OAH Case No. 2025050051

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

v.

SEBASTOPOL INDEPENDENT CHARTER.

CASE NO. 2025050051

DECISION

OCTOBER 8, 2025

On April 29, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, received a

due process hearing request from Student, naming Sebastopol Independent Charter,

called Sebastopol. OAH continued the matter on June 16, 2025. Administrative Law

Judge Alexa Hohensee heard this matter by videoconference on August 5, 7, 14, 15, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22 and 29, 2025.

Attorneys Evan Goldsen and Eric Verwest represented Student. Parents attended

all hearing days on Student’s behalf. Attorney Jennifer Nix represented Sebastopol. Chris

Topham, Sebastopol’s Executive Director, attended all hearing days on Sebastopol’s

behalf.

At the parties’ request, the matter was continued to September 22, 2025, for

written closing briefs. The record was closed, and the matter was submitted on

September 22, 2025.

ISSUES

The issues at the due process hearing, as clarified at the prehearing conference

and on the first day of hearing, are stated below. A free appropriate public education is

called a FAPE. An individualized education program is called an IEP.

There was a typographical error at Issue 6 in the prehearing conference order

that incorrectly referred to the June 28, 2025 IEP as the June 18, 2025 IEP. That error

was corrected on the first day of hearing.

1. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

2. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

3. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by

failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

4. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the January 31, February 29, and

March 14, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

5. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the May 9, May 29, and

June 3, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

6. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the June 26 and June 28,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

7. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the October 1, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

8. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE in the December 9, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer:

a. autism eligibility?

b. goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

c. individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services?

d. an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia?

9. Did Sebastopol deny Student a FAPE from April 29, 2023, through

April 29, 2025, by significantly impeding Parents' ability to

participate in the IEP decisionmaking process by failing to

meaningfully consider:

a. Parents' input regarding need for autism support?

b. Parents' concern that Student did not make meaningful

progress in the areas of academics?

c. the findings and recommendations of Parents' educational

evaluation assessor at the October 1, 2024 IEP team

meeting?

Please note: this copy of the decision is truncated. It does not include all of the issues included in the complaint.

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 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, and has

the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B); Ed.

Code, § 56502, subd. (i); Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 57-58, 62 [126 S.Ct. 528,

163 L.Ed.2d 387]; and see 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).) Here, Student had the burden of

proof. The factual statements in this Decision constitute the written findings of fact

required by the IDEA and state law. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd.

(e)(5).)

Student was 13 years old and attending eighth grade at Sebastopol at the time

of hearing. Sebastopol was an independent charter school and a school of choice,

responsible for providing Student a FAPE at all relevant times. Sebastopol was not

Student’s school of residence. Parents lived in different homes, and both changed

addresses during the period at issue. Parents shared custody, and Student and his

sibling went back and forth between homes during the week, on different days and

times as changed and agreed to by Parents.

Student was eligible for special education and related services under the category

of specific learning disability due to neurocognitive processing deficits that impacted his

ability to read and write. Student was also eligible under the category of other health

impairment due to a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, that

adversely impacted his attention to task and executive functioning.

ISSUE 1a: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE MAY 2 AND

MAY 15, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER AUTISM ELIGIBILITY?

Student contends that he was denied a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023 IEPs

because they did not include autism as one of Student’s special education eligibility

categories. Student argues Sebastopol’s assessment results reflected Student had

communication deficits, repetitive behaviors, and sensory sensitivities consistent with

autism, and autism should have been listed as an additional eligibility category.

Sebastopol contends Student was not eligible for special education under the

category of autism because he did not exhibit characteristics of autism adversely

affecting his performance in the school setting. It argues Student was sociable,

participated in class discussions, and performed at grade level with accommodations

for reading and writing. It further argued Student did not display communication

deficits, repetitive behaviors, or sensory sensitivities.

A FAPE means special education and related services that are available to an

eligible child and meet state educational standards at no charge to the parent or

guardian. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.) Parents and school personnel

develop an IEP for an eligible student based upon state law and the IDEA. (20 U.S.C.

§§ 1401(14), 1414(d)(1); and see Ed. Code, §§ 56031,56032, 56341, 56345, subd. (a) and

56363 subd. (a); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321, and 300.501.)

In general, a child eligible for special education must be provided access to

specialized instruction and related services 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 School Dist. RE-1 (2017) 580 U.S. 386, 402 [137 S.Ct. 988, 1000]

(Endrew).)

As long as a child remains eligible for special education and related services,

the IDEA does not require the child to be placed in any particular disability category.

The IDEA states:

Nothing in [the IDEA] requires that children be classified by their disability

so long as each child who has a disability listed in [the IDEA] and who, by

reason of that disability, needs special education and related services is

regarded as a child with a disability. (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(d); see also Ed. Code, sec. 56301, subd. (a).) U.S. Department of Education guidance has long been that a child's entitlement is not to a specific disability classification or label, but to a FAPE. (

Letter to Fazio (U.S. Dept. of Educ., Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Apr. 26, 1994) 21 IDELR 572 (Fazio).)

Compelling a selection of one particular category seems contrary to the school

district's child find duty. (E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. (9th Cir.

2014) 758 F.3d 1162, 1174 (Pajaro Valley).)

STUDENT’S ENROLLMENT AT SEBASTOPOL

Prior to entering Sebastopol, Student attended a Spanish language immersion

program in a school district that found Student eligible for special education in 2020. On

November 2, 2022, Student entered Sebastopol with an existing IEP dated January 14,

2022, from the prior school district, stating Student’s sole eligibility category as specific

learning disability. That IEP also noted Student had an ADHD diagnosis and attention

problems that interfered with his ability to access the curriculum.

Generally, a student must be assessed no less than every three years, and the

student’s educational program reviewed not less than once per year. (20 U.S.C.

§§ 1414(a)(2)(B), 1414(d)(4)(B)(i); Ed. Code, § 56381, subd. (a)(2).) Student’s three-year

assessment and program review were due in December 2022, one month after enrollment

in Sebastopol.

Sebastopol convened an IEP team meeting on December 7, 2022, to review how

Student was transitioning to his new school. The IEP team agreed to retain terms of

the January 14, 2022 IEP, which included three literacy goals, placement in a general

education classroom, and specialized academic instruction of 60 minutes per day, four

days per week in a separate classroom. At Parents’ request, the IEP team reduced

Student’s daily specialized education sessions from 60 minutes to 45 minutes, because

Student did not like missing time in his general education classroom.

Because Student left his prior school district at the end of October 2022, it did

not complete assessments for Student’s three-year program review. In addition,

Parents planned a vacation for Student that extended beyond Sebastopol’s 2022-2023

winter break, so he was unavailable for assessment in December 2022 and early

January 2023. The December 7, 2022 IEP team agreed Sebastopol would conduct its

own assessments and reconvene the IEP team meeting to review those assessments the

following semester when Student returned.

Parents consented to the December 7, 2022 IEP on January 13, 2023.

MULTIPLE MEETINGS TO COMPLETE THE THREE-YEAR REVIEW

The three-year review was completed over a series of IEP team meetings on

February 15, 2023, March 22, 2023, April 5, 2023, and May 2, 2023. Sebastopol did not

make a complete offer of special education and related services until the May 2, 2023

IEP, the first IEP at issue in this proceeding.

The May 2, 2023 IEP was written as an amendment to the December 7, 2022 IEP,

but was a final offer of FAPE, and will be called the May 2, 2023 IEP.

During the series of IEP team meetings between December 7, 2022, and May 2,

2023, Parents had many questions about each and every step of the IEP development

process and requested numerous detailed changes to the draft IEP being developed by

the IEP team. Each IEP team meeting lasted one to two hours as Sebastopol team

members worked collaboratively with Parents to develop Student’s educational

program.

Multiple meetings were in keeping with the Ninth Circuit’s emphasis on parental

participation as one of the most important safeguards in the IDEA. (

Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark County School Dist. (9th Cir. 2001) 267 F.3d 877, 892 (

Amanda J.)

An IEP team must consider the concerns of the parent for enhancing the student’s

education and information on the student’s needs provided to, or by, the parent.

(20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)A) & (d)(4)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(1)(ii) & (b)(1)(ii)(C); Ed.

Code, § 56341.1, subds. (a)(2), (d)(3) & (f).)

The U.S. Department of Education has long advised school districts that parents

are entitled to bring their questions, concerns, and recommendations to an IEP team

meeting as part of a full discussion of a child’s needs and the services to meet those

needs before the IEP is finalized. (Assistance to States for the Education of Children

Disabilities (U.S. Dept. of Education, Mar. 12, 1999) 64 Fed. Reg. 12478-12479.) A school

district cannot independently develop an IEP without meaningful participation by the

parent. (W.G., et al. v. Board of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. (9th Cir. 1992) 960

F.2d 1479, 1484, superseded in part by statute on other grounds (Target Range).)

Parents had questions, concerns, and recommendations that were often not

resolved during the time scheduled for an IEP team meeting. Parents were entitled to a

full discussion of their questions and concerns. Some IEPs took several meetings to

complete. For this reason, the ALJ determined that a number of the IEPs at issue were

not final offers of FAPE, as discussed at Issues 2, 3, 4, and 5 below.

BEGINNING OF THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR

Sebastopol was a small public charter school with 300 students from kindergarten

through eighth grade. It was a Waldorf school that complied with state standards but

presented material at different times than typical school programs and used Waldorf

methodology.

Waldorf schools used multisensory teaching methods and taught many subjects

in blocks. For example, when studying a period in history, the students might spend an

entire one-month block of lessons on that period, singing period-appropriate songs,

learning period-appropriate games or dances, and making period-appropriate foods to

reinforce their understanding of that period of time and its events. Students at every

grade level played a musical instrument and took handwork classes, such as crochet and

knitting in elementary school and woodworking in middle school. Each student created

a book of what they learned each year. The books became essay-based by middle

school. Students worked on an essay for days or weeks before the final version of that

essay was placed in their book.

As a Waldorf school, Sebastopol kept its students with the same teacher for

multiple years. The Sebastopol teachers who testified were all knowledgeable and

dynamic communicators.

In November 2022, Student entered Lynne Struye’s general education fifth-grade

classroom of approximately 30 students. Many of Struye’s students had been with her

for several years. Student was initially shy but soon thrived socially. Student got along

well with his classmates, spent time with friends on the playground during lunch and

recess, and was well-liked by both peers and adults. Student went to different

classrooms for math, handwork, music, and specialized academic instruction.

Specialized academic instruction was provided in the Learning Center on campus.

Students in the Learning Center had IEPs and received specialized academic

instruction on their academic annual goals. During the 2022-2023 school year, the

Learning Center staff included a literacy specialist and Danielle Ing, a special education

teacher credentialed to teach students with mild to moderate disabilities. Student went

to the Learning Center for 45 minutes per day, four days per week, and worked on

academic goals in the December 7, 2022 IEP. Student’s goals, discussed at Issue 1b,

targeted literacy skills to address Student’s reading and writing deficits.

THE FEBRUARY 2023 PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT

Student’s three-year comprehensive assessment was documented in a report

dated February 13, 2023. It was conducted in December 2022 and January 2023 by

highly qualified school psychologist Jeffrey Lough. Lough possessed a master’s degree

in school counseling with a focus on school psychology and was a credentialed school

psychologist. Lough had been a school psychologist and counselor for over 15 years,

was a diplomate of the American Board of School Neuropsychology, and actively

participated in regular continuing education, including autism diagnosis. Lough was a

school psychologist for Sebastopol for three years through the 2023-2024 school year.

He was regularly in Student’s fifth-grade classroom, where he taught social emotional

learning, and helped Student integrate smoothly into Sebastopol. At hearing, Lough

had a very open and professional demeanor, and gave clear, complete, and informative

answers to all questions. His testimony was very persuasive, and his opinions were

given significant weight.

Credentialed special education teacher Danielle Ing gathered information on

Student’s academic performance. Ing obtained a special education credential in 2019 to

teach students with mild to moderate disabilities. She had been a special education

teacher for six years at the time of hearing, and taught in the Learning Center at

Sebastopol through the 2023-2024 school year. As part of her special education

credentialing program, she was trained and familiar with a variety of evidence-based

curriculum and teaching methods to address the learning needs of children with

disabilities in reading and writing, including the Orton-Gillingham multi-sensory

approach. Student’s levels of academic achievement are discussed at Issue 1b, but Ing

was also one of the teachers who completed behavior and autism rating scales for

Lough’s assessment. Ing had a professional and helpful demeanor at hearing, and she

was very knowledgeable and articulate. Her answers were thorough, enlightening, and

clearly and logically explained. Her opinions regarding Student’s educational needs,

appropriate reading and writing goals and instruction to address those needs, best

practices to implement reading and writing instruction, and Student’s progress on

annual goals worked on in the Learning Center, were persuasive and convincing, and

given significant weight.

Lough observed Student in Struye’s general education classroom, where Student

• participated regularly by raising his hand,

• making spontaneous comments,

• asking relevant questions,

• starting his work, and

• having necessary materials at hand.

During recess, Lough observed Student with one or two classmates at all times. When

Lough could overhear what was said, Student initiated peer conversations with age-

appropriate content, responded appropriately, and even joked with one peer. Over

several playground observations, Student used figurative language like “Give him a taste

of his own medicine,” talked casually and laughed with peers, and played basketball

with multiple classmates. During testing, Student freely discussed his recent vacation,

although he did not ask Lough to elaborate when Lough mentioned he had been to the

same destination. Student had good eye contact during conversation, but was fidgety

in his seat during testing.

Lough used rating scales to measure Student’s social emotional functioning and

behavior. Mother, Father, and general education teacher Struye completed behavior

assessment scales. Struye rated Student as typically functioning in all areas. Father

rated Student elevated in levels of hyperactivity, inattention, and anxiety, while Mother

rated Student clinically elevated in hyperactivity, inattention, and adaptability. Student

rated himself as having a positive attitude towards school and peers, but with elevated

levels of attention, hyperactivity, and feelings of inadequacy. Student’s self-report

placed him in the typical behavior range, except for several phobias and his belief that

some people might find him strange. Student rated his emotional functioning, impulse

control, and anger management as typical, but with elevated worries about his attention

and use of time.

On a self-report for anxiety, Student rated himself typical in all areas except

separation anxiety from Parents, and phobias on bad weather, the dark, and bugs.

Physically, Student rated himself as jumpy and jittery.

On autism rating scales, Mother reported Student had difficulty understanding

others’ perspectives, was easily upset at home, and wanted social connections. Student

had been recently diagnosed with autism through his medical insurance, and Lough

noted in that medical evaluation Parent had reported Student was typical at school, with

minimal and nonproblematic characteristics of autism in the school setting.

Social emotional testing showed Student had some rigid thinking, but no social

emotional challenges beyond mild anxiety around schoolwork. None of Student’s

teachers reported language or communication issues, and Lough noted Student scored

in the average range in pragmatic, or social, language skills in a concurrent Sebastopol

speech and language assessment.

Lough concluded in his February 2023 multidisciplinary report that Student

did not meet the criteria for autism eligibility because Student did not demonstrate

impaired social interaction in pragmatic language and reciprocal social interaction to a

significant degree at school. Student did not exhibit engagement in repetitive activities

or stereotypical movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily

routines, or unusual responses to sensory experiences.

THE MAY 2, 2023 IEP

The May 2, 2023 IEP identified Student as eligible for special education under the

category of specific learning disability due to his cognitive processing deficits affecting

reading and writing, and under the category of other health impairment due to his

attention deficits. The IEP also noted Student had a medical diagnosis of autism

spectrum disorder.

STUDENT NOT ENTITLED TO A PARTICULAR ELIGIBILITY CATEGORY

Student cites no authority in his closing argument requiring an IEP to identify

more than one category of eligibility for special education. As explained by the U.S.

Department of Education in Fazio, and by the Ninth Circuit in Pajaro Valley, Student is

not entitled under the IDEA to a specific eligibility category.

STUDENT NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER CATEGORY OF AUTISM

To be eligible for special education, a student must have a qualifying disability,

and, because of that disability need special education. (20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A); 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.8(a)(1) & (b); Ed. Code, § 56026, subds. (a) & (b).) A child with a disability means a

child evaluated in accordance with sections 300.304 through 300.311 of title 34 of the

Code of Federal Regulations as having one of thirteen eligibility categories disability,

including autism, and who by reason of that disability needs special education and

related services. (34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(1); see also Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030.)

In California, autism, for special education eligibility, is defined as a

developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication

and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a

child's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism

are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance

to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to

sensory experiences. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(1); see also, 34 C.F.R.

§ 300.8(c)(1)(i).)

The evidence established that in May 2023, Student did not exhibit characteristics

of autism in the school setting that adversely affected his educational performance and

therefore, Student did not meet the eligibility criteria of autism.

Student was a social, communicative, and motivated learner who, in May 2023,

thrived under Sebastopol’s multi-modal educational approach and with the supports in

the December 7, 2022 IEP. There was no evidence that Student’s recently diagnosed

autism affected his verbal and nonverbal communication or social interaction in the

school setting. Student did not engage in repetitive activities or stereotypical

movements in the classroom or on the playground. Student blended in seamlessly

to the environmental change of a new school and adapted well to Sebastopol’s block

system. Mother reported sensory seeking with Student rubbing his hoodie and favoring

certain fabrics, but there were no reports of unusual sensory responses at school. To the

extent Student had characteristics of autism, they neither presented in the school setting

or adversely affected his educational performance.

At hearing, every witness who worked with Student at Sebastopol, whether in the

2022-2023, 2023-2024, or 2024-2025 school years, described Student as being social

and well-liked. Student’s general education teachers consistently testified that Student

enthusiastically contributed to class discussions, shared meaningful insights into the

subject matter, and worked well in groups. No one who had interacted with Student at

Sebastopol perceived him as being any more awkward than a typical student his age or

having any social or communication deficits.

Witnesses who observed Student in school, in different classes, circumstances,

and school years, consistently and credibly testified they did not see Student display

characteristics of autism such as poor communication skills, difficulty interacting with or

taking the perspective of others, or having unusual behaviors or sensory needs. Student

did not engage in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, and although he

complained in sixth grade when the classroom was rearranged, did not otherwise

demonstrate resistance to environmental change or change in daily routine. Ing

emailed Lough at the start of the three-year assessment that Student might have autism

due to poor eye contact and little conversation. However, Ing testified credibly that

she did not know Student well at the time, and once Student was comfortable in the

Learning Center and interacted with her and the other students freely, she no longer

had reason to believe he had autism.

Struye, who had been a teacher for 19 years as of May 2023, described Student

as a personable, sweet, and attentive student who made friends quickly and was

welcome in any classroom group. She testified convincingly that she had worked

with students with autism in the past and saw no characteristics of autism in Student.

Student transitioned into Sebastopol well and thrived intellectually and socially in her

classroom and did not have the verbal and nonverbal communication and socialization

deficits she observed in other children with autism. Sophia Wiebe, who was an assistant

in the Learning Center working on her educational specialist credential during the 2022-

2023 school year, described Student as an avid learner with good and reciprocal

conversational skills.

In December 2022, Student had received a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder

through his medical insurance, based on a psychologist’s videoconference interview of

Student and Mother, online testing, and rating scales completed by Mother. That

psychologist did not testify, did not observe Student in the school setting, and did not

speak with Student’s teachers at Sebastopol. She did not review school records other

than a psychoeducational assessment by Student’s prior school district from February

2020 finding Student eligible for special education under the category of specific

learning disability. This autism diagnosis did not automatically establish that the

characteristics of autism adversely affected Student’s educational performance. A

student may have a qualifying disability and still not be found eligible for special

education, let alone a specific category. (See Hood v. Encinitas Union School Dist. (9th

Cir. 2007) 486 F.3d 1099, 1107-1108, 1110.)

The totality of the evidence did not demonstrate Student could not take the

perspective of others, was socially inept and without friends, or a poor communicator.

Witnesses who no longer worked for Sebastopol and had no incentive to paint Student

in a particular light described him as a gregarious and involved student. Even Student’s

due process complaint begins by describing Student as an enthusiastic and social

student who is known for his kindness, empathy, being supportive, and who enjoys

spending time with friends. Isolated instances of poor eye contact, lack of interest in

an adult’s shared experience, or fidgeting in his seat did not establish that Student

exhibited characteristics of autism that adversely affected his educational performance.

Mother believed Student had autism because he acted out when he got home and

had meltdowns when asked to complete homework. She also thought his interactions

with other children were superficial, as he did not have close friendships like her own.

Mother’s testimony was somewhat contradictory, as she insisted Student did not have

any friends, but also testified that the parents of Student’s friends had recommended

Sebastopol. The February 15, 2023 IEP also contemporaneously documented that Mother

told the IEP team Student was trying to get his friends to attend Sebastopol. Mother’s

inconsistent statements adversely affected her credibility.

Father also felt Student had no friends and was discouraged that Student would

not invite kids Student met during basketball games at the park home with him. Mother

was particularly upset that Student’s school friends did not visit him at home. There are

many reasons Student may have chosen not to bring friends into either of his Parent’s

homes. These observations did not establish that Student could not initiate or maintain

friendships, or had other social deficits as a result of autism that adversely affected his

educational performance.

Student’s expert psychologist Julia VanderVennet, Ed.D., who assessed Student in

seventh grade and whose report is discussed at Issue 7, suggested that Student may

have been “masking” his social deficits and having invisible emotional reactions at

school. Dr. VanderVennet opined Sebastopol should have put autism supports in place

even if there were no signs of pragmatic language or social skills deficits, rather than

waiting for such deficits to appear. Her opinion was speculative and not the standard

imposed by the IDEA for finding eligibility. Sebastopol was not required to find Student

eligible for special education based on autism, or to provide supports needed by

students with autism in general, without evidence that Student had autism characteristics

that adversely affected his educational performance. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd.

(b)(1).)

It is noteworthy that the evidence of pragmatic language deficits and unusual

responses to sensory experiences Student relied on were based on Parent report and

unsupported by expert assessment. Pragmatic language assessments are within the

realm of speech and language, and sensory sensitivities are in the realm of occupational

therapy. Admitted documents repeatedly referenced speech and language assessments

and occupational therapy assessments that found Student had no social language

deficits or unusual responses to sensory experiences in the school setting. These reports

included speech and language and occupational therapy assessments by Sebastopol

in February 2023, and a May 2023 occupational therapy assessment conducted by

Redwood Pediatric Therapy Associates. The following year, Sebastopol agreed to fund

independent speech and language and occupational therapy assessments, but no such

independent assessments were offered into evidence at the August 2025 hearing.

The only speech and language assessment admitted into evidence was a

December 2019 speech and language assessment that found Student’s articulation

skills below average, which no longer applied in May 2023, and Student’s receptive and

expressive language skills within normal limits.

If weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered when it was within the power

of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence offered

should be viewed with distrust. (See Evid. Code, § 412; see also Judicial Council of

California Civil Jury Instructions (2025 edition), CACI No. 203; Vallbona v. Springer (1996)

43 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1537 [the trier of fact may reasonably disbelieve a party’s self-

serving assertions].) Parents’ statements that Student lacked communication and

social skills, and had sensory seeking behaviors, were uncorroborated by professional

assessments, self-serving, and not credible.

In addition, it can reasonably be inferred from Student’s failure to produce

assessments of his alleged significant social language deficits and sensory sensitivities

due to autism that the results of such assessments would not have shown that Student

had significant pragmatic language deficits or unusual sensory seeking and avoidance

behaviors. (See Williamson v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1978) 21 Cal.3d

829, 836, fn. 2 [If a party does not produce evidence that naturally would have been

produced, he must take the risk that the trier of fact will infer, and properly so, that the

evidence, had it been produced, would have been adverse].)

Student’s evidence that he exhibited characteristics of autism that adversely

affected educational performance in May 2023 was untrustworthy and speculative.

It was insufficient to prove that Student’s autism adversely affect his educational

performance, particularly over substantial evidence that it did not.

MAY 15, 2023 IEP AMENDMENT

On May 15, 2023, special education teacher Ing documented in an IEP

amendment the dates and services Sebastopol offered Student for the upcoming

extended school year services during summer break. This was actually a clarification of

the FAPE offer in the May 2, 2023 IEP. An educational agency and the parent may agree

to amend an IEP without convening an IEP team meeting and instead develop a written

document to amend or modify the child’s current IEP. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)(D) & (F);

34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(4)(i) & (a)(6); Ed. Code, § 56380.1, subds. (a) & (b).)

The May 15, 2023 IEP clarified the dates and services for extended school year

2023 but did not otherwise make any changes to the May 2, 2023 IEP eligibility findings

or offer of FAPE. No evidence was presented that on May 15, 2023, Sebastopol had new

or additional information that Student’s educational performance was adversely affected

by his autism and that autism should have been added as an eligibility category.

Student failed to prove that Sebastopol denied Student a FAPE in the May 2 and

May 15, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility. Sebastopol was not required to

find Student eligible for special education and related services under a third eligibility

category of autism.

Student did not prove that he was eligible under the category of autism.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

ISSUE 1b: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE MAY 2 AND

MAY 15, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER GOALS OR ACCOMMODATIONS

RELATING TO DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA?

Student contends Sebastopol denied him a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate

goals and accommodations for Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia in the May 2 and

May 15, 2023 IEPs. Student argues his academic goals were not ambitious enough to

remediate Student’s reading fluency deficits, and the goals and accommodations did

not sufficiently address Student’s spelling, reading and writing challenges, or his

difficulties with handwriting and written organization.

Sebastopol contends the goals addressed Student’s identified needs in all areas

of literacy, as did the accommodations offered in the May 2023 IEPs.

Annual goals in an IEP are designed to enable the student to be involved, and

make progress, in the general education curriculum. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i); 34

C.F.R. § 300.320; Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(1).) For each area in which a special

education student has an identified need resulting from their disability, the IEP team

must develop measurable annual goals that are based upon the student’s present levels

of academic achievement and functional performance, and which the student has a

reasonable chance of attaining within a year. (Ibid.) The purpose of annual goals is to

permit the IEP team to determine whether the student is making progress in an area of

need. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a).)

The IEP must describe how the student’s progress toward meeting the annual

goals will be measured. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(III), see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(3).)

However, there is no specific form of measurement required by statute or caselaw.

(Capistrano Unified School Dist. V. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021) 21 F.4th 1125, 1134, cert. denied

sub nom. S.B. v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (2022) 143 S.Ct. 98; (

Capistrano).) Goal measurement can be based on the teacher’s subjective observations. (

Ibid., citing R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2011) 631 F.3d 1117, 1122 (

C.P.).) Nor does the IDEA require a district to adopt the specific form of data collection preferred by the parent. (Id., at p. 1135.)

The IDEA requires goals to target a student’s needs but does not require an IEP

to contain every goal from which a student might benefit. (

Capistrano, supra, 21 F.4th at p. 1133.) Moreover, a school district is not required to develop goals for areas covered by the general curriculum for which the student needs only accommodations and modifications. (Fed. Reg., Appendix A, Part 300 – Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities (1999) [discussing language also contained in the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA at 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)].)

The May 2, 2023 IEP was developed over a series of IEP team meetings beginning

December 7, 2022. Student was working on goals carried forward from the January 14,

2022 IEP, and the IEP team used Student’s progress on goals, Sebastopol’s assessments

of Student’s academic achievement and functional performance, baseline skills reports,

and input from Student’s teachers and Parents to identify Student’s areas of need and

develop new annual goals.

As of May 2, 2023, Student met his writing goal of transferring quotes from a

text to support an essay. Student made progress on, but did not meet, his executive

functioning goal of keeping his classroom materials organized and in their proper place.

Student did not meet his spelling goal to correctly spell 10 frequently used words, both

because Sebastopol did not know which words Student had been working on at the

prior district, and Sebastopol had been working on the goal for less than a school year.

Struye reported to the May 2, 2023 IEP team that Student was earning A’s and B’s

in his classes, and Mother told the April 5, 2023 IEP team that Student loved Struye’s

class and his confidence was increasing. With daily specialized academic instruction and

accommodations for his disabilities, such as not grading on spelling and using speech-

to-text, Student was accessing grade-level instruction and producing grade-level work.

The February 2023 multidisciplinary report found Student’s overall cognitive

ability in the average range, but Student’s poor abstract visual memory meant he had

difficulty holding information in his mind long enough to recall it. He also had slow

phonological processing, which is how the brain processes the sound structures of

language. Phonological processing is highly correlated with the ability to spell and to

read fluently. Student’s slow phonological processing resulted in difficulty spelling

and in how fast and well Student could read. Student’s difficulty in reading was

compounded by his deficits in rapid retrieval of visual information. A slower reading

rate impacted Student’s comprehension and made reading laborious for him.

Student’s neurocognitive differences also impacted his ability to write. Physically,

Student had good visual motor skills, but his handwriting became less legible when he

struggled to spell, and he complained of hand pain during handwriting.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Reading and writing are different skills. A reader must decode words already on

the page, typically by sounding them out phonetically or by memorizing sight words.

A writer must use the more difficult skill of encoding, or deciding which words to use

and how they are spelled. For example, to write the word “phone,” the writer must

determine whether the word begins with an “f” or the blend “ph,” which make the same

sound. In addition to spelling, writing involves composing complete sentences with

grammar, capitalization, punctuation within a sentence, punctuation separating

sentences, and many other rules of writing. Student’s memory and processing

differences made both of these tasks challenging, but combined with attention and

executive functioning deficits from Student’s ADHD, spelling and writing were

particularly difficult tasks.

Sebastopol’s psychoeducational assessment report concluded Student had

average cognitive abilities, but had deficits that impacted reading and writing in

processing speed, working memory, visual memory, and phonological processing.

Student continued to need remediation in all areas of literacy development, with

accommodations for hyperactivity, inattention, and slight levels of anxiety.

Ing assessed Student’s academic achievement in January 2023. Student scored

in the average range in reading, above average in math, but in the low average to

below average range in written expression. On a phonics screener used regularly in

the Learning Center to measure progress, Student was sounding out many letter

combinations, but still missed some

• consonant sounds,

• consonant-vowel-consonant words, called CVC, words,

• consonant blends, variant vowels,

Accessibility Modified Page 29 of 165

• low frequency spelling words, and

• multisyllabic words.

Student had particular difficulty with digraphs and trigraphs, or combinations of letters

that make a single new sound, such as “ch” or “igh.”

In other present levels of performance in May 2023, Student was reading aloud at

the beginning fifth-grade level, at a rate of 57 words per minute. His comprehension

was very high, and he used effective strategies to find answers to questions in a text. In

writing, Student preferred to dictate rather than write by hand, and his writing became

less legible when he wrote more than one paragraph. Struye’s class was working on

writing paragraphs, and although Student’s grammar was very good, he had not

mastered correct syntax or paragraph organization. Student kept up with fifth-grade

math with minimal support or reteaching.

According to the February 15, 2023 IEP meeting notes, Sebastopol’s speech-

language pathologist and assessor reported that Student performed in the typical range

for his age with regard to pragmatic inferencing and non-literal language. Sebastopol’s

occupational therapist reported Student had difficulty with penmanship and some

sensation seeking habits that did not impact him in the classroom. The occupational

therapist recommended a typing goal, as typing skills would be important to Student as

he advanced in grades, but Parents rejected that as they wanted Student to improve his

penmanship.

At the March 22, 2023 IEP team meeting, the speech-language pathologist

recommended accommodations, including scaffolded verbal instructions and a single

folder for assignments to take home. The occupational therapist again proposed a

typing goal, commenting that if Student was not motivated to handwrite, it did not

make sense to focus on that, as Student could take notes by typing on his laptop.

However, Parents wanted to focus on handwriting and said Student preferred speech-

to-text over typing anyway.

The May 2, 2023 IEP team found Student eligible for special education under the

category of other health impairment due to ADHD symptoms that adversely affected

his educational performance. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3030, subd. (b)(9).) The IEP

team also found Student eligible under the category of specific learning disability due to

disorders in attention, memory, and visual processing involved in understanding and

using language that manifested in the imperfect ability to listen, think, read, write, and

spell. (See id., subd. (b)(1).)

Sebastopol did not dispute that Student had dyslexia and dysgraphia. However, in

discussing whether the May 2, 2023 IEP goals or accommodations related to Student’s

dyslexia and dysgraphia, it is worth noting that dyslexia and dysgraphia are not specific

clinical diagnoses or IDEA categories.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, or

DSM-5, characterizes a person meeting certain criteria, including difficulties in such

areas as reading and writing with skills substantially below what is expected for their

age, as having a specific learning disorder. Specific learning disorders may include

impairment in reading, commonly called dyslexia, and impairment in written expression,

commonly called dysgraphia. Impairments in reading include difficulty with underlying

skills, such as reading rate or fluency, decoding, and spelling. Impairment in written

expression may include difficulties with grammar, punctuation, clarity of ideas, or

organization. Sebastopol was not required to write goals to expressly address dyslexia

or dysgraphia, but to address Student’s difficulties with the underlying skills that

adversely impacted his educational performance.

Parents asked many questions about dyslexia, dysgraphia, spelling, visual

memory, and working memory during the IEP team meetings to develop the May 2,

2023 IEP. Many accommodations were discussed. Special education teacher Ing told

Parents that Sebastopol could not improve Student’s memory and cognitive processing

but could help Student find accommodations and strategies that would work for him

through adulthood to read and write effectively despite his disabilities. Student’s areas

of need were identified in the May 2, 2023 IEP as reading fluency and phonics, writing

organization, sight word spelling, and fine motor in writing and sensory.

Ing initially proposed five annual goals at the April 5, 2023 IEP team meeting, in

• sight word spelling,

• consonant and vowel sounds,

• reading phonics patterns,

• phonics spelling, and

• paragraph writing.

Parents requested changes and additional goals, and Ing reworked goals and took new

baselines, and the IEP team ultimately agreed to the eight academic goals in the May 2,

2023 IEP.

MAY 2, 2023 IEP GOALS WERE APPROPRIATE FOR READING AND

WRITING

Sebastopol developed eight academic goals in the May 2, 2023 IEP. The first goal

addressed Student’s spelling of irregularly spelled sight words. Student could spell 25

of 41 kindergarten sight words, 26 of 41 first-grade sight words, and 14 of 46 third-

grade sight words. But, he could only spell 5 of 23 irregularly spelled first and second-

grade sight words.

This goal required Student to spell a list of 20 identified irregularly spelled

kindergarten, first grade, and second-grade sight words with 75 percent accuracy in two

of three trials measured by teacher data. This goal addressed both Student’s reading

fluency and written expression. Ing explained persuasively at hearing that Student’s

spelling impacted his writing not just because words were misspelled, but because

Student might have to pause to think of how to spell a word, interrupting his train of

thought and making writing a laborious process.

The second goal addressed Student’s decoding skills and phonics fundamentals.

He could identify eight of 10 vowel sounds and 17 of 21 consonant sounds. The goal

was for Student, given a visual prompt, to identify 10 of 10 vowel sounds and 21 of 21

consonant sounds with 100 percent accuracy in two of three trials as measured by

teacher-charted records and assessments. Ing regularly assessed Student in the

Learning Center with a phonics screener that measured Student’s phonics knowledge

and provided sound recognition practice. Ing explained that the ability to identify

sounds was critical to Student’s ability to decode reading words and spell words

phonetically in support of writing. Even when using accommodations such as speech-

to-text and spell check, Student had to encode and spell words sufficiently to obtain

spell checker predictions and to edit his written work.

The third goal addressed Student’s reading through learning more advanced

phonics fundamentals. In May 2023, Student could read CVC words with good

accuracy, but his accuracy fell on words with letter blends, digraphs and trigraphs,

and r-controlled words, which were words in which the letter “r” changed the vowel

sound.

The phonics reading goal called for Student, given a list of 15 words containing

one-syllable blends, 15 words with one-syllable digraphs, and 15 words containing one-

syllable r-controlled words, to read those words with 90 percent accuracy in two of three

consecutive trials as measured by teacher records and work samples. The goal was

originally written to target only blends and digraphs at 85 percent accuracy, which was

sufficient to show Student knew those skills well enough to implement them. However,

at Parent’s request, Sebastopol team members agreed to make the goal more ambitious

by adding r-controlled words and a higher accuracy rate.

The fourth goal targeted phonics and spelling, which addressed Student’s writing

needs. Student could independently spell CVC words and blends with 90 percent

accuracy, but his accuracy decreased on

• r-controlled words,

• variant vowel words,

• digraphs and trigraphs,

Accessibility Modified Page 34 of 165

• long vowels words, and

• low frequency spelling words.

This goal required Student, given a list of regularly spelled single-syllable short vowel

words with digraphs and r-controlled words, to independently spell each type of word

with 85 percent accuracy in two of three trials as measured by teacher-made tests and

student work samples. Unlike the goal that addressed irregularly spelled words, this

goal addressed regularly spelled words. Ing believed it was important for Student to

understand the phonics rules for spelling digraphs, and Parents wanted Student to focus

on both digraphs and r-controlled words. Ing considered the goal ambitious but not

unreasonably so.

The fifth goal addressed writing skills. Student could write a three-paragraph

essay with many significant errors in formatting, organization, capitalization, and correct

end and internal punctuation. When handwriting, Student wrote some letters only in

upper case, which was not counted against him in grading for paragraph organization,

but was a capitalization error. At the time of the May 2, 2023 IEP, Student could get

his ideas out clearly and write a paragraph with pre-writing activities like a graphic

organizer and relevant word bank, so long as he was not graded down for handwriting

and spelling deficits that were part of his disability. However, Student needed to be able

to organize a paragraph, which was a precursor to organizing three-paragraph essays at

the fifth-grade level.

This goal required that, when given a grade-level topic, teacher-led pre-writing

activities including a graphic organizer, dictation or typing option, and a word bank,

Student would produce a correctly formatted paragraph. The paragraph would include

a topic sentence, three supporting details, and a closing sentence, with 85 percent

accuracy in each skill of formatting, organization, punctuation, and capitalization. This

goal would be measured by student work samples and assessments. Ing drafted this

goal to prepare Student for three-paragraph essay writing, which would be required as

he advanced through middle school.

The sixth goal addressed organization as a learning skill. Student was regularly

going between Parents’ separate homes and had challenges in keeping track of his

materials and assignments. He was bringing the appropriate materials home and back

to school only two days a week. This goal called for Student, with the support of

organizational strategies such as a checklist and assignment calendar, to independently

bring the appropriate materials home and back to school four of five days per week

over a four-week period and maintain his classwork in an organized binder, as measured

by teacher-charted records and parent reports.

The May 2, 2023 IEP team discussed support for this goal through checklists

requested by Father, an assignment calendar, and Student’s general education teacher

meeting with Student privately throughout the day to check that Student wrote down

assignment information, or obtained it another way, such as by taking a photo of

assignments written on the board or getting teacher notes. This goal addressed

Student’s identified executive functioning needs arising from working memory deficits

characteristic of children with ADHD, specifically in the area of organization.

The seventh goal was a technology goal. Student logged into and used his

school Chromebook independently, but used the embedded Google Read and Write

program only one out of five opportunities to read a page online, and three of five

opportunities to write a paragraph. This goal called for Student to independently use

assisted reading and writing programs, such as Google Read and Write, Scan and Read

Pro, Universal Reader, Open Office, Google Docs, and Apple iWork, to both read a page

and write a paragraph in four of five opportunities as measured by teacher-charted

observations and independent work samples. This goal addressed both Student’s

reading and writing needs. It required Student to take advantage of the tools available

to create compositions with less impact from his disabilities. Ing felt strongly that

becoming competent with available reading and writing tools could orient Student to a

topic and enable him to do grade-level work while minimizing the impact of his reading

and writing impairments.

The eighth goal was a complex sentence writing goal added at Parents’ request.

Student could write two sentences with a conjunction or preposition and his grammar

was accurate, but his scores were much lower in capitalization, punctuation, and

sentence length. This goal required Student, when given a specific topic, information,

and a word bank, to independently compose a single correct complex or compound

sentence of 15 words or greater with 95 percent correct grammar, 85 percent correct

capitalization, and 95 percent correct punctuation in two of three trials as measured by

student work samples and assessments.

Ing preferred that Student focus on accuracy with short sentences but agreed

that when Student was intentionally trying to write complex sentences his sentence

structure deteriorated. Ing did not think this was a necessary goal, but it did work on

appropriate writing skills and was adopted by the May 2, 2023 IEP team.

At hearing, Ing opined the goals in the May 2, 2023 IEP met all Student’s

academic needs. On cross-examination, she clarified that the goals met all Student’s

academic needs arising from his disabilities, but that Student had academic needs that

would be addressed by the general education curriculum, such as learning subject

content and critical thinking. She also explained that Student would reinforce learned

skills and make better progress with practice at reading and writing. The more Student

practiced, the faster he would learn which tools and strategies worked best to minimize

the impact of his neurodevelopmental deficits on educational performance.

The May 2, 2023 IEP also offered two occupational therapy goals to work on

Student’s hand stability for handwriting endurance and handwriting legibility. Parent

was taking Student for medical examinations regarding Student’s ongoing complaints of

physical pain in his hands when writing, but it was important to Parents that Student

have neat, legible handwriting. Student did not call an occupational therapist to testify,

or provide other evidence that the occupational therapy goals in the May 2, 2023 IEP

were inappropriate or insufficient to address any fine motor deficits, or sensory needs,

related to Student’s dyslexia or dysgraphia.

Each of the May 2, 2023 IEP goals addressed Student’s specific learning disability

in reading and written expression and was based on Student’s present levels of academic

achievement and functional performance. Each goal was measurable and reasonably

obtainable in one year. The May 2, 2023 IEP goals were appropriate to address Student’s

dyslexia and dysgraphia.

APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATIONS

An IEP must include a statement of the program modifications or supports for

school personnel that will be provided to the pupil to allow the pupil to advance

appropriately toward attaining the annual goals and be involved and make progress in

the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular activities and

other nonacademic activities. (34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4)(i), (ii); Ed. Code, § 56345, subds.

(a)(4)(A), (B).)

The May 2, 2023 IEP contained a long list of accommodations for Student’s

reading, writing, and attention deficits. It included accommodations addressing

attention, such as change of setting as needed, obtaining Student’s attention before

speaking, frequent breaks, and flexible seating to ensure auditory and visual access.

It included accommodations for reading and writing, such as extended time on tests

and assignments, providing directions in a variety of modalities, and checks for

understanding. Reading specific accommodations included access to text-to-speech

software, audio books, and reading aloud. Writing specific accommodations included

use of speech-to-text, which would include scribing by an adult, teacher’s notes, access

to adaptive writing equipment, and access to adaptive seat options.

Writing accommodations also included sentence stems to assist with writing,

access to a word bank during writing assignments, and spelling graded separately

from tests and assignments. Student presented no persuasive evidence that the

accommodations offered in the May 2, 2023 IEP were insufficient or inappropriate

The accommodations in the May 2, 2023 IEP were appropriate to support

Student’s reading and writing challenges.

MAY 15, 2023 IEP AMENDMENT

As discussed in Issue 1a, the May 15, 2023 IEP was a simple two-page amendment

to the May 2, 2023 IEP clarifying dates and services of the 2023 extended school year.

There was no persuasive evidence presented of changed circumstances that would have

warranted drafting or offering new goals or accommodations at that time.

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer goals or

accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia.

ISSUE 1c: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE MAY 2 AND

MAY 15, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER INDIVIDUALIZED MULTISENSORY

READING INSTRUCTION OR DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA SERVICES?

Student contends Sebastopol denied him a FAPE in the May 2 and 15, 2023

IEPs by failing to offer individualized, evidence-based reading instruction such as a

structured, multisensory literacy intervention appropriate for students with dyslexia and

dysgraphia. Student also contends that the minutes offered in the IEPs did not reflect

the intensity or fidelity of instruction required for students with significant deficits

affecting reading and writing.

Sebastopol contends it offered Student structured, multisensory literacy

intervention appropriate for Student to make progress on, and meet, his annual goals

addressing Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia. It also contends that the number of

minutes offered was appropriate.

The IDEA mandates that special education and related services, and supplementary

aids and services, be based upon peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable. (20

U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4).) The phrase to the extent practicable

means that supports and services should be based on peer-reviewed research to the

extent that it is possible, given the availability of peer-reviewed research. (71 Fed. Reg.

46,665 (Aug. 16, 2006).) The IDEA does not require the IEP to include the particular

instructional methodology being used. (Ibid.; CR.P., supra, 631 F.3d at p. 1122).)

IEP teams are not required to have a discussion on the research-based methods

offered, or to provide documentation of those methods, as the U.S. Department of

Education has determined such a requirement is unnecessary and would be unduly

burdensome on the IEP team. (71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (Aug. 16, 2006).) California law

mirrors the IDEA by requiring an IEP to include a statement of the special education

and related services and supplementary aids and services, based upon peer-reviewed

research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the pupil, and does not add a

procedural requirement that the instructional methodologies be written into the IEP

document itself. (Ed. Code, § 56345, subd. (a)(4).)

School districts are not required to include specific teaching methodologies

in the IEP, unless those specific methodologies are necessary for a FAPE. (34 C.F.R.

§ 300.320(d)(1); 71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (Aug. 16, 2006); C.P., supra, 631 F.3d at p. 1122.) A

parent’s disagreement with a school district’s educational methodology is insufficient to

establish an IDEA violation. (Carlson v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010,

unpublished) 380 F. App'x 595 (Carlson); see also, Lachman v. Illinois State Board of

Education (7th Cir. 1988) 852 F.2d 290, cert. denied at 488 U.S. 925 [parents do not have

a right to compel a school district to provide a specific program or employ a specific

methodology in providing for the education of a student with a disability].)

A district is not required to use the methodology a parent prefers when providing

special education services for a child. (Crofts v. Issaquah School Dist. No. 411 (9th Cir.

2022) 22 F.4th 1048, 1056 (Crofts).) School districts are entitled to deference when

deciding what programming is appropriate as a matter of educational policy. (Ibid.,citing J.L. v. Mercer Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 592 F.3d 938, 945, fn. 5 andRowley, supra, 458 U.S. at p. 208.) While a district should maintain an open discussion with parents regarding the use of various educational methodologies, the district

ultimately decides which methodology to utilize. (Carlson, supra, 380 F.App’x at p. 597.)

The evidence established that the May 2, 2023 IEP offered group specialized

academic instruction for 45 minutes daily to support Student’s literacy goals. The

May 2, 2023 IEP was not required to offer a specific reading instruction program. It was

not required to offer dyslexia or dysgraphia services, which Student failed to define in

the evidence or in his closing brief. The evidence did not establish that the specialized

academic instruction offered Student was anything other than peer-reviewed, research-

based reading instruction that included structured, multisensory literacy interventions

appropriate for students with specific learning disabilities in reading and writing.

The evidence did not establish these interventions were implemented in a manner

inconsistent with the teaching manuals and best practices such that they were not an

offer of research-based services.

The May 2, 2023 IEP increased the offer of specialized academic instruction from

45 minutes, four days per week, to 45 minutes daily, or a total of 225 minutes weekly.

Ing explained to the IEP team, including Parents, what programs and methodologies

were implemented in the Learning Center, but Sebastopol was not required to list that

information in the May 2, 2023 IEP because Student did not require a specific program

or methodology to make progress on his goals.

LEARNING CENTER INSTRUCTION

Special education teacher Ing, Learning Center assistant and later teacher Wiebe,

and Director of Student’s Services Kelli Lewis testified persuasively and in detail that

Sebastopol’s specialized academic instruction was provided using peer-reviewed,

evidence-based programs and methodologies that included individualized multisensory

reading instruction to support Student’s reading and writing goals. Each program and

methodology was provided consistent with program manuals and best practices.

During the 2022-2023 school year, Ing and a literacy specialist used a variety of

curriculum to address different goals. Examples were the Systematic Instruction in

• Phonological Awareness,

• Phonics and Sight Words curriculum,

• Rewards,

• Phonics for Reading, and

• Read Naturally.

The Learning Center teachers also used writing curriculum, sentence unpacking

strategies, and phonemic manipulation exercises to address the individual literacy

needs of students. Learning Center teachers and staff were trained in Orton-Gillingham,

a structured multisensory approach for teaching reading and spelling to students with

dyslexia. These programs provided Student with individualized multisensory reading and

writing instruction to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

Ing, Wiebe, and Lewis took multiple courses training them to implement

individualized multisensory evidence-based reading and writing interventions as part

of earning their special education credentials. They were familiar with the programs

used in the Learning Center and understood how to individualize instruction to meet

Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia needs.

Ing opined knowledgeably and persuasively that 45 minutes of specialized

instruction in reading and writing was individually designed and reasonably calculated

to enable Student to make progress on his May 2, 2023 annual goals.

During the 2022-2023 school year, as part of his specialized academic instruction

minutes offered in the December 7, 2022 IEP, Student received year-long phonics training

two to three times each week, in 20-minute sessions. During the first semester, Student

worked on his phonics goals individually with a teacher, but later worked in a small group

with another student with similar literacy needs. In the remaining specialized academic

instruction minutes, Ing worked with Student one-to-one and in a small group on

Student’s spelling, writing, and comprehension goals. Ing testified knowledgeably that

all curriculum could be individualized and used in parts, consecutively or concurrently, to

address a student’s needs and all instruction was done within publisher’s protocols.

Ing’s testimony was persuasive and logical. It made sense that if one curriculum

did not work well with a student, another curriculum could and should be tried to

provide meaningful instruction to children of varying needs and ability levels. In

addition, if a student had goals in multiple literacy areas, multiple curriculums could be

used to address all literacy needs.

There was no persuasive evidence Sebastopol failed to offer structured,

multisensory literacy intervention appropriate for students with dyslexia and

dysgraphia, or that the minutes offered in the IEPs did not reflect the intensity or

fidelity of instruction Student required. Student did not call his own expert in special

education instruction, or any expert in reading and writing intervention programs, to

contradict the credible and persuasive testimony of credentialed special education

teachers Ing, Wiebe, and Lewis.

Student’s expert Dr. VanderVennet was a highly qualified licensed psychologist,

with a master’s degree in psychology and a doctorate in educational leadership. She

had school psychology and general education teaching credentials but was not

credentialed to teach students with disabilities.

Dr. VanderVennet offered opinions regarding Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia

needs in October 2024 that were not available to the May 2, 2023 IEP team. She was

not familiar with and did not recommend specific curriculum to address dyslexia

and dysgraphia. She had taken one course on reading interventions as part of her

psychology training and had never implemented a reading or writing intervention

program. When she assessed Student and presented her report to Student’s IEP team

in October 2024, she did not offer the IEP team an opinion on specific programs for

dyslexia or dysgraphia, and did not suggest a frequency or duration for intervention.

Dr. VanderVennet did not observe Student in the Learning Center and did not know

which programs were used to target academic skills affected by Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia. Her opinions critical of the specialized academic instruction in the Learning

Center, and how it was implemented, were uninformed and unpersuasive.

Student contends he needed a more structured reading intervention like the

Seeing Stars program at Lindamood-Bell Learning Processes. Lindamood-Bell provides

its proprietary reading programs to children in purchased blocks of hours. It is not a

nonpublic agency certified by the state of California to provide specialized academic

instruction to students with disabilities. Rachael Siegel, a Development Director

responsible for sales at Lindamood-Bell, testified that Seeing Stars was beneficial to

children with deficits in working memory, reading, and comprehension, but Siegel was

not a licensed psychologist or credentialed teacher. Siegel’s only training on “building

processing skills” was provided by Lindamood-Bell staff.

Siegel testified that Seeing Stars was research-based because magnetic resonance

images, or MRIs, of children’s brains before and after Seeing Stars instruction showed

changes. Logically, many things will show changes in the brain on an MRI. Siegel did

not, and was not qualified to, explain how MRI changes correlated to better working

memory, reading, or comprehension.

Siegel explained Seeing Stars can be individualized to each student, with focus on

different sections and levels. This individualization was not unlike the individualization

in Sebastopol’s Learning Center that Student argues was not an evidence-based

program. Siegel was unaware of any educational requirements for Lindamood-Bell

personnel, called clinicians, who administered the Seeing Stars program to children.

Clinicians were overseen by supervisors, credentials unknown, who looked over the

collected data at unspecified periods, and children were tested after each purchased

package of hours. The specialized academic instruction in the Learning Center was

provided by credentialed special education teachers with education, training, and

experience in teaching reading and writing to students with dyslexia and dysgraphia, or

assistants working in the presence and under the direct supervision of those credentialed

teachers.

Student presented no credible evidence that the programs or methods utilized in

the Learning Center were not multisensory. Student presented no credible evidence

that the programs or methods utilized in the Learning Center were not peer-reviewed,

evidence-based, or were inappropriate to address Student’s reading and writing

impairments. Student presented no credible evidence that the number of minutes

offered, or 45 minutes daily of specialized academic instruction, did not reflect the

intensity or fidelity of instruction required for students with significant phonological

and orthographic processing deficits.

In the May 2, 2023 IEP, Sebastopol also offered 80 minutes of occupational

therapy per month to address Student’s poor handwriting endurance and legibility,

common characteristics of dyslexia. Vanessa Bird, a licensed occupational therapist who

worked with Student from August 2024 and was the only occupational therapist called

to testify, did not opine on any IEPs prior to October 1, 2024. Accordingly, the evidence

did not establish that the occupational therapy services offered in the May 2, 2023 IEP

were not appropriate to address Student’s dyslexia or dysgraphia.

The May 2, 2023 IEP offer of specialized academic instruction and occupational

therapy was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make appropriate progress in

reading and writing in light of his circumstances as required by Rowley and Endrew.

MAY 15, 2023 EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR OFFER

After the May 2, 2023 IEP team meeting, Ing and Parent agreed without an IEP

team meeting that Student would be offered extended school year services. Parent

informed Sebastopol at the May 2, 2023 IEP team meeting that Student would be

attending a reading program over the summer.

California special education regulations require that extended school year

services be provided for each student with exceptional needs who requires special

education and related services in excess of the regular academic year. (Cal. Code

Regs., tit. 5, § 3043.) Extended school year services are only necessary to a FAPE when

the benefits a disabled child gains during a regular school year will be significantly

jeopardized if he is not provided with an educational program during the summer

months. (N.B. v. Hellgate Elementary School Dist. (9th Cir. 2008) 541 F.3d 1202, 1211.)

Student’s complaint did not allege a denial of FAPE for failure to offer extended

school year services or placement, and extended school year services were not addressed

in Student’s closing brief. The evidence on extended school year services offered during

the period at issue in this proceeding was sparse and incomplete. Accordingly, the

evidence did not show that the special education and related services offered for

extended school year 2023 were not reasonably calculated to prevent regression of

Student’s literacy skills over the summer break.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer

individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia and dysgraphia services.

ISSUE 1d: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE MAY 2 AND

MAY 15, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER AN APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT

TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA?

Student contends the May 2 and 15, 2023 IEPs did not offer a FAPE because

Student was retained in general education with supplemental services, without access

to specialized programs designed for students with dyslexia and dysgraphia. Student

argues that because he failed to make appropriate progress, Sebastopol was required

to reevaluate the appropriateness of his placement and consider a setting that could

deliver more intensive interventions.

Sebastopol contends it offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment

appropriate for him.

The IDEA expresses a clear policy preference for inclusion in general education

to the maximum extent appropriate as an aspiration for all children with special needs.

(See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114 & 300.116; Ed. Code, § 56031.)

Educational agencies are required to provide each special education student with a

program in the least restrictive environment, with removal from the regular education

environment occurring only when the nature or severity of the student’s disabilities is

such that education in regular 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; Ed.

Code, § 56031.)

In light of this preference for the least restrictive environment, the Ninth

Circuit has adopted a balancing test that requires the consideration of four factors to

determine whether a child can be placed in a general education setting. First, the

educational benefits of placement full time in a regular class. Second, the non-academic

benefits of such placement. Third, the effect the student would have on the teacher

and children in the regular class, and fourth, the costs of mainstreaming the student.

(Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H. (9th Cir. 1994) 14 F.3d 1398, 1403

(Rachel H.) [adopting factors identified in Daniel R.R. v. State Board of Ed. (5th Cir. 1989)

874 F.2d 1036, 1948-1050 (Daniel R.R.)].) If it is determined that a child cannot be

educated in a general education environment, then the least restrictive environment

analysis requires determining whether the child has been mainstreamed to the

maximum extent that is appropriate in light of the continuum of program options.

(Daniel R.R., supra, 874 F.2d at p. 1050.)

The continuum of the program options includes, but is not limited to, from least

restrictive to most restrictive:

• regular education,

• resource specialist programs, like the Learning Center,

• designated instruction and services, like occupational therapy,

• special classes,

• nonpublic, nonsectarian schools,

• state special schools,

• specially designed instruction in settings other than classrooms,

Accessibility Modified Page 50 of 165

• itinerant instruction in classrooms, resource rooms, or settings other

than classrooms, and

• instruction using telecommunication, and instruction in the home,

in hospitals, or in other institutions. (Ed. Code, § 56361.)

In determining the educational placement of a child with a disability, an

educational agency must ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of

persons, including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child,

the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, who consider the

requirement that children be educated in the least restrictive environment. (34 C.F.R.

§ 300.116.) In selecting the least restrictive environment, consideration must be given

to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of services that he or she

needs, and the child with a disability must not be removed from education in age-

appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general

education curriculum. (Ibid.)

California defines a special education placement as that unique combination of

facilities, personnel, location, or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to

a child with exceptional needs, as specified in the IEP, in any one or a combination of

public, private, home and hospital, or residential settings. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042,

subd. (a).)

The May 2, 2023 IEP offered Student placement in a general education classroom,

with 17 percent of his school day in special education, in the Learning Center for 45

minutes per day, and in occupational therapy for 20 minutes per week.

In balancing the Rachel H. factors, the program offered in the May 2, 2023 IEP

was the least restrictive environment for Student. Student received educational benefit

from placement in Hale’s classroom. With his accommodations and related services

support for dyslexia and dysgraphia, Student was learning grade-level material and

producing grade-level work. Student benefitted non-academically by participating in

classroom activities with neurotypical peers and socializing with his classmates in the

classroom and on the playground. Student actively participated in Hale’s general

education classroom, and enjoyed time spent with peers in the classroom and on the

playground. Student did not have any behaviors that disturbed his peers, and there was

no showing Sebastopol considered the cost of Student’s placement when determining

the least restrictive environment. Consistent with Rachel H., Student’s least restrictive

placement was in the general education classroom with the removal only for specialized

academic instruction, occupational therapy, and counseling to support his access to the

general education curriculum.

Student was removed from the general education classroom only to address

his memory and processing deficits, which manifested as impairments in reading

and written expression sufficiently severe that Student could not access the general

education curriculum without the support of specialized academic instruction. As

discussed at Issue 1c, one 45-minute period per day of specialized academic instruction

was the level of specialized instruction necessary and appropriate to address Student’s

literacy and executive functioning goals. Occupational therapy at 20 minutes per week

appropriately addressed Student’s hand stability and handwriting legibility that were a

consequence of his dysgraphia.

Contrary to Student’s assertions in his closing brief, the record reflects Student

was making appropriate progress without more intensive reading interventions. In May

2023, Student was earning proficient to excellent marks in grade-level work with the

interventions in the December 7, 2022 IEP. His strong comprehension skills, increasing

ability to decode text, and accommodations enabled Student to keep pace with the rest

of his class and become a valued contributor to class discussions and projects. Student

was thriving in his current placement and gaining increasing confidence in his reading

and writing abilities.

Unquestionably, Parents wanted Student to do better, faster. Despite Student’s

cognitive differences and impairments in his ability to read, write, and organize, Parents

wanted Student to read as fast as his neurotypical peers and write as neatly and with the

same organization. They appeared to equate average intelligence with neurotypical

performance, and because Student had average intelligence, Parents expected Student

to read and write like a typical grade-level peer.

However, the IDEA does not require a school district offer a program that places

a child with disabilities on par with non-disabled classmates. (Endrew, supra, 580 U.S. at

p. 403.) It requires a school district to offer services and placement designed to enable a

child to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances. (Id., at p. 400.) Sebastopol

met that standard with the placement offered in the May 2, 2023 IEP, and was not

required to offer Student a placement with more intensive interventions to address

Student’s reading and writing impairments.

In the regular education classroom, examinations are administered, grades are

awarded, and yearly advancement is permitted for those who attain an adequate

knowledge of the course material. (Endrew, supra, 580 U.S. at p. 403.) Progress

through this system is what society generally means by an education, and what the

IDEA promises. (Id., at pp. 400-401.) An IEP for a student fully integrated in the regular

classroom should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks

and advance from grade to grade. (Id., at p. 401, citing Rowley, supra, at 458 U.S. at

pp. 203-204.)

Here, Student’s placement in general education, with 45 minutes of daily

Learning Center support and 20 minutes of occupational therapy each week, enabled

Student to attain adequate knowledge of grade-level course material, receive passing

marks, and advance from grade to grade. Student was not entitled to a more restrictive

placement outside of regular education to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia with

greater intensity as Parents preferred or to bring Student’s performance in all areas of

literacy to that of his non-disabled peers.

Regardless of whether Student was performing at grade-level in all areas, the

IDEA does not require removal from the regular education classroom if a student is

making substantial progress toward meeting his IEP academic goals, which indicates

he is receiving significant academic benefits from his existing regular classroom

placement. (D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2022)56 F.4th 636, 644-

645 (D.R.).) Although Student had not met his spelling goal by May 2023, which Ing

indicated was very much an area of need resulting from dysgraphia, he had met his

writing goal of finding and transferring quotes from an article to support his ideas

on a current writing assignment, and almost met his executive functioning goal of

keeping his things organized and in designated spaces. This progress warranted the

May 2, 2023 offer of placement in a general education classroom, with only short

removals for specialized academic instruction and occupational therapy appropriate to

support progress on the May 2, 2023 IEP goals.

The May 15, 2023 IEP offered 20, 45-minutes sessions of specialized academic

instruction and two 45-minute sessions of occupational therapy during a two-month

period over summer 2023. There was no argument or persuasive evidence that a return

to the Learning Center to prevent regression of learned skills was an inappropriate

extended school year placement.

Although Parents announced that Student was attending a summer reading

program, Sebastopol was not required to offer placement with a more intensive literacy

program, only that which reinforced Student’s fifth-grade literacy instruction so that the

acquired skills were not lost beyond reasonable recoupment at the beginning of sixth

grade.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied him a FAPE in the May 2 and 15, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate

placement to address Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia.

ISSUE 2a: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE JULY 14 AND

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER AUTISM ELIGIBILITY?

Student contends he was denied a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21, 2023

IEPs because he was not found eligible for special education under the category of

autism. Sebastopol contends that Student was not eligible for special education under

the category of autism at the time of those IEPs.

As discussed at Issue 1a, Student was found eligible for special education under

the categories of specific learning disability and other health impairment in the May 2,

2023 IEP. The evidence established that in July and September 2023, Student did not

exhibit characteristics of autism in the school setting that adversely affected his

educational performance and therefore, Student did not meet the eligibility criteria

of autism.

UPDATE TO MULTIDISCIPLINARY PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT

In May 2023, Parents requested Student’s IEP team reconsider whether Student

needed additional supports in the school setting due to autism. In response, Sebastopol

had school psychologist Lough conduct further observations of Student and obtain

autism rating scales from Student’s teachers not included in the February 2023

assessment, including Ing, the music teacher, and the handwork teacher. Lough’s

assessment update report was dated June 6, 2023, but due to the summer break was

not reviewed until a September 21, 2023 IEP team meeting. It included additional

observations by Lough from the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year.

Lough observed Student in his classroom and on the playground during the

last week of the 2022-2023 school year, which was less structured academically and

provided Student with social opportunities. In Struye’s classroom, Student was walking

around with others, signing yearbooks, speaking with classmates, and playing tag with

another boy until told to stop. Student’s behavior during that observation was typical of

most other students in the classroom.

In Lough’s second observation before the end of the 2022-2023 school year,

Student and another fifth grader were chosen to help first and second graders write

year-end thank you cards. The second-grade teacher reported Student independently

helped her students and was a useful presence in the classroom.

During Lough’s observation at the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year,

Student was playing on the playground with two to three boys the entire recess period.

Physical and verbal engagement appeared reciprocal in nature. Student appeared

at ease when speaking with his classmates, and joined several peers in throwing a

basketball.

Rating scales were completed by three teachers who saw Student in different

environments, including music class, handwork class, and the Learning Center. Lough

also interviewed those teachers. Each scored Student as having minimal to no behaviors

indicative of autism. Ing noted Student was easily redirected, easygoing, and flexible.

The music teacher noted Student played the upright bass and seemed anxious about

trying out for the Honors Orchestra, but reported no atypical behaviors interfering

with Student’s participation in the classroom. The handwork teacher reported Student

executed advanced knitting techniques and overcame any challenges. All three teachers

noted Student’s persistence and motivation to do well.

Regarding classroom communication, two teachers noted Student sometimes

had difficulty explaining his ideas clearly. Ing stated Student expressed himself well

orally, but wrote using basic vocabulary, emergent spelling strategies, and simple

sentences, all of which were addressed by the May 2, 2023 IEP and not uncommon in

students with specific learning disabilities in reading and writing.

Lough concluded Student had established positive relationships with peers

and adults. He saw characteristics related to anxiety, atypicality, and functional

communication were present, but did not interfere with Student’s educational

progress to any significant degree. Lough recommended the IEP team consider

monthly counseling as a safeguard to any underlying anxiety or school stress that

Student might experience.

JULY 14, 2023 IEP AMENDMENT

On July 14, 2023, Ing issued year-end progress reports on the May 2, 2023 annual

goals. For reasons unclear from testimony or documentary evidence, Ing attached the

progress reports to an IEP addendum page with an amendment date of July 14, 2023.

The July 14, 2023 IEP was not an amendment or an offer of goals, accommodations,

services, placement, or any other component of FAPE.

The year-end progress reports attached to the July 14, 2023 IEP addendum

page showed Student was making progress on reading sight words, had almost met

the letter sound goal, and was reading blends, digraphs, and r-controlled words with

good accuracy. Student was also spelling digraphs and r-controlled words with good

accuracy, and had passed the phonics screener in CVC words, blends, digraphs and r-

controlled words.

Student was producing a paragraph with appropriate capitalization and

punctuation, but needed to work on drafting an appropriate topic sentence, three

supporting details, and appropriate closing sentences. With the support of a checklist

and an assignment calendar, Student was bringing appropriate materials home and

back to school four days per week and maintaining classwork in an organized binder.

Student had increased use of Google Read and Write to read, but not to write. On the

complex sentence goal, Student composed a complex or compound sentence of 15

words or greater with accurate grammar and capitalization, but needed work on correct

punctuation.

On his second semester fifth-grade report card, Student earned proficient and

excellent marks in almost all his classes. The few exceptions were marks that he needed

attention in grammar and spelling for English language arts, and developing scores in

both measuring and scientific illustration, and neatness and organization for work

habits.

Student’s spring 2023 scores on the statewide California Assessment of Student

Performance and Progress tests were issued over the summer. Student exceeded state

standards in science and met state standards in both English language arts and math.

Student attended an eight-week reading intervention program by Lindamood-

Bell in summer 2023. This program is discussed in detail at Issue 2b.

THE 2023-2024 SCHOOL YEAR

For the 2023-2023 school year, Student’s new sixth-grade teacher was general

education teacher Jehanne Hale. Ing continued as Student’s special education teacher

in the Learning Center for his sixth-grade year.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEP AMENDMENT

An IEP team meeting was held on September 21, 2023, to review the

psychoeducational report update and how Student was transitioning to middle

school.

Teacher Hale told the IEP team Student actively participated in class by raising his

hand and contributing to discussions. She provided Student with notes, and Student

smiled throughout the day, seemed a good friend to classmates, and enjoyed playing

games at recess with peers. In contrast, Mother told the team Student was stressed at

home and cried when he had to go to school.

Lough reported to the IEP team that additional teacher interviews and rating

scales had scored Student with minimal to no behaviors indicating autism, with no

reports of atypical behaviors interfering with Student’s participation in the classroom.

Nonetheless, he was concerned that Student displayed some anxiety in the school

setting and was exhibiting anxiety at home per Mother’s report. Lough recommended

that counseling be added to Student’s IEP to help Student with anxiety and worry.

Lough opined persuasively at hearing that Student’s specific learning disability

was at the core of his anxiety. Many students with a specific learning disability felt

anxiety because it seemed the curriculum was going too fast. Student had deficits in

working memory and would miss things. Student likely had more stressors than his

neurotypical peers, which could be exhausting. Student was very conscientious, and

between schoolwork and traveling between his Parents’ separate homes with different

expectations and morning schedules, Lough was not surprised Student experienced

some anxiety. Lough recommended stress management be identified as an educational

need and addressed with an annual goal.

The September 21, 2023 IEP team did not find Student eligible for special

education and related services under the category of autism. The IEP team adopted

Lough’s recommended stress management goal, discussed at Issue 2b, and added 30

minutes per week of counseling to Student’s services, discussed at Issue 2c. The

September 21, 2023 amendment was implemented, although no written consent by

Parent was offered into evidence.

There was no new information presented at the September 21, 2023 IEP

amendment team meeting on which Sebastopol was required to find Student eligible

for special education under the category of autism. Quite the opposite. The teachers

who completed additional rating scales did not see characteristics of autism interfering

with Student’s access to education. Student was excelling in music and in handwork,

and was a social and frequent contributor in his sixth-grade general education class.

Parent told the September 21, 2023 IEP team Student was having trouble with a

classmate on a group project. However, the problem arose when Student declined

to write, telling the group “I don’t have to write. My writing sucks!” Hale testified

persuasively that as Student’s time in her classroom progressed, the other students

understood and accepted that Student needed some accommodations and welcomed

him into their groups. At one point, Student elected to do his own project rather than

work in a group with a classmate he disliked, but that was not atypical and Hale let

several students do their own projects. This evidence was not persuasive that Student

had difficulty with social interactions, let alone required an autism eligibility to receive a

FAPE. This evidence demonstrated Student self-advocated for the accommodations in

his IEP such as reduced writing assignments.

The evidence established that in September 2023, Student did not have a

developmental disability significantly affecting his verbal and nonverbal communication

and social interaction that adversely affected his educational performance. Sebastopol

properly did not find Student eligible for special education under the category of autism

in the September 21, 2023 IEP.

Student did not prove that Sebastopol denied him a FAPE in the July 14, 2023,

and September 21, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

ISSUE 2b: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE JULY 14

AND SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER GOALS OR

ACCOMMODATIONS RELATING TO DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA?

Student contends generally that Sebastopol denied him a FAPE in the July 14,

and September 21, 2023 IEPs by failing to develop goals to remediate his reading

fluency deficits, make him a more independent writer, and teach him to spell at grade

level. Sebastopol contends it offered Student goals appropriate to address his dyslexia

and dysgraphia.

The July 14, 2023 IEP amendment consisted of progress reports to the IEP written

at the end of the 2022-2023 school year, only one month after Parent’s consent to the

May 2, 2023 IEP on May 5, 2023. Such a short period of implementation did not provide

significant information on Student’s progress on those goals.

Accordingly, Sebastopol had no new information on July 14, 2023.

SUMMER 2023 LINDAMOOD-BELL PROGRAM

Parents had a history of trying different methods, strategies, or techniques at

home to support Student’s reading. While Student attended the Spanish language

immersion school prior to November 2022, Mother hired a tutor to help Student, and

subsequently had Student participate in an online “Lexercise” program for students with

dyslexia. At Sebastopol, Father proposed software programs he liked for use in the

Learning Center. In May 2023, Parent applied for, and Student was accepted into, a

free eight-week, 160-hour summer course of Lindamood-Bell’s Seeing Stars reading

intervention program funded by Stanford University. Student attended this program

instead of the extended school year services Sebastopol offered in the May 15, 2023 IEP.

Stanford sponsored the eight-week program for the purpose of brain imaging

participants before and after the program. No one who conducted the study was

called as a witness, and whether only Lindamood-Bell’s program or multiple programs

targeting dyslexia were included in the study was not established at hearing. Similarly,

it was unclear if Student’s instruction was individualized or standardized for the brain

study. Stanford performed MRIs on Student, but no results for Student were offered

into evidence.

Lindamood-Bell conducted a variety of standardized literacy tests on Student

before and after the Stanford program. It conducted additional assessments at Parent’s

request on April 12, 2024, one year after the initial assessment was completed, and

again on May 15, 2025, two years after the initial assessment. Lindamood-Bell used the

same tests each time and conducted them online instead of in-person in conformance

with testing manuals.

After the eight-week summer 2023 program, Student demonstrated very little

growth in standard scores for vocabulary, oral reading, and math computation, which

were already in the average range. Student had a very minor increase in spelling and

comprehension, which tested below average. Student showed a 12-point increase in his

word attack skills score and some increases in reading accuracy and passage reading.

Student’s learning aptitude score decreased, although Lindamood-Bell reported this

score as nonetheless well above his age equivalent.

As a whole, Lindamood-Bell’s testing showed little growth in Student’s reading

skills after the eight-week program. Subsequent Lindamood-Bell testing in 2024 and

2025 showed that Student experienced greater growth during periods of Learning

Center instruction, without Lindamood-Bell. There were a few exceptions, such as

spelling scores, which dropped in all Lindamood-Bell’s testing. However, rather

than demonstrating Sebastopol’s program was not improving his spelling, school

psychologist Annalise Puentes, opined at hearing it might just as well demonstrate

that Student did not retain Lindamood-Bell’s spelling instruction.

Puentes was a well-qualified and credentialed school psychologist who attended

Student’s October 1, 2024 IEP team meeting at Sebastopol’s invitation and performed a

review of Student’s educational records and assessments, including the Lindamood-Bell

assessments, for testimony at hearing. Puentes had a professional demeanor, supported

her opinions with references to Student’s educational records, and was a persuasive

witness. Puentes cautioned that standardized results from Lindamood-Bell assessments

conducted without conformance to publishers’ instructions were invalid and unreliable.

Regardless, Mother did not make Lindamood-Bell’s test scores available to the

September 21, 2023 IEP team, or any IEP team. These test scores were unknown to

Sebastopol until after Student filed his complaint for due process.

Student believed if he completed Lindamood-Bell hours over the summer, he

would not be required to go to the Learning Center in sixth grade. When the 2023-2024

school year began, Student was initially reluctant to work in the Learning Center and Ing

saw his skills regress. However, Student soon began giving good effort and making

progress on his goals.

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEP AMENDMENT

The September 21, 2023 IEP team did not review Student’s goals as Student’s

one-year review was due December 6, 2023, and Student had only been working on his

new goals since May 2023.

After Lough’s presentation of the assessment update, the IEP team discussed

Student’s anxiety and his need to learn and implement stress management strategies.

Lough proposed, and the IEP team adopted, a counseling goal. The goal called for

Student, in a one-to-one setting, to identify his own level of stress, influencing factors,

and name up to three personal coping strategies to manage his stress at school as

measured by counselor-made activities and Student work samples.

As a further stress reducer, the IEP team added a program modification that

Student would not receive spelling homework. Homework other than review of spelling

words was rare in Hale’s sixth-grade classroom anyway, as she built time to complete

assignments into each class.

The IEP team added accommodations to address sources of Student’s anxiety,

including encouraging Student to take breaks and requiring his teacher to frontload

assignments. Another accommodation was added for the teacher to let Student know

his modified assignment in advance of when the assignment was presented to the class,

which addressed Parent’s concern that Student was not always clear on what was

expected of him.

The counseling goal added to the September 21, 2023 IEP appropriately

addressed Student’s newly identified need of stress management related to his

dyslexia and dysgraphia. The additional accommodations and program modification

in the September 21, 2023 IEP appropriately supported Student in mitigating stress

from spelling, one of his greatest areas of need, and from his need for clarification of

assignment expectations due to his working memory and organizational deficits.

Because Parent did not share the results of the Lindamood-Bell program with

the September 21, 2023 IEP team, the team members were not required to consider

that information and how it might inform Student’s literacy interventions. On the

information available to the September 21, 2023 IEP team, no additional goals or

accommodations beyond those adopted at that meeting were warranted relating to

Student’s dyslexia or dysgraphia.

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the July 14, 2023, and September 21, 2023 IEPs by failing to

offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

ISSUE 2c: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE JULY 14

AND SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER INDIVIDUALIZED

MULTISENSORY READING INSTRUCTION OR DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA

SERVICES?

Student contends he was denied a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21, 2023

IEPs because the specialized academic instruction offered fell short of the systematic,

evidence-based instruction necessary to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia. Sebastopol

contends the services offered were appropriate for Student to make progress on his

annual goals.

As discussed, the July 14, 2023 IEP addendum was simply a progress report on

goals. There were no new goals added requiring additional services to be offered at

that time.

However, at the September 21, 2023 IEP amendment team meeting, a counseling

goal was added to address Student’s disability related needs in stress management. The

September 21, 2023 IEP team offered Student 30 minutes per week of individualized

counseling on a pull-out basis provided by the school psychologist to work on Student’s

counseling goal. Lough testified persuasively that although Student’s anxiety was mild,

his cognitive deficits in memory, processing speed, and attention, as well as his learning

impairments in reading and writing, could affect Student throughout his life. Learning

stress management strategies would serve Student throughout sixth grade and as he

advanced from grade to grade and school assignments relied more heavily on reading

and writing.

The type, amount, duration, and location of counseling services were documented

in the IEP and appropriate to address Student’s mild level of anxiety in the school

environment. The IEP team adopted Lough’s recommended level of service, which

provided Student with weekly opportunities to learn and try new management strategies,

and to report back to Lough on which were implemented and effective. Anxiety was not

always observable, and regular check-ins with the school counselor ensured Student

could consistently identify and manage stress resulting from his disabilities.

The evidence did not establish at Issue 2b that the September 21, 2023 IEP team

should have offered additional or different academic goals to address Student’s dyslexia

or dysgraphia, and there was no evidence that Student should have received more or

different services to work on those or any other areas of need at that time. The

September 21, 2023 IEP offer was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make

appropriate progress in reading and writing in light of his circumstances as required by Rowley and Endrew.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer

individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia and dysgraphia services.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

ISSUE 2d: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE JULY 14

AND SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 IEPS BY FAILING TO OFFER AN APPROPRIATE

PLACEMENT TO ADDRESS STUDENT’S DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA?

Student contends he was denied a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21, 2023

IEPs because he needed a smaller setting with more intensive interventions for dyslexia

and dysgraphia than offered. Sebastopol contends it offered Student an appropriate

placement in the least restrictive environment.

The July 14, 2023 IEP addendum was no more than a progress report after one

month of implementation following Parents May 5, 2023 consent for implementation of

the May 2, 2023 IEP goals. At that time, the July 14, 2023 IEP team did not have any

information that warranted changed placement.

The September 21, 2023 IEP amendment added a counseling goal and 30

minutes per week of counseling to address Student’s mild anxiety and teach him stress

management. Thirty minutes per week of one-on-one counseling in the counseling

office was a small increase in the amount of time Student would be removed from

general education, from 17 percent of his school day to 18 percent, but would not

significantly interfere with his access to the general education curriculum.

In balancing the Rachel H. factors, the program offered in the September 21,

2023 IEP amendment continued to be the least restrictive environment for Student.

Student received educational benefit from placement in Hale’s classroom, and with

his accommodations and related services support for dyslexia and dysgraphia, was

learning grade-level material and producing grade-level work. Student benefitted

non-academically by participating in classroom activities with neurotypical peers and

socializing with his classmates in the classroom and on the playground. Student was an

active participant in Hale’s sixth-grade classroom, and both his peers and Hale valued

his contribution to classroom discussions. Student did not have any behaviors that

disturbed his peers, although he sometimes went to the Learning Center to use his

speech-to-text software so as not to draw attention. Sebastopol did not consider the

cost of programs when discussing the least restrictive environment. Consistent withRachel H., Student’s least restrictive placement in which to address educational needs,

including his challenges with dyslexia and dysgraphia, was in the general education

classroom with the removal only for specialized academic instruction, occupational

therapy, and counseling to support his access to the general education curriculum.

In fact, Student’s excellent end of the year report card, scores on statewide

testing meeting standard, and Hale’s report that Student was doing well in the sixth-

grade classroom, weighed in favor of the September 21, 2023 IEP team maintaining the

May 2, 2023 placement as an appropriate placement for addressing Student’s dyslexia

and dysgraphia.

Student did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21, 2023 IEPs by failing to offer an

appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and dysgraphia.

ISSUES 3a, 3b, 3c, AND 3d: DID SEBASTOPOL DENY STUDENT A FAPE IN THE

DECEMBER 7, 2023 IEP BY FAILING TO OFFER AUTISM ELIGIBILITY, GOALS

OR ACCOMMODATIONS RELATING TO DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA,

INDIVIDUALIZED MULTISENSORY READING INSTRUCTION OR DYSLEXIA

AND DYSGRAPHIA SERVICES, OR AN APPROPRIATE PLACEMENT TO

ADDRESS STUDENT’S DYSLEXIA AND DYSGRAPHIA?

Student contends Sebastopol denied him a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP

by failing to make him eligible for special education and related services under the

eligibility category of autism, and by failing to make appropriate offers of goals,

accommodations, services, and placement. Student contends he should have been,

but was not, offered individualized multisensory reading instruction and goals,

accommodations, services and placement to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol contends Student was not eligible for special education under the

category of autism in December 2023. Sebastopol also contends that the components

of a FAPE offer developed in the December 7, 2023 IEP were appropriate.

The parents of a child with a disability must be afforded an opportunity to

participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational

placement of the child, and the provision of FAPE to the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b)

& (c); Ed. Code, §§ 56304, 56341.)

The informed involvement of parents is central to the IEP process. (Winkelman v.

Parma City School Dist. (2007) 550 U.S. 516, 524.) Protection of parental participation is

among the most important procedural safeguards in the IDEA. (Amanda J., supra, 267

F.3d at p. 882.) Parents not only represent the best interests of their child in the IEP

development process, but also provide information about the child critical to developing

a comprehensive IEP and which only they are in a position to know. (Ibid.) Procedural

violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process

undermine the very essence of the IDEA. (Id., at p. 892; see alsoTarget Range, supra,

960 F.2d at p. 1484.)

The fact that it may be difficult to schedule meetings or to work with a parent

does not excuse a failure to include the parent in the IEP team meeting. (Doug C. v. Hawaii Dept. of Education (9th Cir. 2013) 720 F.3d 1038, 1045 (Doug C.).) When

confronted with competing IDEA procedural requirements, the agency must make a

reasonable determination of which course of action promotes the purposes of the

IDEA and is least likely to result in the denial of FAPE. (Id. at p. 1046.) In reviewing an

agency’s actions in such a scenario, the agency will have reasonable latitude in making

that determination. (Ibid.)

A school district is required to conduct not just an IEP team meeting, but a

meaningful IEP team meeting. (Target Range, supra, 960 F.2d at p. 1485; see

Fuhrmannv. East Hanover Bd. Of Educ. (993 F.2d 1031, 1036.) The IEP team must consider the concerns of the parent for enhancing the student’s education and information on the

student’s needs provided to, or by, the parent. (20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3)A) & (d)(4)(A)(ii);

34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(1)(ii) & (b)(1)(ii)(C); Ed. Code, § 56341.1, subds. (a)(2), (d)(3) & (f).)

A school cannot independently develop an IEP, without meaningful participation by the

parent, and then present the IEP to the parent for ratification. (Target Range, supra, 960

F.2d at p. 1484.)

Although school district personnel may bring a draft of the IEP to the meeting,

the parents are entitled to bring to an IEP team meeting their questions, concerns, and

recommendations as part of a full discussion of a child’s needs and the services to be

provided to meet those needs before the IEP is finalized. (Assistance to States for the

Education of Children Disabilities, 64 Fed. Reg. (Mar. 12, 1999) 12478-12479.)

STUDENT FAILED TO PROVE AN OFFER OF FAPE WAS MADE, OR

THAT SEBASTOPOL WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE AN OFFER OF FAPE, AT

THE DECEMBER 7, 2023 IEP TEAM MEETING

An IEP team meeting was convened on December 7, 2023, to develop Student’s

annual IEP. The following participants attended the meeting:

• Parents,

• school psychologist Lough,

• sixth-grade general education teacher Hale,

• special education teacher Ing,

• Student’s math teacher,

• Student’s occupational therapist, and

• Sebastopol administrators.

The December 7, 2023 IEP was developed over eight IEP team meetings or non-

meeting amendments, including

• January 31, 2024,

• February 29, 2024,

Accessibility Modified Page 73 of 165

• March 14, 2024,

• May 9, 2024,

• May 29, 2024,

• June 3, 2024,

• June 26, 2024, and

• June 28, 2024.

No FAPE offer was made until Sebastopol’s FAPE offer was finalized in the June 28, 2024

IEP.

Sebastopol created a draft of the December 7, 2023 IEP with present levels of

performance, progress on goals, and proposed goals. However, it did not make an offer

of FAPE at the December 7, 2023 IEP team meeting. Parents expressly requested the

meeting be continued so they could review the information presented and discuss the

proposed goals and other components of a FAPE offer at another IEP team meeting.

DECEMBER 7, 2023 IEP

In anticipation of the December 7, 2023 IEP team meeting, Parents wrote a letter

to Sebastopol stating concerns about Student’s literacy instruction. They worried

Student did not have a clear and structured approach and was lost when working

independently without one-to-one help. Parents wanted Student to have an explicit,

structured literacy instruction that was also multisensory. Parents wanted more

systematic approaches to progress monitoring to address challenges proactively, that is,

more frequent than the monthly progress reports currently listed as an accommodation

in the May 2, 2023 IEP. They requested more than one IEP team meeting to discuss their

concerns if the one-year review could not be completed in the two hours scheduled.

At the December 7, 2023 IEP team meeting, teachers reported Student as

an enthusiastic and social sixth grader who was kind and empathetic towards his

classmates. He enjoyed playing sports in physical education and during recess,

particularly basketball, and spending time with friends outside of the classroom.

Student got along well with others and actively participated in classroom discussions

and activities. Mother reported Student was becoming more independent and more

aware of himself and others. She characterized Student as more of an introvert, but

valued friendships, with an increased sense of responsibility and keeping his word.

However, during sixth grade, Student’s motivation wavered as he became

overwhelmed by the middle school caseload, which relied much more heavily on written

expression. Lough reported that the homework reduction implemented over the past

six weeks had lowered Student’s feelings of stress. Mother reported that Student told

her he was a failure and sad, to which Lough responded that Student was learning to

identify and use coping strategies that Student could generalize to the home setting as

well.

Ing reported that Student was a deep thinker, saw connections between

concepts, and was curious about the world. When Student was presented with a

challenge, even if he was initially bothered, he always made the effort necessary to

succeed. Mother reported Student did not know what he was learning in the Learning

Center, and Mother wanted better communication for Student and herself about the

structured literacy instruction Student was receiving. Ing agreed to check at the end of

each day that Student’s Learning Center binder with writing samples went home in

Student’s backpack.

The December 7, 2023 IEP team reviewed Student’s present levels of performance.

Student met standards in both English language arts and math in the spring 2023

statewide testing. Student spoke and wrote with grade-level grammar and had

increased confidence reading in small groups. Student comprehended grade-level text

with sentence unpacking strategies. He wrote at grade level using graphic organizers,

speech-to-text software, and Chromebook applications for editing.

The December 7, 2023 IEP team reviewed Student’s progress on goals. The

occupational therapist reported that Student had not made more than minimal progress

on writing endurance, despite trials of several pencil grips, and he still complained of

hand pain after one to two minutes. Student met his goal of copying sentences legibly

with a model, but without a model, Student’s legibility decreased as he had to generate

words and figure out spelling. Student continued to have trouble with spacing.

Lough reported that Student had not met his counseling goal but had made

progress. Student had developed a foundational knowledge of stress and its impacts

on him. Student could identify his own sources of stress, such as reading and writing,

and his own symptoms of stress, such as feeling tired or bouncing his knee. Lough

explained that this was a skill in progress, and Student needed practice to recognize his

stress in real time and time to learn personalized coping strategies.

Ing reported Student’s progress on literacy goals. Student had not met his sight

word spelling goal, and his peak performance on this goal had been in June 2023.

Student met his goal of identifying vowel and consonant sounds. Student met the

reading phonics goal, and was reading blends, digraphs, and r-controlled words.

Student did not meet his spelling goal but made significant progress. Student

significantly improved on formatting paragraphs and met most of his goal in writing

organization, formatting, and capitalization, but still had trouble with internal

punctuation. Student met his organizational skills goal by bringing appropriate

materials from home to school an average of four days per week.

Student disliked using speech-to-text technology in his general education

classroom because it drew attention, but when given an opportunity to go to the

Learning Center, his use of technology significantly increased. By December 7, 2023, in

the Learning Center, Student met his technology goal of using Google Read and Write

to read and write.

The December 7, 2023 IEP team determined that Student’s areas of need were

• reading fluency and decoding,

• spelling regular and irregular words,

• organizing and editing his written work,

• handwriting,

• fine motor,

• sensory, and

• social emotional support.

The December 7, 2023 IEP team proposed annual goals to address all of Student’s

areas of educational need. The final goals offered in the June 28, 2024 IEP are discussed

in detail in Issue 6.

Student’s occupational therapist proposed goals for Student to copy or write

three sentences with accurate word spacing, and for Student to demonstrate at least five

exercises or activities for improving hand strength to decrease soreness from writing.

Lough proposed an updated stress management goal for Student not only to

identify stress management strategies, but to independently identify and practice three

personal coping strategies to manage his stress in real time.

Ing proposed five academic goals. One goal was for Student to read variant

vowel, low frequency, and multi-syllabic words. This goal created a foundation for

Student to read more difficult text aloud with appropriate pacing, intonation and

expression.

The second goal called for Student, given a passage at the sixth-grade level, to

read with appropriate phrasing and accuracy. Ing had seen Student read in small

groups in the Learning Center with greater confidence and wanted to build on his

fluency.

The third goal targeted Student’s reading comprehension and required him to

discern details supporting the main idea of a sixth-grade text. Discerning details would

enable Student to understand the text and create outlines, logical notes, and summaries.

(This space is intentionally left blank. Text continues on the following page.)

The fourth goal called for Student, after teacher-led pre-writing activities such as

brainstorming, lectures, sentence unpacking, notes, and discussion, to write a three-

paragraph expository essay with an emerging thesis from grade-level text. This goal

targeted Student’s need to learn essay writing skills as he advanced through middle

school and high school. Teacher-led supports like word banks and graphic organizers

supported Student’s challenges due to dysgraphia and deficits in attention and

executive functioning.

The fifth goal addressed Student’s difficulty with spelling sight words, that is,

words that cannot be spelled phonetically, by having Student learn homonym pairs.

This was designed to teach Student to use the context of word relationships to

determine the spelling of words. Example homonym pairs were here and hear, buy

and by, and there, their, and they’re.

The two hours allotted for the December 7, 2023 IEP team meeting passed before

the team was able to discuss the proposed academic goals or move to other parts of the

IEP. At that point, Sebastopol honored Parents’ request to adjourn and reconvene the

meeting for further development of the IEP.

Applying the Doug C. standard, the only reasonable course of action for

Sebastopol to take on December 7, 2023, was to defer development of the IEP to a

later date. Rescheduling the IEP team meeting afforded Parents the opportunity to

provide input and allowed for a full discussion of Parent’s questions and concerns

regarding the recommendations of Sebastopol team members. Sebastopol had no

obligation to make an offer of FAPE at the December 7, 2023 IEP team meeting.

Student failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Sebastopol

denied Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by failing to offer

• autism eligibility,

• goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia,

• individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia and

dysgraphia services, or

• an appropriate placement to address Student’s dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

CONCLUSIONS AND PREVAILING PARTY

As required by California Education Code section 56507, subdivision (d), the

hearing decision must indicate the extent to which each party has prevailed on each

issue heard and decided.

ISSUE 1a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023

IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 1a.

ISSUE 1b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023

IEPs by failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 1b.

ISSUE 1c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023

IEPs by failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 1c.

ISSUE 1d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 2 and May 15, 2023

IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 1d.

ISSUE 2a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 2a.

ISSUE 2b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 2b.

ISSUE 2c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or

dyslexia and dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 2c.

ISSUE 2d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the July 14 and September 21,

2023 IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 2d.

ISSUE 3a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by

failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 3a.

ISSUE 3b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by

failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 3b.

ISSUE 3c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by

failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia and

dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 3c.

ISSUE 3d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 7, 2023 IEP by

failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 3d.

ISSUE 4a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the January 31, February 29,

and March 14, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 4a.

ISSUE 4b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the January 31, February 29,

and March 14, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to

dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 4b.

ISSUE 4c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the January 31, February 29,

and March 14, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer individualized multisensory reading

instruction or dyslexia and dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 4c.

ISSUE 4d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the January 31, February 29,

and March 14, 2024 IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate placement to address

his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 4d.

ISSUE 5a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 9, May 29, and June 3,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 5a.

ISSUE 5b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 9, May 29, and June 3,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 5b.

ISSUE 5c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 9, May 29, and June 3,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or

dyslexia and dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 5c.

ISSUE 5d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the May 9, May 29, and June 3,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 5d.

ISSUE 6a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the June 26 and June 28, 2024

IEPs by failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 6a.

ISSUE 6b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the June 26 and June 28,

2024 IEPs by failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 6b.

ISSUE 6c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the June 26 and June 28, 2024

IEPs by failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia

and dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 6c.

ISSUE 6d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the June 26 and June 28, 2024

IEPs by failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and

dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 6d.

ISSUE 7a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 1, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 7a.

ISSUE 7b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 1, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 7b.

ISSUE 7c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 1, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia or

dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 7c.

ISSUE 7d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the October 1, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 7d.

ISSUE 8a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 9, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer autism eligibility.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 8a.

ISSUE 8b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 9, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer goals or accommodations relating to dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 8b.

ISSUE 8C:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 9, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer individualized multisensory reading instruction or dyslexia or

dysgraphia services.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 8c.

ISSUE 8d:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE in the December 9, 2024 IEP by

failing to offer an appropriate placement to address his dyslexia and dysgraphia.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 8d.

ISSUE 9a:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE from April 29, 2023 through

April 29, 2025, by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the IEP

decisionmaking process by failing meaningfully consider Parents’ input regarding

need for autism support.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 9a.

ISSUE 9b:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE from April 29, 2023 through

April 29, 2025, by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the IEP

decisionmaking process by failing meaningfully consider Parents’ concern that

Student did not make meaningful progress in the areas of academics.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 9b.

ISSUE 9c:

Sebastopol did not deny Student a FAPE from April 29, 2023 through

April 29, 2025, by significantly impeding Parents’ ability to participate in the IEP

decisionmaking process by failing meaningfully consider the findings and

recommendations of Parents’ educational evaluation assessor.

Sebastopol prevailed on Issue 9c.

ORDER

All relief sought by Student 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.

ALEXA HOHENSEE

Administrative Law Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings