interventions and staff required to meet Student’s unique needs.

The evidence further established that Student made little educational progress during the 2024-2025 school year. His inability to participate independently, communicate effectively, regulate his behavior, and access instruction substantially limited his ability to benefit from the educational program offered by Earlimart.

Psychologist Dr. Katz and Board-Certified Behavior Analyst Jacobs persuasively testified that Student required intensive behavior intervention services and individualized adult support throughout the period at issue. Both experts concluded that Student required a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, direct behavior services, and systematic instruction utilizing evidence-based behavioral methodologies. They further opined that Student required one-to-one aide support to access instruction, maintain safety, participate in educational activities, and benefit from his placement.

Their opinions were consistent with the documentary evidence and testimony describing Student's functioning during kindergarten. No persuasive evidence rebutted their conclusions.

Despite Student's substantial behavioral, communication, adaptive, and educational needs, Earlimart failed to provide any formal behavior intervention services or individualized aide support. The record demonstrates that Student required continuous adult assistance to participate in classroom activities and access instruction. Nevertheless, Earlimart offered no service specifically designed to meet that need.

By failing to provide one-to-one aide services and behavior intervention services, Earlimart failed to address needs that directly impeded Student's ability to access and benefit from his educational program. Those omissions deprived Student of educational benefit and rendered the IEP insufficient to provide a FAPE.

Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services and behavior services in the May 22, 2024 IEP.

ISSUE 10(A), 10(B), AND 10(C)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services, behavior services, and speech and language services?

Student contends that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services, behavior intervention services, and speech and language services. Earlimart contends that its IEP offered Student an appropriate educational program.

Related services must be provided when necessary to assist a student in benefiting from special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(26); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34; Ed. Code, § 56363.) An IEP must include a clear written offer of special education and related services sufficient to permit parents and service providers to understand what services will be provided, by whom, and at what frequency and duration. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); Union School Dist. v. Smith (9th Cir. 1994) 15 F.3d 1519, 1526-1527.)

Earlimart developed Student's annual IEP for the 2025-2026 school year during team meetings held on May 13, June 2, and June 3, 2025, collectively referred to as the May 13, 2025 IEP. Student was preparing to enter first grade and remained eligible for special education under the primary category of autism and the secondary category of speech or language impairment.

At the time of the IEP, Student continued to demonstrate profound educational needs. Student remained nonverbal and could not effectively communicate his wants, needs, or safety concerns. He required extensive prompting and adult support throughout the school day. Student could not independently complete academic tasks, transition between activities, navigate the school environment, feed himself safely, or engage meaningfully with peers. He continued to wear diapers, exhibited self-stimulatory behaviors, and demonstrated significant deficits in adaptive functioning, communication, and social interaction.

To address Student's needs, the IEP offered the following services:

• individual and group instruction, 825 minutes weekly, in a regular classroom. This service consisted of an unspecified combination of “direct services, consultation, and /or collaboration between special education staff, general education staff, and Parents,”

• psychological services, 20 minutes, three times per month, in the regular education classroom. This service consisted of an unspecified combination of “direct services, consultation, and /or collaboration between special education staff, general education staff, and Parents,” and

• speech and language services, 30 minutes weekly, in the “service provider location.” Again, the service consisted of an unspecified combination of “direct services, consultation, and /or collaboration between special education staff, general education staff, and Parents.”

Earlimart offered placement in general education 56 percent of the day, and a special day class 44 percent of the day. Parent agreed to the IEP on June 5, 2025.

Earlimart held addendum IEP team meetings for Student on August 15, and 29, and October 9, 10, and 21, 2025, but did not change the offer of related services in the addendum IEPs.

Student attended first grade at Earlimart Elementary School from August 6, 2025, the first day of school, to September 23, 2025, when Parent unilaterally withdrew him from school.

The IEP written offer failed to clearly describe the nature of any services. The IEP stated that services would consist of an unspecified combination of direct services, consultation, and collaboration without identifying how much time Student would receive in each service delivery model, who would provide the services, or how the services would be implemented.

School personnel could not consistently explain the services described in the IEP. For example, Fabiola Lopez was Student’s special day class teacher from August 5, 2025, to September 21, 2025. Ms. Lopez had no training or experience teaching a special day class and had never taught specialized academic instruction to students with disabilities. Ms. Lopez was unfamiliar with Student’s IEP and was unable to describe when, where, or how the individual and group instruction, 825 minutes weekly, was provided to Student.

Laila Green was Student’s general education teacher during the 2025-2026 school year. She testified that she was not responsible for working on Student’s reading, writing, or math goals, or providing any IEP based instruction, despite the IEP calling for the 825 minutes of group, individual, or collaborative instructional service to be provided in the regular education classroom.

No witness clearly explained how the offered instructional services, psychological services, or speech and language services would be delivered with sufficient specificity to ensure consistent implementation. As written, the IEP failed to provide a clear and understandable offer of services. The lack of specificity prevented Parent from meaningfully evaluating the offer and prevented service providers from implementing the program with fidelity. Consequently, none of the services offered in the May 13, 2025 IEP could be deemed appropriate to meet any specific area of deficit for Student.

ONE-TO-ONE AIDE SERVICES

The May 13, 2025 IEP did not offer one-to-one aide services. The evidence established that Student required continuous adult support throughout the school day. Student could not independently participate in classroom instruction, complete tasks, transition between activities, communicate effectively, or navigate educational environments safely.

For example, general education teacher Green testified that her regular education classroom had 21 students during the 2025-2026 school year. A classroom aide from the special day class accompanied Student when he went to Green’s regular education class during the 2025-2026 school year. The aide shadowed Student and assisted him in the classroom. Student could not read, speak, or interact with classmates. He was not responsive or communicative outside of grunts. Student would sometimes scream in her classroom, and frequently cried. Student stimmed, meaning using repetitive physical movements or sounds to soothe oneself, rocked, hand flapped and had difficulty with transitions. Student did not know how to use his augmentative and alternative communication device and just randomly pressed buttons on it. Green believed it was necessary for a classroom aide to supervise Student during lunch or while eating because of dietary restrictions and to prevent Student from choking. Despite these concerns, Earlimart’s IEP never offered Student a one-to-one aide.

Special day class teacher Karla Martinez took over Student’s special day class on September 22, 2025. She taught Student for one day, as Parent withdrew him from school the following day. The special day class was small, with six students, one teacher, and two adult aides. Neither the teacher nor aides used a consistent behavior methodology or tracked behavior data for Student. Even with the small classroom size, the aides reported to Martinez that Student had severe behavior problems, refused to do work, required constant redirection, and tried to escape from tasks. Martinez, like Green, testified that Student could not use his augmentative and alternative communication device. Martinez believed the special day class was inadequate to meet Student’s unique behavior needs without individual adult support. She also believed Student required a functional behavior assessment, a behavior intervention plan, and behavior services.

Parent requested one-to-one aide support during the May 13, 2025 IEP team meeting. Earlimart denied the request. School personnel incorrectly informed Parent that assigning a one-to-one aide would constitute a more restrictive placement or otherwise violate least restrictive environment requirements.

During the hearing, school witnesses repeated this misunderstanding. For example, Earlimart’s Director of Student Services Jimenez believed one-to-one aide was more restrictive for a student than a special day class. School psychologist Duran erroneously believed Earlimart was legally required to place Student in a continuum of more restrictive special day classes before a one-to-one aide could be considered. General education teacher Green also believed it was unlawful to provide a student with one-to-one aide because it would violate the least restrictive environment requirement.

Earlimart’s position lacked legal support. One-to-one aide services constitute a related service designed to assist a student in accessing educational programming. The provision of an aide does not make a placement more restrictive. (D. R. v Redondo Beach USD (9th Cir. 2022) 56 F.4th 636.) The restrictiveness of a student’s educational placement is based on the student’s interaction with typically developing peers. (Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398, 1404.) Contrary to Earlimart’s mistaken belief that a one-to-one aide increases the restrictiveness of a placement, an individual aide is one of many services and supports that a school can use to help a student with a disability to access education in a general education placement, the least restrictive environment. (Ms. S. v. Vashon Island School District (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1136-1137.)

Although school staff informally provided Student with adult support during portions of the school day, Earlimart never formally offered one-to-one aide services in Student's IEP. Consequently, Student had no enforceable entitlement to the level of support he required.

The evidence established that Student required one-to-one aide services to access instruction, maintain safety, participate in educational activities, and receive educational benefit.

BEHAVIOR SERVICES

The evidence likewise established that Student required behavior intervention services during the 2025-2026 school year.

As discussed throughout this Decision, Student exhibited significant autism-related behaviors that interfered with his ability to learn and participate in school. These behaviors persisted during the 2025-2026 school year.

Nevertheless, Earlimart did not conduct a functional behavior assessment, did not develop a behavior intervention plan, and did not offer direct behavior intervention services as part of its offer for the 2025-2026 school year.

Student’s expert witnesses Dr. Katz and Board-Certified Behavior Analyst Jacobs persuasively testified that Student required systematic behavior intervention to address behaviors that interfered with learning, communication, independence, and school participation. Jacobs had over 15 years’ experience providing behavior assessments and services to children with autism. Each expert was knowledgeable in the area they testified in, and each persuasively recommended that Student required behavior intervention from a very early age through the present, including the 2025-2026 school year. Each witness opined that Student required a functional behavior assessment, a behavior support plan, and direct behavior services provided individually and supervised by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst.

Specifically, Dr Katz and Jacobs opined that Student required robust intervention in the form of discrete trial training, a highly structured technique used within applied behavior analysis therapy. It breaks complex skills down into small, distinct, and teachable steps. Each step is taught through repeated practice, utilizing clear instructions and immediate positive reinforcement. Earlimart’s failure to provide this intervention at an early age through the present resulted in Student failing to progress in his educational placement and continuing to exhibit maladaptive behaviors that could have been remedied through direct behavior intervention services. Earlimart failed to submit any persuasive evidence to dispute these recommendations.

The evidence established that Student's behavioral needs significantly affected his ability to access instruction and benefit from special education. Nevertheless, Earlimart failed to offer behavior intervention services designed to address those needs.

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES

Student also proved that the speech and language services offered in the May 13, 2025 IEP were inadequate.

Student remained nonverbal despite years of speech and language eligibility and intervention. He lacked reliable functional communication and could not independently use spoken language, sign language, picture-based communication systems, or augmentative and alternative communication devices.

The May 13, 2025 IEP offered 30 minutes per week of speech and language services. The IEP did not clearly identify how those services would be delivered and did not adequately address Student's extensive communication needs. The services consisted of an unspecified combination of direct services, consultation, and /or collaboration between special education staff, general education staff, and Parents. There was no evidence submitted to show how the service was implemented, other than testimony from special day class teacher Lopez, who believed the service was provided virtually, in a large group, during Student’s special day class. As written, it was not possible to implement the speech and language service with fidelity.

Dr. Villareal persuasively testified that Student required substantially more comprehensive communication intervention than the services offered by Earlimart. Student required individual and systematic instruction in foundational communication skills, including receptive language, expressive language, augmentative and alternative communication, functional communication, and communication necessary for health and safety. Although the IEP noted that Student required assistive technology, Earlimart had not conducted an assistive technology assessment and had not developed an effective communication program utilizing assistive technology.

Her opinions were consistent with Student's communication profile, educational records, and demonstrated lack of progress.

The evidence established that the speech and language services offered in the IEP were insufficient to address Student's profound communication deficits and did not provide Student a reasonable opportunity to make meaningful educational progress.

The preponderance of the evidence established that Student required one-to-one aide services, behavior intervention services, and more comprehensive speech and language services to access instruction and benefit from special education during the 2025-2026 school year. Earlimart failed to offer one-to-one aide support, behavior intervention services, and adequate speech and language services. Those deficiencies deprived Student of educational benefit and rendered the IEP inappropriate under the IDEA.

Accordingly, Student proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied him a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate one-to-one aide services, behavior services, and speech and language services.

ISSUES 11(A) AND 11(B)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the October 25, 2025, by failing to provide Parent with IEP documents translated into spanish, and spanish-language translation during IEP team meetings?

Student contends that Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the period at issue by failing to provide Parent with Spanish-language translation of school documents and adequate Spanish-language interpretation during IEP team meetings.

Earlimart asserts that, upon Student's enrollment, Parent identified English as her preferred language for written notices and telephone communications. Earlimart subsequently provided Spanish-language interpretation and translation services whenever Parent requested such accommodations.

Both federal and California law require school districts to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful parental participation in the special education process. California Education Code section 56341.5 and title 34 Code of Federal Regulations section 300.322(e) require a school district to take any action necessary to ensure that a parent understands the proceedings of an IEP team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter when the parent's native language is not English. (34 C.F.R. § 300.322(e); Ed. Code, § 56341.5(i).)

In addition, California Education Code section 56348 requires translation of IEPrelated documents when necessary to ensure parental understanding and participation in the development and implementation of a student's educational program.

INTERPRETATION SERVICES AT IEP TEAM MEETINGS

Testimony from school translators Brianna Lopez and Maura Vielmas, along with notes from IEPs of May 22, 2024, and January 27, March 3, May 13, August 15, and August 29, 2025, demonstrated that throughout the relevant period, whenever Parent requested Spanish-language interpretation services for an IEP team meeting, Earlimart ensured that a qualified Spanish-language interpreter was present. Earlimart interpreters received training specific to interpretation during IEP meetings, including training regarding commonly used special education terminology.

In addition, bilingual school personnel including Buena, Aguilar, Moreno, Duran, and Vice Principal Ivan Gutierrez were present and available to provide interpretation if necessary to ensure Parent's understanding of the proceedings.

Earlimart took reasonable measures to ensure Spanish language translation at IEP team meetings for Parent.

TRANSLATION OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS

When Parent enrolled Student in kindergarten in May 2024, she completed enrollment documentation indicating that English was her preferred language for notices and telephone communications. Consistent with Parent's stated preference, Earlimart provided written communications in English unless Parent specifically requested Spanish-language translation.

On November 14, 2025, Earlimart informed Parent that correspondence was being sent in English based upon the language preference reflected in her enrollment documentation and advised Parent that she could complete updated paperwork to designate Spanish as her preferred language. Nonetheless, Parent did not submit revised language-preference documentation.

Notwithstanding Parent's designation of English as her preferred language, Earlimart provided Spanish-language translations whenever Parent requested them. Specifically, Earlimart provided Spanish-language copies of the October 9, and 21, 2025 IEPs. Earlimart also provided numerous additional documents in Spanish upon Parent’s request, including IEP team meeting notices, assessment plans, email correspondence, written whiteboard notes generated during IEP team meetings, and incident reports.

Finally, Student’s experts Dr. Villareal, Dr. Katz, and Jacobs described Parent as fully bilingual, with an ability to speak and understand English as well as Spanish.

Student failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Earlimart denied Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the October 25, 2025, by failing to provide Parent with IEP documents translated into Spanish and Spanish-language translation during IEP team meetings.

ISSUE 11(C)

Did Earlimart deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through October 25, 2025, by failing to provide Parent with prior written notice when denying Parent’s requests for a one-to-one aide?

Student alleges that Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to provide Parent with legally compliant prior written notice when denying her requests for a one-to-one aide. Earlimart contends that it adequately informed Parent of its refusal during IEP team meetings and that no separate written notice was required.

Federal law requires a school district to provide written notice whenever it proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement of a child, or the provision of a FAPE to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a).) The notice must include:

1. A description of the action proposed or refused by the district;

2. An explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action;

3. A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report used as a basis for the proposed or refused action;

4. A statement that the parents have protections under the procedural safeguards provisions of the IDEA and information regarding how to obtain a copy of those safeguards;

5. Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the IDEA's provisions;

6. A description of other options considered by the IEP team and the reasons those options were rejected; and

7. A description of any other factors relevant to the district's proposal or refusal. (34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3).)

PARENT'S REQUESTS FOR A ONE-TO-ONE AIDE

Parent requested a dedicated one-to-one aide for Student on multiple occasions. Parent made the request during the IEP team meeting held on May 13, 2025, and renewed the request during a subsequent IEP team meeting on June 2, 2025. Parent again requested a one-to-one aide in an email sent to Earlimart Director Jimenez on September 29, 2025.

Earlimart did not provide a formal prior written notice in response to any of these requests. Rather, Earlimart argues that prior written notice was unnecessary because the May 13, 2025 IEP meeting notes documented Parent's request and Earlimart’s rationale for denying it. An IEP document containing meeting notes, together with procedural safeguards, may under some circumstances satisfy the requirements for prior written notice. (See Santa Cruz City Sch. Dist. (Nov. 10, 2025) OAH Case No. 2025060821.)

However, Earlimart’s explanation for denying Parent's request was legally and factually flawed. The IEP team stated that a one-to-one aide could not be considered until other, less restrictive supports had been attempted, including placement within a continuum of special day classes. The Earlimart IEP team members characterized a one-to-one aide as a more restrictive intervention than a special day class placement. That rationale was incorrect. A one-to-one aide is a related support service that may be necessary to enable a student to access instruction safely and meaningfully within a less restrictive educational setting. It is not categorically more restrictive than a special day class placement. Accordingly, Earlimart’s explanation did not accurately describe the basis for its refusal.

Parent renewed her request for a one-to-one aide during the June 2, 2025 IEP team meeting. Earlimart again denied the request, maintaining that such support would be overly restrictive. As with the prior meeting, Earlimart did not provide Parent with a compliant prior written notice identifying the action refused, the reasons for the refusal, the information relied upon, alternative options considered, and the reasons those alternatives were rejected.

Parent again requested a one-to-one aide in an email sent to Director Jimenez on September 29, 2025. In that email, Parent described multiple incidents in which Student had been injured during the approximately one month he had attended school during the 2025-2026 school year. Parent reported that Student had returned home with serious bite marks and other injuries and expressed significant concerns regarding Student's safety while at school. Parent further advised the school district that she would not return Student to school unless Earlimart provided a dedicated one-to-one aide to address those safety concerns.

In its closing brief, Earlimart did not dispute that it failed to provide prior written notice in response to this request. Rather, Earlimart argues the May 13, 2025 IEP meeting notes sufficiently responded to Parent’s request for a one-to-one aide. Earlimart overlooks that Parent’s September 29, 2025 email provided information that occurred after the May 13, 2025 IEP, including that Student had been injured at school during August and September 2025. Earlimart was obligated to provide Parent prior written notice to explain its rational for denying a one-to-one-to one aide based on this new information. Instead, Earlimart again failed to comply with its statutory obligation to formally document and explain its refusal to provide the requested support.

Failure to provide legally compliant prior written notice constitutes a procedural violation of the IDEA. A procedural violation results in a denial of FAPE when it impedes the student's right to a FAPE, significantly interferes with parental participation in the decision-making process, or deprives the student of educational benefits. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(2).)

Student demonstrated profound educational, behavioral, and safety needs that warranted the provision of a dedicated one-to-one aide. Parent's repeated requests for such support were therefore reasonable and directly related to Student's ability to safely access his educational program. Under these circumstances, Earlimart was obligated to provide a formal prior written notice fully explaining its refusal and satisfying the requirements of title 34 Code of Federal Regulations section 300.503(b). Earlimart failed to do so.

Earlimart’s repeated failure to provide compliant prior written notice significantly interfered with Parent's ability to participate meaningfully in the development of Student's educational program. Without the statutorily required explanation of the school district's reasoning, the evaluations and records relied upon, the alternatives considered, and the basis for rejecting those alternatives, Parent was deprived of critical information necessary to advocate effectively for Student.

Accordingly, Earlimart’s failure to provide legally compliant prior written notice significantly impeded Parent's participation in the decision-making process and denied Student's right to a FAPE.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

As required by California Education Code section 56507, subdivision (d), the hearing decision must indicate the extent to which each party has prevailed on each issue heard and decided.

ISSUE 1

Earlimart’s speech and language assessment contained within the May 22, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report did not meet legal requirements and Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent speech and language assessment.

Student prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2

Earlimart’s psychoeducational assessment contained within the May 22, 2024, multidisciplinary assessment report did not meet legal requirements and Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent psychoeducational assessment.

Student prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3

This Decision does not decide whether Earlimart’s March 25, 2025 psychoeducation assessment report met legal requirements because Parent did not seek an independent educational assessment in response to the assessment.

Neither party prevailed on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year by failing to assess Student in autism.

Student prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in: (a) autism and (b) communication.

Student prevailed on Issue 5, subsections (a) and (b).

ISSUE 6 SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in (a) autism and (b) communication.

Student prevailed on Issue 6, subsections (a) and (b).

ISSUE 7, SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), AND (C)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year, through October 23, 2025, by failing to offer appropriate goals to address his needs in (a) autism, (b) communication, and (c) safety when eating.

Student prevailed on Issue 7, subsections (a), (b), and (c).

ISSUE 8, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through the 2023-2024 school year, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically (a) one-to-one aide services, and (b) behavior services.

Student prevailed on Issue 8, subsections (a) and (b).

ISSUE 9, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the 2024-2025 school year, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically (a) one-to-one aide services, and (b) behavior services.

Student prevailed on Issue 9, subsections (a) and (b).

ISSUE 10, SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), AND (C)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE during the 2025-2026 school year through October 25, 2026, by failing to offer appropriate services, specifically (a) one-to-one aide services, (b) behavior services, and (c) speech and language services.

Student prevailed in Issue 10, subsections (a), (b), and (c).

ISSUE 11, SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B)

Earlimart did not deny Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through October 25, 2025, by failing to provide (a) Parent with IEP documents translated into the Spanish language; and (b) Spanish-language translation during IEP team meetings.

Earlimart prevailed on Issue 11, subsections (a) and (b).

ISSUE 11, SUBSECTION (C)

Earlimart denied Student a FAPE from October 25, 2023, through October 25, 2025, by failing to provide Parent with prior written notice when denying Parent’s requests for a one-to-one aide.

Student prevailed on Issue 11, subsection (c).

REMEDIES

Under federal and state law, courts possess broad equitable authority to remedy a school district's failure to provide a FAPE to a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); Burlington, supra, 471 U.S. at p. 369.) This broad equitable authority extends to Administrative Law Judges adjudicating special education due process matters. (Forest Grove, supra, 557 U.S. at p. 244, fn. 11.)

Parents may be entitled to reimbursement for educational services or evaluations privately obtained when a school district has failed to provide a FAPE. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C).) Here, Earlimart denied Student a FAPE by failing to file a due process complaint without unnecessary delay after Parent requested independent educational evaluations in response to Earlimart's May 22, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. This failure deprived Parent of meaningful participation in the educational decision-making process concerning Student's educational program and entitlement to a FAPE, and resulted in a loss of educational benefit to Student. Student is therefore entitled to equitable relief.

Student requested reimbursement of $4,500 for an independent speech-language evaluation conducted by Dr. Villareal and reimbursement of $7,500 for an independent psychoeducational evaluation conducted by Dr. Katz. Reimbursement for these evaluations constitutes an appropriate compensatory remedy for the FAPE violations established in Issues 1 and 2. Therefore, Earlimart shall reimburse Parent for the cost of these evaluations.

Student further proved that Earlimart denied him a FAPE by failing to assess him for autism and by failing to offer appropriate goals and services, as alleged in Issues 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. These violations occurred from October 25, 2023, through October 23,

2025. Student is therefore entitled to compensatory educational services designed to place him in the position he would likely have occupied had Earlimart complied with its obligations under the IDEA.

Psychologist Dr. Katz and Board-Certified Behavior Analyst Jacobs persuasively recommended intensive, evidence-based behavioral intervention services to address Student's significant behavioral and adaptive deficits. As a compensatory remedy, Earlimart shall provide Student with 400 hours of behavior intervention services. This award represents approximately five hours per week for 40 weeks per year over two regular school years. Earlimart shall directly fund the services through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent.

Dr. Villareal persuasively recommended intensive speech-language and communication services, including services addressing Student's need for assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication supports. As a compensatory remedy, Earlimart shall provide Student with 160 hours of speechlanguage and communication services through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent. This award represents two hours weekly of speech and language services for two regular school years. Earlimart shall directly fund the services.

Student's autism significantly impacted every aspect of his educational functioning, including communication, behavior, social interaction, and academic development. Earlimart's failure to appropriately assess and address Student's autism through comprehensive assessment, appropriate goals, and necessary services substantially contributed to Student's lack of educational progress. As a compensatory remedy, Earlimart shall provide Student with 80 hours of academic tutoring through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent. This award represents one hour of tutoring for each school week during the period Student was denied a FAPE. Earlimart shall directly fund the services.

In appropriate cases, relief consistent with the purposes of the IDEA may include training of school district personnel in areas related to the violations found. Such training may be ordered when necessary to remedy violations affecting the student or to prevent similar violations in the future. (Park v. Anaheim Union High School District (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1025, 1034.) Here, the evidence demonstrated that Earlimart personnel, including administrators, teachers, related service providers, and school psychologists, systemically misunderstood fundamental legal requirements governing special education and repeatedly communicated inaccurate statements regarding those requirements to Parent. These misunderstandings contributed directly to the violations found in this matter and resulted in the denial of a FAPE to Student. Among other errors, Earlimart incorrectly believed it could not consider the provision of an individual aide for Student because doing so would violate least restrictive environment requirements. This misunderstanding reflects a fundamental misapplication of IDEA and California special education law.

Earlimart also failed to either fund Parent's requested independent educational evaluations or file a due process complaint without unnecessary delay. In addition, Earlimart's school psychologist incorrectly informed Parent that an independent educational evaluation could not be requested until after Earlimart conducted a subsequent reassessment. These actions constituted clear violations of applicable law. Further, Earlimart failed to assess Student for autism despite substantial evidence demonstrating autism was an area of suspected disability. Earlimart's teachers and staff also failed to request IEP team meetings or referrals for additional assessments when it became apparent that Student's existing educational program was not adequately addressing his needs. These failures reflected a systemic lack of understanding regarding assessment requirements and the responsibility of educational staff to initiate appropriate interventions when a student's program is not effective.

Accordingly, Earlimart shall provide 24 hours of training to its special education department, including the Director of Special Education, program specialists, case managers, special education teachers, related service providers, and school psychologists, as well as its regular education teachers. The training shall be provided by an attorney or law firm with demonstrated expertise in special education law and no prior professional relationship with Earlimart. The training shall address the legal requirements for:

• developing and implementing an appropriate individualized education program,

• responding to requests for independent educational evaluations, including the obligation to either fund the requested evaluation or file a due process complaint without unnecessary delay,

• assessing students in all areas of suspected disability, including autism, and

• requesting IEP team meetings and referrals for assessment when a student's educational needs warrant further review or intervention.

ORDER

1. Earlimart School District shall reimburse Parent $4,500.00 for the cost of the independent speech-language evaluation conducted by Dr. Villareal.

2. Earlimart School District shall reimburse Parent $7,500.00 for the cost of the independent psychoeducational evaluation conducted by Dr. Katz.

3. Earlimart School District shall provide Student with 400 hours of compensatory behavior intervention services through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent and shall directly fund those services.

4. Earlimart School District shall provide Student with 160 hours of compensatory speech-language and communication services, including services related to assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication, through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent and shall directly fund those services.

5. Earlimart School District shall provide Student with 80 hours of compensatory academic tutoring through a nonpublic agency selected by Parent and shall directly fund those services.

6. Within 60 days of the date of this Decision, Earlimart School District shall retain an attorney or law firm specializing in special education law, with no prior professional relationship with Earlimart School District, to provide 24 hours of training to Earlimart's Director of Special Education, program specialists, case managers, special education teachers, related service providers, school psychologists, and regular education teachers.

7. The training shall address the legal requirements for developing and implementing appropriate individualized education programs; responding to requests for independent educational evaluations; assessing students in all areas of suspected disability, including autism; and requesting IEP team meetings and assessment referrals when warranted by a student's educational needs.

8. The training required by Orders 6 and 7 shall be completed no later than March 1, 2027.

9. Within 10 calendar days of completing the training, Earlimart School District shall provide written notice of completion to Parent and Student’s counsel.

10. 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.

PAUL H. KAMOROFF

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings