Parent on Behalf of Student v. Irvine Unified School District

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DECISION

JULY 6, 2026

On March 2, 2026, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a due process hearing request, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Irvine Unified School District as respondent. On April 1, 2026, OAH granted Student’s request to amend the complaint.

Administrative Law Judge Penelope Pahl heard this matter via videoconference on May 19, 20, 21, 26, 27, and 28, 2026. Father appeared on behalf of Student. Mother and Student attended the hearing only when they testified. Attorney Amy Rogers represented Irvine Unified School District. Katie Purnick, Irvine’s special education director, attended all hearing days on Irvine’s behalf.

The matter was continued to June 15, 2026, at 1:00 PM, for the parties to file written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on June 15,

2026.

STUDENT’S MOTION TO ADD CLAIMS TO THE ISSUES STATED IN THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE ORDER

On May 14, 2026, Student filed a “Notice Regarding Consolidation of Issues That Should be Separated in PHC Order.” Rather than seeking separation of issues consolidated in the PHC Order, the motion requested additions to issues 3, 4, 5, and 6. Following a discussion on the record on the first day of hearing, both sides agreed that the requested additions in Student’s motion would be included in the issues to be considered during the hearing. The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) Here, Irvine consented to the additions to issues requested by Student. Specifically, those requested were to add “the email sent to Parents by School Psychologist Katlyn White on January 29, 2025” to issues, 3, 4, and 5; and Student’s request to add “the IEP of January 10, 2025,” to Student’s issue 6. Those additions are reflected in the Issues section of this Decision and in the analysis of each issue that follows.

MINISTERIAL DATE ERROR CORRECTION

Following the conclusion of the hearing, the ALJ discovered a ministerial error made as to the IEP dates in issues three, four, five and six. Those four issues, including sub-issues, referred to IEP offers identified as January 26, 2026, February 13, 2026 and March 3, 2026. The correct date for the January 2026 IEP was January 21, 2026. No IEP team meeting was held in February of 2026. March 3, 2026, was the correct date of the first session of the IEP team meeting in March of 2026. The March 3, 2026 IEP team meeting was completed on March 6, 2026. The issue statements have been adjusted to reflect the correct dates.

ISSUES

1. Did Irvine deny Student a free appropriate public education, or FAPE, because its multidisciplinary assessment report of December 18, 2024, was inappropriate and insufficiently comprehensive?

2. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE because it failed to assess him between March 2, 2024 and March 2, 2026, in all areas of suspected disability, namely independent living and functional behavior?

3. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE because, in an email dated January 29, 2025, from School Psychologist Whyte, and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, it predetermined his placement, including predetermining that he should not be offered placement in a non-public school?

4. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE because, in an email dated January 29, 2025, from School Psychologist Whyte, and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026 and March 3, 2026, it failed to consider the full continuum of placement options, including failing to consider placement in a non-public school?

5. Did Irvine fail to ensure meaningful parental participation in the IEP process in an email dated January 29, 2025, from School Psychologist Whyte and in its IEP offers of January 21, and March 3, 2026, by failing to consider placement in a non-public school?

6. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it failed to:

a. provide sufficient transition planning;

b. adequately address his social-emotional needs;

c. adequately address his needs related to autism;

d. adequately address his low academic scores;

e. remedy the defects in the independent educational evaluation it funded; and

f. dilute his curriculum to manipulate his eligibility for graduation, and so he could not complete A-G courses?

7. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE because it failed, in January, February, and March 2026, to give Parents legally compliant prior written notice of its decision not to place him in a non-public school?

8. Did Irvine deny Student a FAPE by concealing performance data and refusing to conduct an IEP team meeting in 2026 on his course selection and supports?

JURISDICTION

This hearing was held under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA, its regulations, and California special education statutes and regulations. (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 (2006) et seq.; Ed. Code, § 56000 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3000 et seq.) The main purposes of the IDEA, are to ensure:

• all children with disabilities have available to them a FAPE, that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living; and

• the rights of children with disabilities, and their parents are protected. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1); See Ed. Code, § 56000, subd. (a).)

The IDEA affords parents and local educational agencies the procedural protection of an impartial due process hearing with respect to any matter relating to the identification, assessment, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a FAPE, to the child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6) & (f); 34 C.F.R. § 300.511; 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. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i).) The party requesting the hearing has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (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 case, Student had the burden of proof. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (e)(5).)

Student was 18 years and in the 12th grade at the time of hearing. The parties did not dispute Student’s residency in the Irvine’s geographic boundaries during the relevant time period. Student was eligible for special education under the category of Autism.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

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 individualized education program, referred to as an IEP, for an eligible student based upon California 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. (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176, 201-204 (Rowley); Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000] (Endrew F).)

ISSUE 1:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BECAUSE ITS MULTIDISCIPLINARY ASSESSMENT REPORT OF DECEMBER 18, 2024, WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND INSUFFICIENTLY COMPREHENSIVE?

Student contends Irvine’s December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment was inappropriate and insufficiently comprehensive. Irvine argues Student failed to prove the report did not meet legal standards. Irvine further asserts Parents waived their right to challenge assessments conducted through May 6, 2025, because Parents signed a settlement agreement waiving Student’s right to challenge assessments conducted by Irvine through May 6, 2025.

A school district must ensure that a child is assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); Ed. Code § 56320, subd. (f).) The assessment must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child is classified. (34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(6) (2010).)

Irvine conducted a multidisciplinary assessment of Student culminating in an assessment report dated December 18, 2024, to complete Student’s mandated triennial reevaluations for special education and related services. School districts must conduct “triennial reevaluations,” at least once every three years, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree that reevaluation is unnecessary. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2).) In California, the term “assessment,” and the term “evaluation,” as used in the IDEA, are used interchangeably. (Ed. Code §56302.5; and see, 20 U.S.C.§ 1414.)

Student argued Irvine’s multidisciplinary assessment failed to assess how Student’s communication and social interaction deficits affected Student’s executive functioning, work completion, independent living, transition readiness, or placement needs. Student offered no evidence that the multidisciplinary assessment were either inappropriate, or insufficiently comprehensive. Student did not offer expert witness, or any other testimony, or evidence, establishing that any aspect of the psychoeducational, health, academic, or speech and language assessments failed to meet legal requirements, or were not complete or accurate assessments of Student’s abilities and special education needs.

Additionally, Student waived the right to further challenge these assessments in his May 6, 2025 settlement agreement with Irvine. During the hearing in this case, both Parents acknowledged they signed and agreed to the May 6, 2025 agreement that settled OAH case number 2025040020, the case Irvine filed to defend its December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. As a general rule, where the parties in an IDEA dispute voluntarily enter into a settlement agreement, the agreement constitutes a binding contract that is enforceable against the parties. (D.R. by M.R. v. E. Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 109 F.3d 896, 901 (3d Cir.1997). In the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement, Student specifically waived his right to pursue independent educational evaluations as to any assessment Irvine had conducted through May 6, 2025, which included the December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. As part of the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement, Irvine funded independent educational evaluations in executive function and functional behavior. Pursuant to the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement, Student was specifically precluded from challenging the appropriateness of the December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment.

Student failed to prove Irvine conducted a multidisciplinary assessment on December 18, 2024 that was either inappropriate, or was not comprehensive. Student also waived the right to challenge the December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. Therefore, Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE due to Irvine’s failure to conduct a legally compliant multidisciplinary assessment as reported on December 18,

2024.

ISSUE 2:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ASSESS HIM BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2024 AND MARCH 2, 2026, IN ALL AREAS OF SUSPECTED DISABILITY, NAMELY INDEPENDENT LIVING AND FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIOR?

Student’s second issue similarly asserts assessment claims waived in the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement. In this issue, Student contends Irvine failed to assess him in the areas of independent living and functional behavior from March 2, 2024, through March 2, 2026. In addition to arguing Parents waived this claim in the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement, Irvine contends Parent failed to prove it had any reason to suspect Student had disabilities requiring assessment in the areas of independent living or functional behavior during this time frame.

STUDENT’S ALLEGED ASSESSMENT CLAIMS BEGAN ON AUGUST 22, 2024.

As an initial matter, Student did not enter Irvine Unified School District until August 22, 2024, which was the first day of the 2024-2025 school year. Student attended private school, and an online school that was not part of the Irvine district, for ninth and tenth grades. A review of Student’s amended complaint in this matter shows that Student did not assert a claim for failure to assess him until the first day of the 2024-2025 school year. Therefore, this issue will be analyzed for the period from August 22, 2024 through March 2, 2026.

STUDENT’S ASSESSMENT CLAIMS WAIVED THROUGH MAY 6, 2025

The settlement agreement Parents signed on May 6, 2025 acknowledged and agreed they were withdrawing their January 29, and March 6, 2025 independent assessment requests, which included independent living and functional behavior. In exchange, Irvine funded independent executive function and functional behavior assessments. Those evaluations were funded and completed, as is more fully explained later in this decision.

Pursuant to Parents consent to an assessment plan, Irvine conducted triennial assessments in the areas of academic achievement, health, language and speech-communication development psychoeducational and post-secondary transition. Psychoeducational assessments included social emotional and behavior, adaptive behavior, attention, and mood. Student’s triennial assessments were discussed at his December 18, 2024 and January 10, 2025 IEP team meetings.

On January 29, 2025, Father sent an email to Irvine stating Parents did not agree with Irvine’s determination that Irvine’s comprehensive high school met Student’s FAPE needs. Father also noted Parent’s disagreement with Irvine’s determination that Student did not need the more restrictive setting of a nonpublic school. Parent requested “an independent assessment as a first step towards filing a due process complaint.” Parents did not specify the assessments with which they disagreed.

On January 31, 2025, Irvine stated it understood Parents’ independent educational evaluation request to encompass the psychoeducation and the speech and language assessments included in its December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. Parents did not reply to this email. On March 5, 2025, Irvine informed Parents it would file to defend its assessments.

On March 5, 2025, Parents emailed Irvine program specialist Lauren Morrison, stating that Irvine’s January 31, 2025 email had incorrectly narrowed Parents’ request for independent educational evaluations. In addition to the assessments included in Irvine’s multidisciplinary assessment, Parents asserted their requested independent evaluations included, but were not limited to, executive functioning, attention, assistive technology, occupational therapy, including sensory processing and fine motor skills, and functional behavior.

On March 28, 2025, Irvine filed a due process hearing request in OAH case number 2025040020 to defend its December 18, 2024 multidisciplinary assessment. On May 6, 2025, Parents signed a settlement agreement to resolve Irvine’s case. Pursuant to the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement, in exchange for an agreement for Irvine to fund independent educational evaluations in executive functioning and functional behavior, among other agreements, Parents agreed that their January 29 and March 5, 2025 requests for independent educational evaluations were satisfied. These included requests for independent living and executive function assessments. Parents also agreed they were not entitled to any further independent educational evaluations from Irvine for any assessment conducted by the district through May 6, 2025. As a result, Student was precluded from asserting claims in this case that Irvine failed to assess him in independent living and functional behavior through May 6, 2025.

NO EVIDENCE OF SUSPECTED DISABILITY IN INDEPENDENT LIVING OR BEHAVIOR

Even had the waiver not disposed of Student’s right to request additional assessments in the areas of independent living and functional behavior, Student presented no evidence that he had independent living or functional behavior deficits that were impacting his ability to access his education, or impairing his ability to gain educational benefit through May 6, 2025.

Student argues that there was no legal basis for excluding independent living assessments to determine independent living transition goals, based on the fact Student was on the diploma track or did not have significant developmental delays. However, daily living skills and functional vocational evaluations are only conducted “when appropriate.” (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (34)(c).) Student offered no expert or other persuasive evidence that Student had independent living needs that required assessment. Nor did Student offer any evidence that Irvine should have been aware of independent living needs requiring assessment at any time through March 2, 2026.

School psychologist Katlyn Whyte, education specialists Leo Maldonado and Barbara Smay, and speech-language pathologist Sara Grant, all confirmed the triennial assessments included evaluations of Student’s adaptive living skills, social emotional status, and behavior. Whyte, Maldonado, Smay, and Grant all agreed that the assessments revealed no suspicion of disability in the areas of independent living or behavior that impeded either Student’s ability to access his education, or his ability to benefit from his education. None of Irvine’s assessors or any other IEP team member suspected disabilities in the areas of independent living or functional behavior.

Whyte recalled her discussions with Student revealed a need for additional processing time when answering questions verbally. Student wanted to make more friends. However, as Whyte noted both in testimony and in her psychoeducational assessment of Student, Student had just entered the Irvine school district a few months prior to the triennial assessments. It was a new school, and a larger school than Student had attended in the past few years. However, he was managing the general education classes and even went off campus for lunch and returned for his next class, demonstrating that he was able to access the community as well.

Whyte assessed Student’s cognitive processing skills in the average to superior ranges. Student’s academic assessments revealed no academic concerns. Whyte did notice he struggled with attention in his Physics class, where he sat in the back and used a fidget. She advised the teacher to move him to a seat in front. Student had elevated scores on the Children’s depression self-assessment, but, when taking into consideration the whole range of assessments, Whyte, and speech-language pathologist Grant, determined the depression Student endorsed primarily had to do with a lack of self-confidence, and communication deficits. As a result, it was determined that focusing on his communication should be made a priority.

Irvine’s assessors’ conclusions were not contradicted by any expert or other witness, or other evidence offered by Student. Student offered no expert or other persuasive testimony or evidence of needs in fundamental independent living skills such as dressing, nutrition, hygiene, handling money, accessing the community, accessing transportation, or any other fundamental living skill. Nor did Student offer any evidence establishing unmet needs related to Student’s functional behavior at school. There was no evidence that Student exhibited behavior that disrupted his own learning or the learning of others. Therefore, Student did not prove Irvine had any basis for assessing his independent living skills and behavior needs at any time between August 22, 2024 and March 2, 2026.

REASSESSMENT LIMITED TO ONCE PER YEAR ABSENT THE PARTIES’ AGREEMENT

The agreed independent assessments in the areas of functional behavior and executive function were completed between June and October 2025. Student’s functional behavior assessment report was completed on November 1, 2025. Due to Parent’s request for new independent evaluations, Parent declined to have the reports regarding the independent assessments considered by the IEP team on December 10, 2025, which was the original date set for the IEP team to consider the reports. Instead, Dr. Susan Ferencz presented her independent assessment reports to the IEP team on March 3, 2026, and the IEP team finished its discussion of the report on March 6, 2026, which completed the assessment process. (34 C.F.R 300.306(a)(1).)

The IDEA provides for periodic reevaluations to be conducted not more frequently than one time per year, unless the parents and the school district agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(1); Ed Code § 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Here, Student offered no proof Irvine agreed to further assessments in the areas of independent living or functional behavior between the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement and March 2, 2026.

Student did not offer any proof, or persuasive legal authority, establishing any other basis on which Irvine would have been obligated to reassess Student in the areas of independent living and functional behavior between the dates of May 7, 2025 and March 2, 2026. Therefore, Student failed to prove Irvine denied him a FAPE because it did not assess him in the areas of independent living and functional behavior from August 22, 2024 to March 2, 2026.

ISSUE 3:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BECAUSE, IN AN EMAIL DATED JANUARY 29, 2025, FROM SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST WHYTE, AND IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 21, 2026 AND MARCH 3, 2026, IRVINE PREDETERMINED THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE OFFERED PLACEMENT IN A NON-PUBLIC SCHOOL?

Student asserts Irvine predetermined its refusal to offer Student placement in a non-public school. Student argues predetermination occurred in school psychologist Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email, as well as during IEPs conducted on December 18, 2024, January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026. Neither the December 18, 2024 IEP, nor the January 10, 2025 IEP were included in the issue revisions the parties agreed to at the beginning of the hearing.

Irvine contends the evidence demonstrated it engaged in meaningful discussions with Parents regarding the placement Student needed to progress on his IEP goals and access his education. Irvine further argued there was no evidence of predetermination during the January 10, 2025, the January 21, 2026, which Irvine mistakenly identifies as the January 26, 2026 IEP, and March 3, 2026 IEP team meetings.

Although the addition to Issue 3 agreed to at the beginning of the hearing included only Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email, both sides’ closing arguments included a discussion of whether predetermination occurred at the January 10, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student’s closing brief also included a discussion of predetermination as to the December 18, 2024 IEP. Discussions of predetermination related to the December 18, 2024 IEP, and January 10, 2025 IEPs, are not included in this Decision, because the issues, as amended pursuant to Student’s request and consented to by both parties at the beginning of the hearing, did not include those dates.

A school district violates the IDEA if it predetermines placement for a student before the IEP is developed, or steers the IEP to the predetermined placement. (W.G. v. Bd. of Tr. of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 (9th Cir.1992), superseded by statute on other grounds, as recognized in R.B. v. Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., (9th Cir. 2007) 496 F.3d 932.) Although an educational agency is not required to accede to parents' desired placement, it must maintain an open mind about placement decisions and be willing to consider a placement proposed by the parents, as well as its own proposed placement. (H.B. ex rel P.B. v. Las Virgenes Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2007) 239 Fed. Appx. 342, 345–346.) Student offered no evidence that Irvine failed to consider nonpublic school placement with an open mind, during the, January 21, 2026 or March 3, 2026 IEP team meetings.

WHYTE’S JANUARY 29, 2025 EMAIL TO PARENTS

During the January 10, 2025 IEP team meeting, Parents asked if a nonpublic school placement that emphasized social skills over academics would be a better placement for Student. Irvine’s IEP team members told Parents that, considering the growth seen in Student since his arrival in the district a few months earlier, they believed general education classes in a comprehensive high school was Student’s best placement. In response to Parents’ concern about Student’s social skills, the January 10, 2025 IEP team increased Student’s speech and language services from 15 sessions per year to 30 sessions per year. Additionally, speech-language pathologist Sara Grant recommended that Student participate in “Project Success,” a general education, lunch period opportunity to communicate and socialize with peers. Grant also noted that Student was participating in the game development club.

In a January 27, 2025 email to school psychologist Whyte and special education teacher Maldonado, Father informed Irvine that he had contacted New Vista nonpublic school to see if a nonpublic school option would work better for Student. Parents believed Student needed to focus on his social skills first and his academics second, supported with enrichment and tutoring. Father opined that Irvine’s comprehensive high school could not offer the kind of program he envisioned for Student. Father asked Irvine to provide information on “next steps and where to apply for the Non Public School option.”

On January 29, 2025, school psychologist Katlyn Whyte replied to Parents’ email and explained the process for nonpublic school placement. Whyte explained the concept of a continuum of special education placements to meet the various needs of special education students, and gave examples of the continuum of placements Irvine used, including the placement in Student’s current IEP offer. Whyte also explained that state and federal special education laws mandated placing special education students in the least restrictive environment, that can meet a Student’s educational needs. She further explained that nonpublic school was considered one of the most restrictive environments on the continuum because nonpublic school removes Student completely from access to general education students.

Whyte reiterated the information provided at the January 10, 2025 IEP team meeting, specifically, that the Irvine IEP team members saw Student making steady progress towards both IEP goals and his regular high school diploma requirements. Having considered Student’s assessments, schoolwork, and progress on goals, Irvine IEP team members did not see a need for a more restrictive setting. Whyte also noted Parents had not consented to the IEP changes proposed on January 10, 2025, adding more speech and language services. Irvine wanted the opportunity to see if those additional speech and language services helped Student with his social communication. Whyte encouraged Parents to consent to the December 18, 2024 IEP which included the January 10, 2025 IEP changes, so they could implement the additional speech services offered for Student’s social skills, executive functioning, and additional specialized academic instruction in Student’s physics class. Mother consented to the December 18, 2024 IEP on February 4, 2025.

Student asserted that Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email constituted placement predetermination. Whyte’s email simply explained the process for evaluating the least restrictive environment appropriate for a special education student under the IDEA. It also reiterated consideration of the continuum of placements at Student’s January 10, 2025 IEP team meeting. Student offered no legal authority or any evidence that Whyte’s email explanation of the process by which an IEP team considered nonpublic school placement, or her reiteration of the prior IEP team discussion, constituted predetermination of Student’s placement. Student’s unsupported arguments were not persuasive.

Student failed to prove school psychologist Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email constituted predetermination.

JANUARY 21, 2026 AND MARCH 3, 2026 IEP TEAM MEETINGS

Student offered no evidence that the January 21, 2026 IEP team predetermined, or even discussed Student's placement. Student did not argue in closing that either the January 21, 2026 or March 3, 2026 IEP team meetings predetermined Student’s placement.

The evidence did establish that during the January 21, 2026 IEP team meeting, the IEP team discussed Student’s progress and ability to access his curriculum in the general education setting. Smay reported that Student demonstrated grade level reading, writing, and mathematical skills. Irvine IEP team members confirmed Student reported to class on time and independently. Smay and Grant both described Student as being more relaxed and comfortable at the school during his senior year as compared to his junior year, resulting in growth in his independence. There was no evidence of behaviors interfering with Student’s or others’ education. No evidence was presented that Student required a more restrictive placement than Irvine was currently offering.

Parents expressed concern about Student’s ability to communicate and manage job interactions or being stopped by the police. Speech-language pathologist Grant described seeing a lot of progress with Student’s speech. Grant attributed that to Student’s familiarity with his speech group members. Grant noted Student’s more frequent contributions to the conversations. Grant also reported that Student’s teachers mentioned Student asked for help more often, from both teachers, and from peers. Grant informed the IEP team that Student met his 2024-2025 goal of joining the conversation more. During his senior year, Grant proposed working with Student to share his opinions and ask questions during conversations.

Mother expressed concern at the end of the January 21, 2026 IEP team meeting, that Student did not have friends. Grant shared that Student was friendly with others from his speech group, and Grant encouraged Student to pursue those friendships outside the speech sessions. Grant reiterated that Student appeared more comfortable than he was in the 2024-2025 school year. He had worked successfully through the challenge of transitioning to Irvine’s bigger high school. Grant opined that Student’s increased comfort with the comprehensive high school campus would allow him to adjust better to a larger campus after high school. Student offered no evidence that Irvine’s IEP team members failed to consider Student’s needs related to his placement or refused to discuss nonpublic school placement during the January 21, 2026 IEP team meeting.

Student’s IEP team reconvened on March 3, 2026 to review Dr. Ferencz’ independent educational evaluation results and recommendations. Those discussions were completed at the second session of the meeting on March 6, 2026, and included further discussions of Parents’ continued request for a nonpublic school placement for Student.

During the hearing Dr. Ferencz explained that, during the March 3, 2026 IEP she recommended the accommodations currently being implemented in the classroom be continued. Dr. Ferencz saw no behaviors requiring that Student have a behavior plan. He did not have behaviors that disrupted his own work or the work of other Students. He did not display any difficulties with independent living skills. Ferencz observed only one instance of a target behavior during her observations. In English class, Student took four minutes to initiate his classwork. Ferencz considered this a “mild” demonstration of task avoidance. Ferencz did not recommend Student be placed in a nonpublic school.

Father disagreed with Ferencz’ conclusions and recommendations. According to the March 6, 2026 IEP notes, and emails exchanged with Irvine IEP team members, Father was concerned Student would not be prepared to function as an adult when he graduated from high school. As a result, during the March 6, 2026 IEP team meeting, Parents reiterated their request that Student be placed in a nonpublic school with small classes, that prioritized social skills development. The Irvine IEP team members did not agree that Student required a more restrictive setting to progress on his IEP goals or access his education.

The evidence established the team discussed Parents concerns. The Irvine IEP team members considered Student’s needs, academic and social progress and his success in accessing his education in the general education classes. The Irvine IEP team members explained their view that Irvine’s comprehensive high school was the least restrictive environment in which Student was able to access his education and maintain the most interaction with general education peers. Student offered no evidence that Irvine’s IEP team members would not consider Parents request for a nonpublic school placement. The evidence established Parents and the IEP team disagreed on the need for a nonpublic school placement. District’s refusal to fund Plaintiff's choice of private services does not demonstrate unwillingness to consider Plaintiff's argument, and thus does not constitute predetermination. (Garcia v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (C.D. Cal., Sept. 27, 2019, No. SACV162111DOCDFMX) 2019 WL 8884143, at *20. (unpub. opn.) citing, H.B., et al v. Las Virgenes Unified Sch. Dist., (9th Cir. 2007)239 Fed. Appx. 342, 344, 2007 WL 1989594, at *2 (unpub. opn.).)

Here Irvine continuously demonstrated a willingness to have additional conversations about nonpublic school as demonstrated by email exchanges between Father and Irvine Staff. In her January 29, 2025 email, school psychologist Whyte invited Father to call to further discuss her explanation of the least restrictive environment and continuum of placements. In her March 13, 2025, email, program specialist Lauren Morrison offered additional district assessments and a few different options for further IEP team meetings regarding placement. Student argued in closing that Parents “missed” Morrison’s offer to discuss the nonpublic school option at a future IEP team meeting. However, Student presented no evidence at hearing that Parents missed this offer to meet, or the meeting notices attached to Morrison’s email with different proposed meeting dates. Student failed to prove Irvine predetermined its IEP offers of December 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026.

ISSUE 4:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BECAUSE, IN AN EMAIL DATED JANUARY 29, 2025, FROM SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST WHYTE, AND IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 21, 2026, AND MARCH 3, 2026, IRVINE FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FULL CONTINUUM OF PLACEMENT OPTIONS?

Student contends Irvine failed to consider the continuum of placements when creating his IEPs. Contrary to the issue amendment requested by Father, and agreed by the parties at the beginning of the hearing, in his closing argument Parent contends the continuum of placement options was not considered in Irvine’s December 18 2024, and January 10, 2025 IEP offers. Parent did not ask to expand the issue to include these dates in either his motion asking that additional dates be added to the issues, or during the discussion of issues that culminated in issue revisions at the beginning of the hearing. Therefore, Irvine’s failure to consider the placement continuum as to the December 18, 2024 and January 10, 2025 IEPs will not be addressed in this Decision. This Decision considers only the amendment to Issue 4 proposed by Student and agreed by the parties at the beginning of the hearing.

NO FAILURE TO CONSIDER PLACEMENT CONTINUUM

As with Issue 3, Student offered no legal authority establishing that school psychologist Whyte’s email was required to consider the continuum of placements. Despite that fact, as discussed in Issue 3, Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email explained the continuum and reiterated the IEP team’s most recent discussion regarding why they did not believe Student needed a more restrictive setting.

Additionally, Student offered no evidence that either the January 21, 2026 IEP or March 3, 2026 IEP teams failed to consider the continuum of placements. The evidence discussed in Issue 3, demonstrates that Irvine considered Student’s ability to progress on his IEP goals, and access his education, and found him to be successful in the general education environment offered. As a result, he did not require a more restrictive environment to access his education.

Both federal and state law require a school district to provide special education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the child’s needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a); Ed. Code, § 56040.1.) This means that a school district must educate a special needs pupil with nondisabled peers “to the maximum extent appropriate.” A special education pupil may be removed from the general education environment only when the nature or severity of the student’s disabilities is such that education in general classes with the use of supplementary aids and services “cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(ii); Ed. Code, § 56040.1; see Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H. (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398,1403; Ms. S. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1136-1137.)

In Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H., (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal set forth four factors that must be evaluated and balanced to determine whether a placement is in the least restrictive environment. The first factor considers the educational benefits of full-time placement in a regular classroom. Here, Student had access to a wide variety of courses at the college preparatory level on Irvine’s comprehensive high school campus. The evidence demonstrated he was capable of accessing, and successfully passing, these more difficult courses. Although he failed several courses prior to coming to Irvine, once placed in the comprehensive high school program, Student took and passed nearly all college preparatory courses in Irvine’s regular general education classrooms. Student had access to classes with special education teaching assistants, such as his physics class in second semester of 11th grade and his history and economics classes in 12th grade. The special education teaching assistants helped Student interact with his general education classmates and focus on the assignments However, Student did not require special educational teaching assistants in all of his general education classes. He received much of the support he needed in his Directed Studies class, which support was critical to his success according to his teachers.

The second factor evaluates the non-academic benefits of full-time placement in a regular classroom. For Student these were his opportunities to interact with his general education peers. Although he did not have close friends among his general education classmates, he did talk to peers in class. Speech-language pathologist Grant and educational specialist Smay both received teacher reports of Student’s increased interaction with teachers and peers when Student needed to ask a question. Student testified he occasionally practiced the techniques he learned in his speech sessions with others on campus. While Student reported the techniques did not consistently work, he was showing progress by taking the initiative to try.

Grant and Smay both also stated Student was clearly more comfortable on campus during his senior year. Student testified he wanted to move to a community college and then a California public university after graduation. Grant opined that his success his acclimating to the comprehensive high school would help him move to the large college and university campuses.

Neither side offered evidence of the impact Student had on his general education peers or teachers which is the third factor. Nor was any evidence presented regarding the fourth factor, which is the cost of placing the child with a disability full-time in a regular classroom. (Id., 14 F.3d at p. 1404.) The evidence did show that Student attended most of his general education classrooms without any aides. In those classes with special education aides, the aide floated among the whole class and was not specifically assigned to Student. Overall, Student failed to offer evidence that any of the four Rachel H. factors indicated he required a more restrictive placement.

Student offered no evidence that Student needed a nonpublic school to progress on his goals or access his curriculum. Student offered no expert opinions, or any other persuasive evidence, that Student required a more restrictive setting than his general education classes coupled with specialized academic instruction, such as the Directed Studies and collaboratively taught classes, and Student’s speech groups, that were already part of his IEP offers.

Irvine was not required to offer a nonpublic school when the evidence demonstrated Student was successfully progressing in his IEP goals, accessing the curriculum alongside his general education peers, and on track to earn his high school diploma at the end of the 2025-2026 school year. Irvine discussed and addressed Parents’ concerns, and explained Student’s progress at each IEP team meeting. Irvine made changes to Student’s IEPs in response to Parents’ concerns. However, Irvine’s IEP team members did not agree that Student needed to be sent to a nonpublic school.

The IDEA requires that, unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is to be educated in the school that he or she would attend if nondisabled. (34 C.F.R 300.116 (2)(c).) As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Endrew F.

“The IDEA requires that children with disabilities receive education in the regular classroom ‘whenever possible.’ When this preference is met, the system itself monitors the educational progress of the child. Regular examinations are administered, grades are awarded, and yearly advancement to higher grade levels is permitted for those children who attain an adequate knowledge of the course material. Progress through this system is what our society generally means by an “education.” And access to an “education” is what the IDEA promises. Accordingly, for a child fully integrated in the regular classroom, an IEP typically should, as Rowley put it, be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade “ (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at pp. 400-401, internal citations omitted.)

While the applicable regulations also require that Parents be involved in any placement decision, the law does not give Parents veto power over Student’s placement. (Doe by Gonzales v. Maher, (9th Cir. 1986) 793 F.2d 1470, 1489, aff'd as modified sub nom. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).) The placement decision is made by a group of persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledge about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data and the placement options, and is made in conformity with the least restrict environment provisions of the regulations. (34 C.F.R. § 300.116 (a)(1).) Student offered no evidence that he was unable to access his general education classes.

The Irvine IEP members’ disagreement with Parents’ desire that Student should be placed at a nonpublic school, instead of in the public high school’s general education classes, was not a failure to consider the continuum of placements. Student did not prove he was denied a FAPE because Irvine failed to consider the full continuum of placement options.

ISSUE 5:

DID IRVINE FAIL TO ENSURE MEANINGFUL PARENTAL PARTICIPATION IN THE IEP PROCESS IN AN EMAIL DATED JANUARY 29, 2025, FROM SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST WHYTE, AND IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 21, AND MARCH 3, 2026, BY FAILING TO CONSIDER PLACEMENT IN A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL?

Student asserts Irvine failed to ensure Parents’ meaningful participation in the IEP process by failing to consider Parents’ request to place Student in a nonpublic school. Student cites three instances of failure to ensure parental participation: In school psychologist Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email to Parents; and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026.

A district “must take steps to ensure that one, or both, of the parents of a child with a disability are present at each IEP Team meeting or are afforded the opportunity to participate.” (34 C.F.R. 300.322(a).) A parent has meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP when she is informed of her child’s problems, attends the IEP meeting, expresses her disagreement with the IEP team’s conclusions, and requests revisions in the IEP. (N.L. v. Knox County Schools (6th Cir. 2003) 315 F.3d 688, 693.) A parent who has an opportunity to discuss a proposed IEP, and whose concerns are considered by the IEP team, has participated in the IEP process in a meaningful way. (Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 1993) 993 F.2d 1031, 1036.)

Student failed to cite to any legal authority requiring meaningful parental participation related to an email from the school psychologist. There was no evidence Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email constituted an IEP team placement decision. Even had Student offered authority that Whyte’s email could be considered part of the IEP decision making process, which he did not, Student did not prove Parents were deprived of an opportunity to participate in the placement decision making process.

As previously discussed, school psychologist Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email explained the definition of least restrictive environment, and the IDEA’s restrictions regarding removal of students from the general education environment. It also reiterated the discussion at the January 10, 2025 IEP team meeting, when the Irvine IEP team members explained why they did not believe a nonpublic school was necessary given Student’s progress on IEP goals and academics. Whyte ended the email inviting a telephone call if Parents wished to discuss the email topics further. Student offered no evidence that Parents called Whyte to discuss the email. The only evidence of a reply was an email from Father requesting independent assessments “as a first step towards filing a due process complaint.” Student failed to prove Parents were denied meaningful participation in relation to Whyte’s January 29, 2025 email.

Although Student disagreed with Irvine’s decision to place Student in the general education environment, Student did not prove Irvine denied parental participation in making the decision during discussions related to Irvine’s January 21, 2026 or March 3, 2026 IEP offers, either. The evidence established that at the January 21, 2026 and March 3 and 6, 2026 IEPs, as well as in email communications before and after those IEPs, Parents and Irvine engaged in a robust discussion of each other’s views.

IEP team meeting notes and email communications with the district, corroborated by testimony from Irvine IEP team members, demonstrated that Parents expressed their views repeatedly but did not offer any basis to move Student to a more restrictive setting, other than their desire to have Student prioritize working on social skills over academics. Irvine responded to each communication, and in IEP team meetings, with reiterations of their duty to maximize Student’s interaction with his general education peers absent a need for a more restrictive setting. They also reiterated Student’s progress and offered additional communication and social skills resources, as previously described. The evidence established Student was progressing on his social skills goals and was succeeding academically. Parents offered no educational basis or legal support for moving Student to a more restrictive setting. The fact that Irvine disagreed with Parent’s opinion that Student needed a nonpublic school placement did not amount to a denial of Parents’ opportunity to participate in a discussion regarding nonpublic school placement. Parents’ participation did not require school authorities to automatically defer to Parents’ concerns. (Capistrano Unified School Dist. v. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1134.) Student failed to prove Irvine denied him a FAPE by denying parental participation during the IEP team’s consideration of nonpublic school placement.

ISSUE 6a:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026 AND MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TRANSITION PLANNING?

Student asserts Irvine failed to provide sufficient transition planning, specifically in social skills and communication, thereby denying him a FAPE. Irvine contends it met its obligation to provide sufficient transition planning.

Transition services means a set of activities that is designed to be within a results-oriented process, focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability, to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities. Post school activities include post-secondary and vocational education; integrated employment, including supported employment, adult education and adult services; and independent living or community participation. (Ed Code. § 56345.1, subd. (a)(1).)

Transition planning is based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account their strengths, preferences, and interests. Transition services include instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, the acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (34), emphasis added.)

Parents offered no evidence that Student’s transition planning was insufficient in any IEP offer from December 10, 2025 through March 3, 2026. In his closing brief, Parent argued insufficient transition planning denied Student the opportunity to take the a-g course sequence that forms the basis for qualifying for admission to California public universities directly from high school. Father also argued Student was not offered post-secondary independent living goals, and Irvine failed to adequately address Student’s communication skill deficits. No evidence supporting any of these arguments was offered. As discussed previously, Student offered no legal authority establishing the IDEA requires that Student successfully complete the a-g course sequence that would allow a basis for him to be considered for entrance to a California public university directly from high school. Nor did Student offer persuasive evidence of unmet independent living skills needs, including communication needs.

Transition planning does not guarantee a high school Student will be positioned to enter a four-year university upon graduation from high school. Rather, high school transition and annual IEP goals are created to help a special education student work towards their ultimate post-secondary goal, be that employment or further education.

Student testified that his post-secondary plan was to go to a local community college following high school. Student then planned to transfer from that community college to a local public university. Student’s testimony corroborated education specialist Smay’s description of her transition interview with Student. In an effort to support those goals, Irvine offered college awareness training regarding how to apply for community college and how to access financial aid. Student’s interests were explored through assessments, and Student’s IEP goals, including executive functioning and communication goals supported his desire to move from high school to college. Student was also registered almost exclusively for college preparatory courses, with some exceptions for courses, such as physical education, that were required for high school graduation.

Student also alleged the lack of independent living goals related to Student’s transition planning was a denial of FAPE. Parents did not accept program specialist Nathan O’Leary’s January 21, 2026 emailed explanation that independent living skills transition goals were reserved for Students with significant developmental delays. Independent living skills involve, when appropriate, the acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluations. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII); Ed. Code § 56345.1, subd. (a)(3).)

Student offered no evidence that he required goals intended to help him acquire basic daily living skills related to dressing, hygiene, feeding himself, counting or using money, accessing the community or any other basic living skill for which a transition independent living goal would be necessary. Student was observed by school psychologist Whyte leaving campus for lunch, unattended, and returning to his class and ready to learn before the bell rang for the next class after lunch. No witness testified to any concerns about Student’s hygiene, clothing, food consumption or ability to independently access food, inability to politely interact with others to address his basic human needs, or other basic living skills. Nor did any witness testify to Student’s need for additional training to access transportation, or interact in the community.

Student’s independent functional behavior assessment and independent executive function assessment found no independent living skills needs. No expert or other witness testified that Student had any independent living skill needs. Neither Irvine’s triennial assessments, nor Dr. Ferencz’ independent assessment of functional behavior or executive function found that Student had independent living skills needs that were not being addressed by Student’s IEPs.

Student argued that his communication needs were an independent living need that required a transition goal. However, as previously discussed in detail, Student was progressing on his goals addressing communication needs. Student also testified to independently using the techniques learned in speech sessions to approach peers. No expert or other persuasive witness testified that Student required transition goals related to communication. Student also argued that the friendship goal Grant proposed was never implemented. However, Parents did not consent to the goal, which Grant sent to Parents for comment and approval on March 7, 2026.

The IDEA recognizes that not all special education students will require transition independent living skills goals or services. Student did not prove that Irvine denied him a FAPE by failing to offer sufficient transition planning.

ISSUE 6b:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026 OR MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS HIS SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL NEEDS?

Student asserts Irvine failed to address his social emotional needs, specifically his need to make friends, and thereby denied him a FAPE. Irvine contends it consistently offered services to assist Student with his social skills, including offering additional speech services to work on Student’s pragmatic speech. Irvine offered Student a friendship goal, in the March 6, 2026, IEP, to which Parents refused consent.

The “educational benefit” to be provided to a child requiring special education is not limited to addressing the child’s academic needs, but also social and emotional needs that affect academic progress, school behavior, and socialization. (County of San Diego v. California Special Educ. Hearing Office (9th Cir. 1996) 93 F.3d 1458, 1467.) Student’s own testimony did not demonstrate Irvine failed to support his social emotional needs. Although Student testified he did not believe he made progress in his speech sessions, he also stated he applied the skills he learned in his speech sessions and found the approaches he learned worked “to varying degrees.” Student described feeling discouraged when he felt the skills he learned did not work every time. However, as Grant testified, it was progress for Student to try the skills. Throughout the two years Student attended the Irvine high school, Student received speech services that encouraged him to apply the skills he was learning. As mentioned earlier in this Decision, speech-language pathologist Grant and educational specialist Smay both testified that teachers reported Student participated more in class, and interacted more frequently with peers than he did when he first transferred into Irvine in August of 2024.

Student did not offer any evidence the January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, or March 3, 2026 IEPs failed to adequately address his social emotional needs. Student offered no expert or other persuasive testimony that his assessments demonstrated social emotional needs that were not being met by his IEPs. No counselors, or communication experts or other expert or lay witness testified that Student had social-emotional needs that were not being addressed by Student’s IEP goals. No one testified that Student was not progressing on his social communication goals in a manner commensurate with his abilities, or that his IEP goals were not sufficiently ambitious. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 403.) The fact that Student was not making progress as quickly as Parents hoped is not equivalent to Student failing to make progress. Student failed to prove that the January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, or March 3, 2026 IEPs denied him a FAPE because they failed to adequately address his social-emotional needs.

ISSUE 6c:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026, AND MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS HIS NEEDS RELATED TO AUTISM?

Student asserts Irvine’s IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026 and March 3, 2026 failed to adequately address his needs related to autism, specifically his need to improve his executive function and communication deficits, thereby denying him a FAPE. Irvine contends Student failed to prove it did not adequately meet Student’s autism-related needs.

The parties agreed Student qualified for special education services under the category of autism. However, Parent offered no evidence that Student’s autism related needs were not adequately met by any of Irvine’s IEP offers. Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, and adversely affecting a child's educational performance. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(1).) Student offered no testimony from an expert, or any other witness, establishing that Student had any educational need related to autism that was not being addressed by his IEPs. Nor did any other evidence establish that Student had unmet, educationally related autism needs.

JANUARY 10, 2025 IEP OFFER

Student’s challenges regarding executive function and communication skills were discussed during Student’s January 10, 2025 IEP and adjustments to Student’s IEP were made in response to Parents’ concerns. Student had goals for self advocacy, conversation skills, communication breakdowns, study skills, task initiation, and work completion. Student’s speech services were doubled from 15 to 30 sessions per year to work on peer communication. It was suggested that, in addition to the special education group speech sessions, Student join the lunch period Project Success group to practice communication and to socialize.

In addition to the 30 sessions of speech services per year, Student was offered 205 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction in a Directed Study class; 205 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction in his Physics class. Additionally, Student received transition services in college awareness and career awareness. Student also received a range of accommodations including, extra breaks, dropped lessons in areas in which Student has already demonstrated mastery, extended time for tests and in-class essays, and for long term projects, flexible setting for tests and quizzes, access to fidgets, notes for academic classes when available, preferential seating, positive praise, social skills instructions, cues and prompts to stay on task when appropriate and repetition and clarification of instructions when needed. Student offered no evidence that his January 10, 2025 IEP did not meet his autism-related needs.

Student argued in closing, without evidence, that “Student’s struggles manifested most in unstructured settings.” Student offered no evidence of the struggles being referenced. Student’s closing brief only described Student’s difficulty working in groups during his 11th grade math classes and his concomitant difficulties consistently submitting homework using the 11th grade math teacher’s preferred system.

Student points to comments by Student’s 11th grade math teacher, Brian John, regarding Student’s failure to use the system established for Students to submit math homework, through the Canvas website, as evidence that his autism needs were not addressed. Instead, Student waited for the teacher to follow up with him, at which time Student would submit the work he had completed, sometimes in fragments. Overall, John acknowledged this did not impact Student’s performance significantly as he performed well on other assignments and tests. Homework was a small part of Student’s grade. Additionally, both education specialists, Maldonado, and Smay explained during hearing that failing to turn in homework, and generally being more organized in his work, was being addressed by Student’s IEP goals and in his Directed Studies class. Smay described Student as improving in this regard during his senior year which was evidenced also by his improved grades during the first semester of 12th grade.

JANUARY 21, 2026 IEP OFFER

Student’s December 10, 2025 IEP offer incorporated the January 21, 2026 IEP team discussions. The December 10, 2025 IEP offered four goals. The first goal was in task initiation, now requiring Student be fully responsible for initiating non-preferred tasks without prompts. Goal number two focused on classroom participation by having Student work on initiating conversations in the class during group assignments. Goal three required Student to share information and opinions with peers during his speech group sessions, by “bridging” the conversation to a topic of his personal interest or expertise. Goal four put the onus on Student to verbally gain a teacher’s attention, and, using appropriate volume and clarity, asked for clarification, directions or feedback.

To attain these goals Student was offered 30, 25 minute speech sessions; 205 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction in a Directed Study class; and 205 minutes per week of specialized academic instruction in his Economics and Political Science classes. Student also continued to receive transition services in college awareness and career awareness. Additionally, Student continued to receive all of the accommodations he received in the December 18, 2024 IEP. Parent did not consent to the December 10, 2025 IEP offer. However, Student received two A- and one A+ in the three college preparatory courses taken the first semester of his senior year. He also received a B in physical education.

MARCH 3, 2026 IEP AMENDMENT

As previously discussed, the March 3, 2026 IEP was convened as an amendment IEP to hear Dr. Ferencz’ independent executive function and functional behavior reports. Dr. Ferencz did not recommend changes to Student’s existing IEP. On March 6, 2026, in response to Father’s question, Speech-language pathologist Grant informed him Student was not far behind an average peer in the area of social communication. Grant offered the previously described friendship goal. Parents did not consent to the March 3, 2026 IEP.

Student offered no expert or other testimony or any other evidence that the January 10, 2025 IEP, January 21, 2026, IEP or March 3, 2026 IEP amendment failed to address Student’s autism needs. Thus, Student did not prove that Irvine’s January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, or March 3, 2026 IEP offers denied him a FAPE because they failed to address his autism related needs.

ISSUE 6d:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026 AND MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS HIS LOW ACADEMIC SCORES?

Student asserts Irvine failed to adequately address his low academic scores in the IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, thereby denying him a FAPE. Student did not identify which “low grades” he believed were not addressed. Irvine contends it actively worked to identify the underlying causes of Student’s low grades and targeted them with goals and services. Student offered no persuasive evidence that any of Irvine’s IEPs failed to address any of Student’s low academic scores.

As previously mentioned, Student came to the Irvine comprehensive high school at the beginning of 11th grade on August 22, 2024. Student attended Fusion, a private school, for ninth and the first semester of 10th grade. The last semester of 10th grade, Student attended an online high school called Connections. While enrolled in Connections, according to Mother, Student essentially worked at home, on his own, with little support. Connections was not an Irvine district school.

According to Student’s official transcript from Irvine, during ninth and the first semester of 10th grade, Student earned all As and Bs, except in physical education courses in which he received no credit, during the first semester of ninth grade and two F’s in the second semester of ninth grade. Passing Physical Education is required for high school graduation. During the last semester of his sophomore year, Student failed four of the seven courses he attempted while enrolled in Connections, and received grades of D and a D- in two others. He earned a B in Directed Studies at Connections. As a result of his prior academic performance, Student arrived in Irvine with the need to remediate several courses in order to graduate from high school.

During the first semester of 11th grade, during his placement in Irvine’s comprehensive high schools’ general education classes, Student earned A- grades in Math 2A and History; C- grades in English 3A and Spanish 1A; an F in physics and a C+ in physical education. Student passed his Directed Studies class, which is part of his specialized academic instruction. During the three semesters for which grades were produced as evidence from the Irvine high school, Student earned only 4 grades lower than a C-.

Student offered no evidence that his January 10, 2025 IEP, failed to adequately address his low academic score. The evidence established that Student’s IEP team discussed Student’s failing grade in Physics during the December 18, 2024 IEP team meeting. As a result of the low grade, Irvine moved Student to a class with a special education aide. Student’s December 18 2024 IEP, which also included the discussions of his January 10, 2025 IEP, included goals to address his task initiation, work completion and failures to turn in work. Irvine continued to include Directed Studies class in Student’s schedule to provide targeted specialized academic instruction assistance in those areas.

In the fall of Student’s senior year, the 2025-2026 school year, Irvine offered opportunities for Student to remediate low grades. He made up one F in English from his sophomore year, during summer school between his junior and senior years. At the beginning of Student’s senior year, his new academic counselor and special education teacher discussed the options to remediate his failing grade in English 3B, from the prior semester. Despite Student’s closing argument mischaracterization of the August 19, 2025 emails between education specialist Smay and academic counselor Cortney Goodwin, their email exchange was not dismissive of Student’s needs. Quite the contrary, in fact. Goodwin explored options to help Student address the need to remediate the failing grade in the second semester English course. She asked Smay if an online course could be an option. After Smay consulted Maldonado, as she too was new to Student’s team, Smay informed Goodwin an in-person class would be better suit Student’s attention needs. The evidence established Irvine actively addressed Student’s low grades.

During his senior year, Student was showing improvement in task initiation and work completion. At the end of the first semester of his senior year, Student earned an A- in Science Fiction, which is a college preparatory English course, an A+ in game design, a college preparatory math elective course, an A- in Economics, which is also a college preparatory course, a B in Physical Education, and he passed Directed Studies. Student’s first semester of his senior year ended on January 16, 2026. Student’s annual IEP was started on December 10, 2025 and was completed on January 21, 2026. There was no evidence that low grades were a concern, or discussed, during the January 21, 2026 or March 3, 2026 IEPs.

Student did not offer expert, or other witness testimony, or documentary evidence, that proved Irvine failed to address Student’s low grades in the IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026 or March 3, 2026. No expert or other witness testified to any additional goal, services, or accommodation Student required to meet his academic or other educational needs. Neither did any expert identify any element of an Irvine IEP that inadequately addressed Student’s low grades. Student failed to prove any of Irvine’s IEP offers denied him a FAPE by failing to address his low grades.

ISSUE 6e:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026 AND MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE IT FAILED TO REMEDY THE DEFECTS IN THE INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION IT FUNDED?

Student argued in his closing brief that Dr. Susan Ferenz’ functional behavior assessment failed to offer any recommendations and her social emotional and behavioral report was not in her scope of work. Student contended that Irvine’s failure to remedy the defective independent assessment resulted in a denial of FAPE. Irvine contends Student failed to prove the independent educational evaluation by Dr. Ferencz was defective.

An “independent educational evaluation” is an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(a)(3)(i).) A Parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the Parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the public agency. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1).) Upon request for an independent educational evaluation, Each public agency must provide Parents with information about where an independent educational evaluation may be obtained and the agency criteria applicable for independent educational evaluations. (34 C.F.R. § 300. 502 (a)(2). A parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the public education agency conducts an assessment with which the parent disagrees. (34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(5); Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (b).)

Pursuant to the May 6, 2025 settlement agreement between the parties. Irvine funded independent educational evaluations. Irvine gave Parents a list of independent assessors with whom Irvine had previously contracted. Parents selected Dr. Ferencz from that list. Student offered no evidence that he was limited to selecting an assessor from Irvine’s list. Parents notified Irvine of their chosen assessor, and Irvine arranged for the payment contract, noting that Dr. Ferencz would conduct executive functioning and functional behavior assessments, as agreed to in the settlement.

Dr. Ferencz completed both a functional behavior assessment report, dated November 1, 2025 and a Social-Emotional and Behavior report to assess Student’s functional behavior and executive functioning needs. The undated Social-Emotional and Behavior report relayed information from Dr. Ferencz’ June, September and October 2025 assessments. In completing the assessments, Dr. Ferencz received detailed information about Student from Mother, in addition to receiving ratings from teachers. Dr. Ferencz also interacted with Student directly and observed him in several classes.

During the hearing, Dr. Ferencz explained that the reports were limited to the functional behavior and executive function assessments requested. As a result, a full psychoeducational assessment was not completed. Dr. Ferencz’ functional behavior assessment consisted of a series of observations to evaluate Student’s executive functioning as these was the only areas of assessment requested by Mother when Dr. Ferencz discussed the assessment scope with her.

Mother’s concerns were limited to Student’s inconsistent schoolwork habits. Dr. Ferencz created target behaviors for the functional behavior assessment based on Mother’s concerns. Dr. Ferencz conducted a series of standardized assessments and collected rating scales from Student’s teachers to evaluate classroom behavior, and whether it was impeding his ability to access his education.

In his closing argument, Student argued the redacted May 6, 2025 settlement agreement exhibit in evidence did not include a notice to cure provision that was in the original full settlement contract. Student’s closing brief implied that somehow this clause would have provided Student a remedy for what Student argues is a defective independent assessment. However, Student offered no evidence this clause existed, nor evidence of its scope, during the hearing. Student was offered the opportunity to object to the exhibit coming into evidence. Father did not object. Following the completion of Irvine’s examination, Father was also offered the opportunity to testify as to anything relevant he thought the ALJ should know. Father declined to testify beyond the brief examination as to the settlement agreement conducted by Irvine. No questions were posed to Irvine staff regarding a notice to cure clause in the agreement. Student also had the opportunity to offer rebuttal evidence at the end of Irvine’s evidence presentation. No rebuttal was offered. Additionally, no issue regarding a notice to cure in the settlement agreement was raised in the complaint. Therefore, Student’s argument as to an alleged missing notice to cure is not addressed in this Decision.

Furthermore, Student offered no evidence of a defect in the assessments. Student examined Dr. Ferencz on limited aspects of her reports. In response to Student’s examination of Dr. Ferencz during hearing, Dr. Ferencz confirmed the assessments she was contracted to provide were identified in her invoice for services. Dr. Ferencz tailored the scope of the assessment based on Mother’s stated worries about Student’s inconsistent schoolwork habits. The target behaviors in the functional behavior assessment were taken directly from Mothers listed concerns. Dr. Ferencz collected formal rating scales from teachers and conducted some Student assessments. Dr. Ferencz also explained her recommendations. Father did not examine Dr. Ferencz regarding the details of her assessments. Nor did Father examine Dr. Ferencz or any other witness on the subject of defects in the independent assessments.

Student offered no expert or other testimony, or documentary evidence challenging the legal sufficiency of Dr. Ferencz’ assessments, or establishing they were defective in any other way. While Student argues in his closing brief that Dr. Ferencz’ recommendations were inadequate, and that Dr. Ferencz should have been concerned that Student was completing his homework at the library, no evidence established either of these constituted a defect in the assessments.

Most importantly, however, Student offered no legal authority establishing Irvine’s obligation to remedy a defect in an independent educational evaluation. The IDEA does not provide a mechanism for challenging the legal sufficiency of an independent educational evaluation. Student did not prove Irvine denied Student a FAPE by failing to remedy defects in Dr. Ferencz’ independent educational evaluations.

ISSUE 6f:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN ITS IEP OFFERS OF JANUARY 10, 2025, JANUARY 21, 2026, AND MARCH 3, 2026, BECAUSE IT DILUTED HIS CURRICULUM TO MANIPULATE HIS ELIGIBILITY FOR GRADUATION AND SO HE COULD NOT COMPLETE A-G COURSES?

Student asserts Irvine’s January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, IEP diluted his curriculum with Directed Studies classes and manipulated his eligibility for graduation and impeded his ability to complete “a-g” courses. Specifically, Student argues, Irvine blocked Parents from participating in Student’s “transition planning course of study, and diverted Student from his transition goal to study computer science at a four-year college.” Irvine contends Student’s argument fails to acknowledge that he entered Irvine lacking credits needed for graduation, due to prior failed courses, and that completing the a-g course sequence was not required by the IDEA.

COMPLETION OF “A-G” COURSE SEQUENCE NOT REQUIRED FOR FAPE

Student argues that the IDEA requires he be allowed to complete the sequence of courses that would provide the basis for admission to a California public university system. These courses are commonly known as the “a-g courses.” Student offers no legal authority supporting this contention.

An appropriate public education does not mean the absolutely best or potential-maximizing education for the individual child.” (J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 439, citing, Gregory K. v. Longview Sch. Dist., (9th Cir.1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314.) In Endrew F. the United States Supreme Court reiterated the FAPE standard required for a special education student accessing their education in the general education classroom. In these circumstances, an appropriate education consists of grades awarded on regular examinations, with yearly advancement to higher grade levels permitted for those children who demonstrate an adequate knowledge of the course material. “Progress through this system is what our society generally means by an ‘education.’ And access to an ‘education’ is what the IDEA promises.” (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at pp. 400-401, internal citations omitted.)

Special education is intended to support students in completing secondary school. A FAPE is defined as education that includes appropriate California preschool, elementary and secondary school education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (9)(c).) Secondary education is defined as secondary education as determined under state law except that it does not include any education beyond grade 12. (20 U.S.C. § 1401 (27).)

Parents asserted that Student being unable to complete the a-g courses was a denial of FAPE and interfered with Student’s transition goal of studying computer science. They were particularly upset that Student was not registered for Calculus or pre-calculus during his senior year. Mother was also concerned that Student was not registered for a second year of Spanish, which she believed was also an a-g requirement. Student argued, without evidence, that the special education teachers’ and counselors’ efforts to direct Student to courses that fulfilled his graduation requirements, was an effort to steer him away from the a-g courses, especially higher level math and science courses that would have supported Student’s direct admission from high school to a four-year university to study computer science.

Student was limited in his ability to complete Parents’ preferred a-g course sequences, due to his need to make up courses in which he received failing grades, or inadequate grades to satisfy the a-g requirements. As discussed, most of Student’s failing grades were earned prior to coming to Irvine.

Student did not qualify to advance to Pre-calculus or Calculus, or to Spanish 2 because he did not earn high enough grades to advance. Student’s junior year Math 2 teacher, John, explained that Student did not qualify to advance to either Pre-calculus or Calculus from Math 2. Generally, the two-semester Math 3 sequence is required before students move to Pre-Calculus. There was a pathway from Math 2 to Pre-Calculus, but Student did not meet the prerequisites upon completing Math 2 and did not appeal his failure to attain a teacher recommendation to pursue the more difficult course. Nor did Parents submit course change requests to have Student proceed to the Math 3 sequence. Student did not attain the C needed to advance to Spanish 2. While Student was unable to complete the entire a-g course sequence, most of the college preparatory courses he took satisfied aspects of the a-g requirements. Student failed to prove that any Irvine staff member manipulated his course selections to impede his ability to take the most challenging courses available.

Student’s arguments that “not allowing him to take a-g courses” resulted in an IEP that was not appropriately ambitious and failed to include challenging objectives was a misstatement of the Endrew F. standard. The Endrew F. case involved a student who was unable to access his education in a general education classroom. Endrew was described as a child who would scream in class, climb over furniture and other students, and occasionally run away from school. He was afflicted by severe fears of commonplace things like flies, spills, and public restrooms. His Parents complained that his IEP offers did not change over several years and, as a result, Student made no meaningful educational progress. His Parents placed Endrew in a private school where he did better. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 395.) The U.S. Supreme Court declared, if grade level advancement was not a reasonable prospect for a child, his IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. (Endrew F., supra, 580 U.S. at p. 402.)

An appropriate public education for a special education student who is capable of accessing education and advancing from grade to grade in a general education classroom, usually culminates in high school graduation, so long as the high school diploma requirements applicable to the Student were fully aligned with the state’s academic standards for earning a high school diploma. (34 C.F.R. 300.102(a)(3).) Student offered no legal authority for the proposition that a FAPE required that Student complete the a-g sequence that would allow him to be positioned to seek direct entry to a California public university to study computer science. Irvine IEP team members who testified anticipated that Student would qualify to graduate from high school with a regular California high school diploma on June 5, 2026.

NO COURSE DILUTION EVIDENCE

Student argued that Directed Studies classes diluted his course options. Student contended that Student earned 30 units of directed studies in the four semesters he attended school in the Irvine district and these detracted from the available elective courses Student could have used to pursue additional a-g courses. The evidence established Student earned 20 total Directed Studies credits.

Most importantly, however, the Directed Studies class was an important part of Student’s IEP services, specifically, his specialized academic instruction. Educational specialists Smay, and Maldonado, and Math teacher, Brian John, all emphasized that Student needed the Directed Studies class to catch up on work and improve his grades by turning in work that had not been completed. Maldonado and Smay also confirmed that the Directed Studies class was an opportunity for the special education teachers to focus on his annual goals of task initiation, and work completion, which, both said, they worked on daily. Irvine would have failed to implement Student’s IEP if he had not been scheduled for Directed Studies classes. Student offered no evidence contradicting the Irvine teachers’ testimony. Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE by diluting his curriculum to manipulate his graduation eligibility and impede his ability to complete a-g courses.

ISSUE 7:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BECAUSE IT FAILED IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH 2026 TO GIVE PARENTS LEGALLY COMPLIANT PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE OF ITS DECISION NOT TO PLACE HIM IN A NONPUBLIC SCHOOL?

In his closing argument, Student asserts Irvine’s prior written notice of its decision refusing nonpublic school placement was not legally compliant, and, thus, was a denial of FAPE. Irvine contends Student failed to prove its prior written notice was not legally compliant.

Prior written notice is required when the school district proposes or refuses to initiate a change in the identification, assessment, or educational placement of a child with special needs or the provision of a free appropriate public education. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(1); 1415(b)(3) and (4); 1415(c)(1) 34 C.F.R. § 300.503; Ed Code §§ 56500.4; 56329 and 56506(a).)

The prior written notice must include the following:

1. A description of the actions proposed, or refused, by the school district

2. An explanation of why the action was proposed or refused

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

4. A statement that parents of a child with a disability have protection under the procedural safeguards

5. Sources for parents to contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of this part

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

7. A description of any other factors relevant to the action proposed or refused.

(20 USC sections 1415(b)3) and (4), 1415(c)(1), and 1414(b)(1); 34 CFR Section 300.503.)

Student argues Irvine’s prior written, notice declining to send Student to nonpublic school, did not:

1. identify reasons why the “nonpublic school option” was rejected; and

2. conducted no comparative analysis of the various nonpublic school programs, what the available programs provide, or why none of the various nonpublic schools available could meet Student’s autism related functional and social deficits.

Student offered no legal support for his argument that Irvine was required to conduct a comparative analysis of the various nonpublic school programs that existed, or explain why the various nonpublic schools available could meet Student’s autism-related functional and social deficits.

Irvine was not required to provide a prior written notice detailing why each nonpublic school was incapable of serving Student. Irvine was required to determine the least restrictive environment in which Student could progress on his goals and access his education. The prior written notice was then required to describe Irvine’s decision regarding whether a nonpublic school was the least restrictive environment for Student, and how it came to the decision, describe the information used to reach the decision, and other options considered, offer resources Parents could contact with questions, and provide a copy of the Notice of Procedural Safeguards. Irvine met those requirements in program specialist O’Leary’s March 16, 2026 prior written notice.

Irvine sent Parents only one prior written notice pertaining to the decision not to send Student to a nonpublic school. The March 13, 2026 prior written notice, from program specialist Lauren Morrison, addressed Parents’ request for independent educational evaluations. While Morrison’s notice did acknowledge Parents’ interest in a nonpublic school, no determination regarding the request was included in the notice. Instead, the letter invited Parents to a further IEP team meeting to discuss the nonpublic school issue and enclosed notices with options for a future IEP team meeting from which Parents could select a date.

Student failed to prove that program specialist O’Leary’s March 16, 2026 prior written notice to Parents declining to offer Student a nonpublic school placement failed to meet legal standards. O’Leary’s prior written notice identified the reason the Irvine members of the IEP team did not agree that Student needed a nonpublic school placement. O’Leary described Student’s progress and school performance, that Student’s IEP services and supports were supporting his progress. The prior written notice described the information Irvine used to conclude Student did not require a nonpublic school, specifically, his educational records, recent IEPs, reports of progress and current needs, recent educational assessments and Parent input both during IEP meetings and in correspondence with Irvine. The combined information brought Irvine to the conclusion that Student did not require a more restrictive setting to receive a free, appropriate public education. Student failed to offer any expert or other persuasive testimony of any other evidence establishing that the prior written notice was inadequate or failed to meet legal requirements. Nor did Student offer legal authority establishing that Irvine’s prior written notice was legally non-compliant. Student also failed to offer any persuasive evidence that Irvine was obligated to provide additional prior written notices regarding its refusal to offer nonpublic school in January or February of 2026.

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE by failing to give legally compliant prior written notice regarding its refusal to pursue nonpublic school placement for Student.

ISSUE 8:

DID IRVINE DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY CONCEALING PERFORMANCE DATA AND REFUSING TO CONDUCT AN IEP TEAM MEETING IN 2026 ON HIS COURSE SELECTION AND SUPPORTS?

Student asserts Irvine concealed performance data, and refused to conduct an IEP team meeting in 2026 to discuss his course selection and supports, thereby denying him a FAPE. Student argues that IEP team meetings were required for each course change. Irvine contends that Student failed to prove Irvine concealed performance data or refused to convene an IEP meeting regarding course selection in 2026. Irvine also asserts it was amenable to changing Student’s courses but Parents failed to submit the form indicating the courses they wanted changed.

Student offered no evidence that Irvine concealed performance data and, in fact, failed to even offer evidence of any types of performance data he alleged Irvine concealed. Student did not prove Irvine concealed performance data.

Nor did Student prove Irvine refused to conduct an IEP team meeting in 2026 on his course selection and supports. Student implied in closing argument that a change to his course selections constituted a change of placement that obligated Irvine to convene and IEP team meeting. Student offered no legal authority supporting this conclusion. Student argued, “the IEP must include the course of study needed to assist the child in reaching postsecondary goals.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.320(b)(2).) Student then cited to general IDEA requirements stating parents must be a part of an IEP team, and Parents must be involved in placement change decisions. None of these authorities supported the proposition that a change of courses constituted a placement change, or that an IEP team meeting must be convened for every course change.

Student offered no evidence that Parents, or a teacher, requested a meeting be convened to develop, review, or revise the IEP, thereby obligating Irvine to convene an IEP team meeting. Not only did Student fail to offer any legal authority supporting the argument that a course change constituted a change to a Student’s IEP, there was no evidence Parents ever requested an IEP team meeting to discuss Student’s course selection or supports. Thus, Student did not establish Irvine was obligated to convene an IEP team meeting in these circumstances. (Ed. Code § 56343.) Nor did Student offer evidence, or any persuasive legal authority establishing that choosing his senior courses constituted a change in the provision of FAPE or change of placement. Therefore, Student did not establish that Irvine was obligated to convene an IEP team meeting to discuss Student’s senior course changes.

Despite the fact that Irvine was not obligated to convene an IEP team meeting, Parents were offered multiple opportunities to be involved in discussions regarding Student’s senior course changes and to request course changes, and failed to participate.

Student’s junior meeting to choose courses for his senior year, took place on March 12, 2025. The junior meeting took place with the Student and Student’s counselor. Unlike in earlier high school years, Parents were normally not invited to the junior meeting to select their senior year courses. Mother acknowledged during testimony she was aware of this. During the junior meeting, Student’s course selections were input into Aeries, which is the school’s information portal. The Aeries portal is directly accessible to staff, students and parents. During her testimony, Mother admitted during the hearing that she was familiar with Aeries and how to access Student’s courses and other information. Mother also admitted she recalled getting emails about the course change request deadline and was directed to file a form to request course changes. No form to request course changes was submitted.

Mother sent emails regarding her desired course changes for Student at approximately 8:30 a.m. on May 5, 2025, which was the last day for requesting course changes during the 2024-2025 school year. Mother requested a telephone call from Joyce Chung, Student’s counselor “in an hour or two.” Chung was not available to meet on either May 5 or May 6, 2026, as her schedules for those days were completely booked.

On May 6, 2026, Chung sent an email detailing why Mother’s requests to change Student’s courses to fulfill the a-g requirements before he graduated were unrealistic. Chung explained that, trying to remediate Student’s failing grades, raise grades that did not satisfy the a-g standard of passing with a C- or better, as well as satisfying all remaining a-g course requirements, during the summer of 2025 and Student’s senior year, would not be a schedule she would advise any Student to undertake. Student would need to make up the multiple failed courses during his freshman and sophomore years, prior to arriving in the Irvine district as well as three semester courses failed during his time at Irvine, and take others he had not taken over the past three years. This would require a seven or eight course schedule, which was the maximum overload, as well as summer school. Despite Chung’s reservations, Mother was sent a form to request a course change. Chung’s email ended with an invitation to Mother to call her with questions. Mother never responded to Chung’s email, claiming she was “overwhelmed.” As a result, Mother neither pursued additional information, nor did she submit a course change request.

Mother offered additional, vague, testimony of other efforts to discuss course changes that were neither reliable nor persuasive evidence that Irvine ignored her requests. Despite testimony of multiple efforts to contact the district with no success, Mother was unable to recall who she called, when the calls were made or to whom she spoke. Most importantly, Mother did not testify she actually requested an IEP team meeting to discuss Student’s course selections and supports.

Father sent a November 20, 2025 email to Irvine and complained that Irvine did not provide prior written notice regarding “the denial of access to Physics, Precalculus, Math 3, Business Math, or Statistics.” which the letter described as a change in the provision of FAPE. However, although Father listed five action items in the November 20, 2025 email, he did not request an IEP team meeting to discuss course selection and supports.

Student did not prove that Irvine denied him a FAPE by concealing performance data and refusing to conduct an IEP team meeting to discuss course selection and supports.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

ISSUE 1:

Student failed to prove that Irvine denied Student a FAPE because its multidisciplinary assessment report of December 18, 2024, was inappropriate and insufficiently comprehensive.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 1.

ISSUE 2:

Student failed to prove Irvine denied Student a FAPE because it failed to assess him between March 2, 2024 and March 2, 2026, in all areas of suspected disability, namely independent living and functional behavior

Irvine prevailed on Issue 2.

ISSUE 3:

Student did not prove Irvine denied Student a FAPE because, in an email dated January 29, 2025 from School Psychologist Whyte, and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026 and March 3, 2026, Irvine predetermined that he should not be offered placement in a non-public school.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 3.

ISSUE 4:

Student did not prove Irvine denied Student a FAPE because, in an email dated January 29, 2025 from School Psychologist Whyte, and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, Irvine failed to consider the full continuum of placement options.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 4.

ISSUE 5:

Student did not prove Irvine failed to ensure meaningful parental participation in the IEP process in an email dated January 29, 2025 from School Psychologist Whyte, and in its IEP offers of January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, by failing to consider placement in a non-public school.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 5.

ISSUE 6a:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it failed to provide sufficient transition planning.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6a.

ISSUE 6b:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it failed to adequately address his social-emotional needs.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6b.

ISSUE 6c:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026 and March 3, 2026, because it failed to adequately address his needs related to autism.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6c.

ISSUE 6d:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it failed to adequately address his low academic scores.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6d.

ISSUE 6e:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it failed to remedy the defects in the independent educational evaluation it funded.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6e.

ISSUE 6F:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE in its IEP offers of January 10, 2025, January 21, 2026, and March 3, 2026, because it diluted his curriculum to manipulate his eligibility for graduation and so he could not complete A-G courses.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 6f.

ISSUE 7:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE because it failed, in January, February, and March 2026, to give Parents legally compliant prior written notice of its decision not to place him in a non-public school.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 7.

ISSUE 8:

Student did not prove Irvine denied him a FAPE by concealing performance data and refusing to conduct an IEP team meeting in 2026 on his course selection and supports.

Irvine prevailed on Issue 8.

ORDER

Student’s requested relief is 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.

PENELOPE S. PAHL

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings