California Special Education Law

Advocacy Resources, Hearing & Appeal Decisions, Statistics and More for Parents

OAH 2020050817

August 03, 2020

Tags: , , , , ,

Student v. San Juan Unified School District And Visions In Education Charter School - Split Decision

BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. 2020050817

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND VISIONS IN
EDUCATION CHARTER SCHOOL.

DECISION AUGUST 3, 2020

On May 22, 2020, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a due process hearing request from Student, naming San Juan Unified School District and Visions In Education Charter School as respondents. Administrative Law Judge, Rita Defilippis, heard this matter via videoconference on June 30, and July 1, 2020. Parent represented Student. Parent attended all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Linda Simlick, Attorney at Law, represented San Juan and Visions. Megan Hudson, Assistant Director of Special Education, attended both days of hearing on San Juan’s behalf. Dr. Robert Morgan, Special Education Administrator, attended both days of hearing on Visions’ behalf.

At the parties’ request the matter was continued until July 17, 2020, for written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on July 17, 2020.

ISSUES

Student’s issues were discussed, clarified by Parent, and revised on the record on the first day of hearing. The issues as stated below are consistent with that discussion, and have been further reworded and reorganized for the purpose of analysis in this decision. No substantive changes were made. The ALJ has authority to reword and reorganize a party’s issues, so long as no substantive changes are made. (J.W. v. Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443.)

1. Did San Juan and Visions unlawfully fail to refer Student for special education assessment and services, pursuant to Parent’s requests on February 21, and March 2, 2020?

2. Did San Juan and Visions deny Student a free appropriate public education, called a FAPE, by failing to offer Student an individualized education program, called an IEP, with speech and language services from April 29, 2020?

JURISDICTION

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

• all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education, called 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, 56505; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082.) The party requesting the hearing is limited to the issues alleged in the complaint, unless the other party consents, and has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 56-62 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387]; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).)

Student filed for due process hearing in this matter and has the burden of proof on all issues. The factual statements below 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 is a 15-year-old general education 10th grade student. Student resided within San Juan’s geographic boundaries and attended Visions, a public school within San Juan Unified School District, during the 2019-2020 school year at all times relevant to the timeframe at issue in this case. Student previously received special education speech and language services but was exited from special education in 2017. Student is seeking special education eligibility for speech and language services.

ISSUE 1: DID SAN JUAN AND VISIONS UNLAWFULLY FAIL TO REFER STUDENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT AND SERVICES, PURSUANT TO PARENT’S REQUESTS ON FEBRUARY 21, AND MARCH 2, 2020?

Parent contends that San Juan and Visions should have assessed Student and provided Student with special education services, pursuant to Parent’s February 21, and March 2, 2020 requests. Parent asserts that the referral should have been based on Student’s continued learning challenges, IEP supports in prior school districts, and prior assessments of suspected disabilities.

San Juan and Visions contend that Student came to them as a general education student. They contend that Parent’s February 21, and March 2, 2020 requests for special education services were each a request for an initial assessment, properly declined on the basis that Student had no suspected disabilities requiring special education services. Student enrolled in San Juan and Visions on February 11, 2020, and began attending Visions on February 12, 2020. At the time of enrollment, Student’s educational records were transferred to San Juan and Visions. One of the records was an independent psychoeducational evaluation, dated March 10, 2019, conducted by Connie Hale, Ed. D., and funded by Sacramento City Unified School District. The Hale assessment concluded that Student meets the eligibility requirements for special education under specific learning disability, other health impairment, and autism. Parent learned for the first time during hearing, that another independent educational evaluation, in speech and language, also funded by Sacramento City, was not included in Student’s records.

On February 21, 2020, Parent sent an email to Tova Hensley, general education teacher, and Julie Ingram, Visions 504 Coordinator, requesting IEP support for Student. Parent explained in the request that Student had a previous IEP when Student attended Folsom-Cordova Unified School District, but was exited from special education in 2017. Parent explained that Student was still experiencing the same challenges, including difficulty in math, organization, handwriting, and speech enunciation. Parent explained in her request that Student had been tested in areas of suspected disability by Student’s prior school district, and independently, and offered to share those reports if needed.

PARENT’S FEBRUARY 21, 2020 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES TRIGGERED THE CHILD-FIND DUTY TO ASSESS STUDENT FOR SUSPECTED DISABILITIES

A local education agency must conduct a full and individual evaluation before the initial provision of special education and related services to a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A).) Federal law uses the term “evaluation” instead of the term “assessment” used by California law, but the two terms have the same meaning and are used interchangeably in this Decision.

A school district is required to actively and systematically seek out, identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities who are in need of special education and related services, regardless of the severity of the disability, including those individuals advancing from grade to grade. (20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(3)(A); Ed. Code, §§ 56171, 56301, subds. (a) and (b).) This duty to seek and serve children with disabilities is known as “child find.” A district’s child-find obligation toward a specific child is triggered when there is reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability. (Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae S. (D. Hawaii 2001) 158 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1194.) The threshold for suspecting that a child has a disability is relatively low. (Id. at p. 1195.) A district’s appropriate inquiry is whether the child should be referred for an evaluation, not whether the child actually qualifies for services. (Ibid.)

Either a Parent’s suspicion or a district’s suspicion may trigger the need for a child-find initial evaluation to determine if the student is a child with a disability within the meaning of the IDEA. (Pasatiempo by Pasatiempo v. Aizawa (9th Cir. 1996) 103 F.3d 796, 802.) The identification of children who may have disabilities should be a cooperative and consultative process. (id. at pg. 802). As stated in Pasatiempo, “Department of Education determinations alone should not be determinative.” (Ibid.) “The informed suspicions of parents, who may have consulted with outside experts, should trigger the statutory protections.”(Ibid.)

Parent’s February 21, 2020 request for special education services was an initial request for a special education assessment based on her suspicion that Student needed special education services due to suspected disabilities. The request set forth Parent’s concerns regarding Student’s disorganization, difficulty with math, speech enunciation, and difficulty with handwriting. Parent alerted San Juan and Visions that Student had an IEP in the past which was “dismissed” in 2017, but stated her concerns that he was currently facing the same challenges. In support of her request, Parent offered to share past assessments of Student’s suspected disabilities. Parent’s request gave notice to San Juan and Visions that Student displayed symptoms of suspected disabilities and that Student had a disorder that necessitated special education services in the past. This request triggered San Juan’s child-find duty to assess Student to determine whether he was eligible for special education.

Once a child with a disability is identified, the child must be evaluated and assessed for all suspected disabilities so that the school district can begin the process of determining whether the child is eligible for special education services and what special education and related services will address the child’s individual needs. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(7), 1414(a)-(c).) The IDEA’s evaluation procedures require the gathering of relevant information regarding a child functional, developmental and academic functioning, including information provided by the parent. (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(2)(A).) Once the assessment is completed, the IEP team considers the assessment, as well as evaluations and information provided by the parent, and makes the decision as to whether the child qualifies for special education and what special education services and supports the child needs. (20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(1)(a) and (b).)

If the school district wishes to deny a parent’s request for a special education assessment due to a parent’s suspicions that their child has a disability in need of special education, it must provide prior written notice to the parents explaining that it refuses to conduct an initial evaluation and provide an explanation as to why it does not suspect that the child has a disability and what records or evaluations it used as the basis for its decision. (34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd. (b); Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2016) 822 F.3d 1105, 1110, fn. 8.) This is known as prior written notice. Prior written notice shall be given by the public agency to the parents or guardians of a child upon initial referral for assessment, and a reasonable time before the public agency proposes to initiate or change, or refuses to initiate or change, the identification, assessment, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the child. In accordance with Sections 300.304 and 300.503 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the public agency shall provide a description of any assessment procedures the agency proposes to conduct. The notice must include:

• a description of the action proposed or refused by the agency; • an explanation of why the agency made the decision; • a description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report on which the decision was based; • a reminder of parents’ procedural safeguards; • sources for assistance; • the options considered and the reasons for rejecting the others; and • a description of other factors relevant to the decision. (34 C.F.R. § 300.503(b) (2007); Ed. Code, § 56500.4, subd. (b).)

SAN JUAN AND VISIONS PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE WAS DEFICIENT

Dr. Robert Morgan provided Parent with prior written notice in response to Parent’s February 21, 2020 request for special education services, which Parent received between February 28, 2020 and March 2, 2020. The prior written notice specified that San Juan and Visions declined to assess Student for special education services. It further indicated that there was no reason to suspect that Student exhibited a disability as defined by the IDEA. Specifically, San Juan and Visions explained that Student had been successful in the past and at present with the services and supports offered in the general education program. As evidence, the letter noted Student’s 3.14 grade point average while attending general education classes in Sacramento City. The prior written notice explained that a team of psychologists reviewed Student’s records to assist in the decision to refuse Parent’s request for testing.

The written notice provided to Parent was legally deficient. The prior written notice failed to describe each assessment or record used as the basis for the decision not to assess Student for special education. Given the facts of this case, the failure to specify this information was especially problematic. It was not until hearing that Parent was informed through testimony as to what records were used as the basis of the decision to assess. Parent did not know that the Bright Star independent speech and language assessment was not part of Student’s records and was not available to San Juan and Visions to review. Had the prior written notice described the reports relied upon in the decision not to assess, Parent could have questioned the omission of the Bright Star report. She offered in her initial assessment request to provide copies of all assessments; an offer which San Juan and Visions did not accept. Had the Bright Start report been provided, it may have informed the decision regarding the appropriateness of testing.

Parent’s February 21, 2020 written referral of Student for special education services, triggered the duty of San Juan and Visions to assess all areas of suspected disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(7), 1414(a)-(c).) San Juan’s prior written notice declining the assessment fails, as it was legally deficient. Therefore, San Juan and Visions cannot rely upon the prior written notice to avoid their duty to assess Student.

On March 2, 2020, Parent sent an email to Visions staff, including Dr. Morgan, Special Education Administrator at Visions, requesting Visions to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. San Juan and Visions considered this a reiteration of Parent’s February 21, 2020 request, and assert in their closing brief that their prior written notice in response to Parent’s February 21, 2020 request also served to respond to Parent’s March 2, 2020 request, as it was provided just days earlier.

PARENT’S MARCH 2, 2020 REQUEST TO ASSESS STUDENT IN ALL AREAS OF SUSPECTED ALSO TRIGGERED THE DUTY TO ASSESS STUDENT

Either a parent of a child, or a state educational agency, other state agency, or local educational agency may initiate a request for an initial evaluation to determine if the child is a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(B).) A district must give parent an assessment plan within 15 calendar days of a referral for assessment, not counting calendar days between the pupil’s regular school sessions or terms or calendar days of school vacation in excess of five schooldays, from the date of receipt of referral, unless the parent or guardian agrees in writing to an extension. (Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (a); 56321, subd. (a).) The parent has at least 15 days to consent in writing to the proposed assessment. (Ed. Code, §§ 56043, subd. (b), 56321, subd. (c)(4).)

An IEP program required as a result of an assessment to determine whether the child is an individual with special needs and to determine the educational needs of the child, must be developed within a total time not to exceed 60 calendar days, not counting days between the pupil’s regular school sessions, terms, or days of school vacation in excess of five schooldays, from the date of receipt of the Parent’s or guardian’s written consent for assessment, unless the parent or guardian agrees in writing to an extension. (Ed. Code § 56043(f)(1).) California law requires that the assessment report must be provided to the parent at the IEP team meeting regarding the assessment to allow for discussion and explanation. (Ed. Code, § 56329, subd. (a)(1).) Student established that San Juan and Visions were required to assess in all areas of suspected disability, pursuant to Parent’s requests on February 1, and March 2, 2020.

The failure to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability is a violation of the childfind and assessment procedures of the IDEA. San Juan’s and Visions’ closing brief asserts that the child-find standard as set forth in Board of Education of Fayette Valley v. L.M. (6th Cir. 2007) 478 F.3d 307, should be applied in this case. To establish a violation of the child-find requirement, using that standard, Student would be required to show that San Juan and Visions overlooked clear signs of disability and were negligent in failing to order testing; or that there was no rational justification for the decision not to evaluate. However, the decisions of one circuit are not binding on other circuits. (Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala. (11th Cir. 1981) 661 F.2d 1206, 1209.) San Juan’s and Visions’ proposed child-find standard is rejected as significantly different from the Cari Rae standard applied in Ninth Circuit decisions, set forth and discussed herein, which are relevant and binding on this tribunal. (Dept. of Education, State of Hawaii v. Rae, supra, 158 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1194; See G.M. v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District (9th Cir. 2014) 585 Fed. Appx. 702, 703, fn.1, discussing the Cari Rae child find standard applied in ninth circuit cases as significantly different from that of third and sixth circuits.)

ISSUE 2: DID SAN JUAN AND VISIONS DENY STUDENT A FAPE BY FAILING TO OFFER STUDENT AN IEP WITH SPEECH AND LANGUAGE SERVICES FROM APRIL 29, 2020?

Student’s issue two was clarified by Parent on the record, on the first day of hearing. The issue specifically concerns whether San Juan and Visions should have offered student speech and language special education services. Accordingly, nothing in this decision addresses or analyzes Student’s eligibility for special education services in any special education eligibility category other than speech and language impairment.

Parent contends that San Juan and Visions should have provided Student with an IEP offering speech and language services from April 29, 2020. San Juan and Visions contend that there is no suspected disability in the area of speech and language. Therefore, Student is not eligible for special education speech and language services. On April 29, 2020, a section 504 team meeting was held for the purpose of developing a plan of accommodations for Student. A 504 team meeting is a meeting to determine a student’s need for accommodations, pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The team does not address special education eligibility and related services to which a student may be entitled under the IDEA.

On April 29, 2020, following Student’s 504 team meeting, Parent emailed Visions staff, including Dr. Morgan, informing them that Student still requires speech and language supports, which were not covered by the 504 plan offered to Student earlier in the day. In the email, Parent requested an IEP so that Student’s speech needs could be addressed.

Dr. Morgan responded to the request for speech services by providing Parent with a prior written notice, dated April 29, 2020, stating the exact same language for declining the assessment as contained in the previously described prior written notice received by Parent between February 28 and March 2, 2020.

Under the IDEA, only some children with certain disabilities are eligible for special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); Ed. Code § 56026, subd. (a).) For purposes of special education eligibility, the term “child with a disability” means a child with intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i), (ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a).) Similarly, California law defines an “individual with exceptional needs” as a pupil who is identified by an IEP team as “a child with a disability” pursuant to 20 U.S.C. section 1401(3)(A), who requires special education due to his or her disability, and instruction and services cannot be provided with modification of the regular school program. (Ed. Code § 56026, subds. (a), (b).)

A pupil shall be assessed as having a language or speech disorder which makes him or her eligible for special education and related services when he or she demonstrates difficulty understanding or using spoken language to such an extent that it adversely affects his or her educational performance and cannot be corrected without special education and related services. In order to be eligible for special education and related services, difficulty in understanding or using spoken language shall be assessed by a language, speech, and hearing specialist who determines that such difficulty results from any of the following disorders:

(a) Articulation disorders, such that the pupil’s production of speech significantly interferes with communication and attracts adverse attention.

(b) Abnormal voice, characterized by persistent, defective voice quality, pitch, or loudness. An appropriate medical examination shall be conducted, where appropriate.

(c) Fluency difficulties which result in an abnormal flow of verbal expression to such a degree that these difficulties adversely affect communication between the pupil and listener.

(d) Inappropriate or inadequate acquisition, comprehension, or expression of spoken language such that the pupil’s language performance level is found to be significantly below the language performance level of his or her peers. (e) Hearing loss which results in a language or speech disorder and significantly affects educational performance. (Ed. Code § 56333; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(11).)

STUDENT DID NOT SUSTAIN HIS BURDEN OF PROOF THAT HE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION AS A STUDENT WITH A SPEECH AND LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT

Parent offered Student’s Folsom-Cordova Special Education Local Plan Area, called SELPA, IEP, dated April 28, 2015, to establish that Student was entitled to an IEP containing speech and language services in April 2020. Student’s 2015 IEP noted eligibility in the category of speech and language impairment and offered speech services to assist Student with his articulation skills. However, San Juan and Visions offered evidence of Student’s Folsom-Cordova IEP, dated March 17, 2017. That IEP established that Student was exited from special education. Parent claimed that her signature consenting to the IEP and exit from special education services was falsified and she never agreed to exit Student. However, there was no evidence presented at hearing that Parent ever legally challenged Student’s exit from special education or suggesting that the IEP was not valid.

Parent also offered at hearing an independent speech and language assessment by Bright Star Therapies, funded by Sacramento City Unified School District, dated August 14, 2019. That assessment recommended special education speech and language articulation services, specifically, to support Student’s production of the phonemes /s/ and /z/. This assessment was not admitted into evidence as it was discovered, through testimony at hearing, that the assessment was never considered by San Juan or Visions because the assessment was not included in Student’s records sent from Sacramento City upon Student’s enrollment in Visons. (Adams v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 1999) 195 F.3d 1141, 1149.)

Even if the assessment had been admitted, Parent presented no witnesses with direct knowledge of the Bright Star Assessment. Accordingly, the document could not be authenticated. It would therefore have been hearsay and could not be used in and of itself to support a finding that Student was eligible for special education speech services. (Lake v. Reed (1997) 6 Cal 4th 448, 458). Furthermore, San Juan and Visions offered Student’s Sacramento City IEP, dated September 25, 2019, which documented that the IEP team in considering the Bright Star assessment and recommendations, declined to find Student eligible for special education speech services.

Student did not sustain his burden of establishing that he has a speech and language impairment that adversely affects his educational performance and cannot be corrected without special education and related services. Student failed to present any speech and language expert testimony regarding Student’s eligibility for speech special education services. Parent also did not testify as to her specific concerns regarding Student’s speech and how it may be affecting his educational performance.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

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

1. San Juan and Visions unlawfully failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability pursuant to parent’s February 21, and March 2, 2020 requests. Student prevailed on Issue One.

2. Student failed to sustain his burden of proof that he was eligible for speech special education services as a student with a speech and language impairment. San Juan and Visions prevailed on Issue Two.

REMEDIES

Student prevailed on Issue One. Student requests as proposed resolutions that San Juan and Visions comprehensively assess him in all areas of suspected disability, offer an IEP with accommodations, according to his disability and need; provide compensatory educational services; and reimbursement. Parent established that Student is entitled to initial assessments to determine whether Student is eligible for special education.

San Juan and Visions contend in their closing brief that if a procedural violation is found, they are not liable because Student is a general education student, has not been assessed or found eligible for special education, and is therefore not entitled to a FAPE. A school district’s child-find duty to assess students suspected of having a condition eligible for special education is separate and independent from IDEA’s requirements to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE. (J.P. and L.P. v. Anchorage School Dist. (2011) 260 P.3d 285, 294.) The remedy of an assessment for a district’s failure to timely conduct an initial assessment is not dependent on the ultimate determination that the child is eligible for special education. (id. at p. 293.) Any other conclusion would necessarily lead to denials of other rights and would undermine the legislative purpose of the child-find and assessment procedures to ensure that all children with disabilities are located, identified and evaluated.

San Juan and Visions contention that Parent is without any remedy for their unlawful failure to assess Student’s suspected disabilities is rejected. Accordingly, the appropriate remedy for San Juan’s and Visions failure to conduct an evaluation, is an order requiring assessment of all suspected disabilities.

Both the child-find identification process and the evaluation procedures of the IDEA require a cooperative and consultative process between a school district and a parent so that relevant information, including information and evaluations offered by a parent can be considered by the IEP team and appropriate qualified professionals in the decision as to whether a child is eligible for special education services.

The evidence presented at hearing demonstrates that the process which resulted in the decision to decline assessment of Student’s suspected disabilities evidenced neither cooperation nor consultation with Parent. There was no evidence that San Juan or Visions staff reached out to Parent at any time before their decision not to assess, to obtain and consider the records offered in Parent’s request for services. This resulted in San Juan’s and Visions’ failure to consider relevant evidence, including the Bright Star independent speech assessment, and an assessment by Bridges of the Mind Psychological Services, dated May 21, 2019. Therefore, San Juan and Visions shall ensure that any assessment and decision-making process as the result of this decision, is cooperative and consultative, so that all relevant information can be considered in the decision regarding Student’s eligibility.

Student did not sustain her burden of proof as to the FAPE denial for failing to offer speech and language services from April 2020. Accordingly, no compensatory education services are awarded. Student’s other remedies were carefully considered and DENIED.

ORDER

1. San Juan and Visions shall provide Parent with an assessment plan, for a comprehensive assessment of all areas of suspected disability, as determined through a cooperative and consultative process with Parent, within 10 days of the commencement of the 2020-2021 school year. Parent shall have 15 calendar days to provide written consent to the assessment.

2. If San Juan and Visions cannot facilitate the assessments through San Juan and Visions own staff on the school campus or other publicly available location due to Covid-19 restrictions, through no fault of Student, San Juan and Visions shall make best efforts to locate and contract with private assessors who can complete the assessments. San Juan and Visions shall not be penalized if private assessments cannot be completed within the sixty-day timeline.

3. San Juan and Visions shall complete the assessments and hold an IEP team meeting within 60 days of Parent’s consent to assess, to review the assessment and to determine whether Student is eligible for special education services and supports. The IEP team may meet virtually if in-person meetings are prohibited due to Covid-19 restrictions.

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.

Rita Defilippis
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings