United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL
James L. Robart, U.S. District Court Judge
L.C. appeals on behalf of her daughter, A.S., from the
decision of an administrative law judge (“ALJ”)
that Respondent Issaquah School District (“the
District”) upheld its obligations under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20
U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. Before the court are
three motions: (1) L.C.'s motion to amend the complaint
(Mot. to Am. (Dkt. # 64)); (2) L.C.'s motion for summary
judgment (L.C. MSJ (Dkt. # 34)); and (3) the District's
cross-motion for summary judgment (Dist. MSJ (Dkt. # 35)).
L.C. filed an opposition to the District's summary
judgment motion, which also serves as a reply in support of
her summary judgment motion. (L.C. Reply (Dkt. # 41).) The
District filed a reply in support of its summary judgment
motion. (Dist. Reply (Dkt. # 44).) The court has reviewed the
administrative record, the submissions of the parties, and
the applicable law. Being fully advised,  the court DENIES
L.C.'s motion to amend the complaint. The court further
DENIES L.C.'s motion for summary judgment, GRANTS the
District's motion for summary judgment, and AFFIRMS the
decision of the ALJ.
IDEA is a comprehensive educational scheme, conferring on
disabled students a substantive right to public
education.” J.W. ex rel. J.E.W. v. Fresno Unified
Sch. Dist., 626 F.3d 431, 432 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Hoeft v. Tucson Unified Sch. Dist., 967 F.2d 1298,
1300 (9th Cir. 1992)). In exchange for IDEA funds, school
districts must provide a free appropriate public education
(“FAPE”) to all eligible children. See
20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see also Id. §
1412(a)(1). A FAPE, as the IDEA defines it, includes both
“special education” and “related
services.” Id. § 1401(9). “Special
education” is “specially designed instruction . .
. to meet the unique needs of a child with a
disability”; “related services” are the
support services “required to assist a child . . . to
benefit from” that instruction. Id.
§§ 1401(26), (29). A school district must provide a
child with disabilities such special education and related
services “in conformity with the [child's]
individualized education program, ” or
“IEP.” Id. § 1401(9)(D).
IEP is ‘the centerpiece of the statute's education
delivery system for disabled children.'” Endrew
F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1,
___ U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 988, 994 (2017) (quoting Honig v.
Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988)). A comprehensive plan
prepared by a child's “IEP Team, ” which
includes teachers, school officials, and the child's
parents, an IEP must be drafted in compliance with a detailed
set of procedures. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B) (internal
quotation marks omitted). An IEP must contain, among other
things, “a statement of the child's present levels
of academic achievement, ” “a statement of
measurable annual goals, ” and “a statement of
the special education and related services to be provided to
the child.” Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i). When
formulating an IEP, a school district “must comply both
procedurally and substantively with the IDEA.” M.L.
v. Fed. Way Sch. Dist., 394 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.
2005) (citing Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch.
Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07
parents and educators disagree about what a child's IEP
should include, the parties may turn to dispute resolution
procedures established by the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1415(e), (f)(1)(B)(i). If mediation fails to
produce an agreement, the parties may proceed to what the
IDEA calls a “due process hearing” before a state
or local agency. Id. §§ 1415(f)(1)(A). In
Washington State, the Office of Administrative Hearings, a
state administrative agency, conducts IDEA due process
hearings. See RCW 28A.155.020; WAC 392-101-010(2).
At the end of the administrative process, the losing party
may seek redress in state or federal court. 20 U.S.C. §
school district may violate the IDEA in two different ways.
“First, a school district, in creating and implementing
an IEP, can run afoul of the Act's procedural
requirements.” Fresno Unified, 626 F.3d at 432
(citing Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206). “Second, a
school district can be liable for a substantive violation by
drafting an IEP that is not reasonably calculated to enable
the child to receive educational benefits.” Fresno
Unified, 626 F.3d at 432 (citing Rowley, 458
U.S. at 206-07); see also Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at
Referral for Special Education Services
began attending kindergarten at an elementary school in the
District in 2013. (Administrative Record (“AR”)
at 2927.) In July 2015, after A.S. finished first grade, L.C.
contacted Leslie Lederman, the principal of A.S.'s
school, and requested that A.S. be evaluated for special
education services. (Id. at 2916-17.) Ms. Lederman
informed L.C. that the guidance team would meet in September
to discuss L.C.'s request and asked that L.C. provide any
outside information she wanted the team to consider.
(Id. at 2916.) L.C. subsequently arranged for A.S.
to be privately evaluated by Linda Gorsuch, a retired school
psychologist. (Id. at 2931-47, 3635.)
Gorsuch met with L.C. and A.S. in August 2015. (Id.
at 2931-32.) Ms. Gorsuch conducted several assessments of
A.S., including the Woodcock-Johnson IV test of cognitive
abilities. (Id. at 2936.) Ms. Gorsuch found that
A.S.'s score for general intellectual ability was within
the average range. (Id. at 2943.) She also found
that A.S.'s “[b]road [r]eading” skills and
oral “[r]eading [f]luency” scores were below
average. (Id.) Although Ms. Gorsuch did not formally
diagnose A.S., Ms. Gorsuch concluded that A.S.
“demonstrated a pattern of academic and cognitive
strengths and weaknesses consistent with . . . the specific
learning disability of dyslexia.” (Id.) She
recommended that the District “initiate [its] own
evaluation to determine [A.S.'s] eligibility for special
education services, ” including services in the areas
of “written language and math.” (Id. at
guidance team from A.S.'s school met with L.C. and
A.S.'s father, J.S., (collectively, “the
Parents”), at the beginning of A.S.'s second grade
year. (Id. at 2918-24.) At the meeting were Ms.
Lederman; Sue Schoot, a special education teacher; Stacie
Schultz, a speech language pathologist; Devon Heras, a school
psychologist; and Jessica Clark, A.S.'s general education
teacher. (Id. at 2953.) The guidance team discussed
the results of Ms. Gorsuch's evaluation and the
Parents' concerns about A.S.'s academic progress.
(Id. at 2923.) The guidance team recommended that
A.S. undergo an initial evaluation to determine whether she
was eligible for special education services. (Id. at
2925; see also Id. at 2967.)
2015 Special Education Evaluation
October 2015, the evaluation team examined its existing data
on A.S. and conducted several additional assessments. Ms.
Heras, the school psychologist, reviewed A.S.'s progress
in general education, focusing on prior standardized test
scores, her first-grade report cards, and input from Ms.
Clark, A.S.'s second-grade teacher. (Id. at
2967, 2969.) Ms. Heras also examined A.S.'s
social-emotional functioning through ratings submitted by
L.C. and Ms. Clark under the Behavior Assessment System for
Children-Second Edition (“BASC-2”), a
standardized assessment. (Id. at 2971.) A.S. did not
exhibit any clinically significant behaviors under the
BASC-2. (Id. at 2971-72.) In addition, Ms. Heras
administered to A.S. the Differential Abilities Scale-Second
Edition (“DAS-II”), a cognitive development test
for school-age children. (Id. at 2974.) She
concluded that A.S.'s cognitive functioning was in the
average range. (Id. at 2973-75; see also
Id. at 4408 (showing that A.S.'s DAS-II verbal,
nonverbal reasoning, spatial, and general conceptual
abilities scores were all average).)
Ms. Schoot, the special education teacher, assessed
A.S.'s academic performance in reading, writing, and
math. (Id. at 2977.) Ms. Schoot administered the
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition
(“KTEA-III”), which allowed Ms. Schoot to compare
A.S.'s current academic performance with a national
sample of her peers. (Id.) A.S. scored in the
average range for all subjects, except for the reading
composite and reading comprehension components, in which she
obtained below-average scores. (Id.) In summarizing
A.S.'s KTEA-III assessment, the evaluation team stated
that A.S. demonstrated “average basic reading skills
but below average reading comprehension skills.”
(Id. at 2978.) The evaluation team thus recommended
that A.S. “receive specially designed instruction in
reading comprehension and reading fluency.”
(Id.) The team also recommended that A.S. receive
specially designed instruction in written expression.
(Id. at 2979.)
Ms. Schultz, the speech language pathologist, assessed
A.S.'s communication skills. (Id. at 2980.) Ms.
Schultz administered two standardized evaluations: (1) the
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fifth Edition
(“CELF-5”), which helps identify language and
communication disorders in students; and (2) the Goldman
Fristoe Test of Articulation-Second Edition, which considers
a child's ability to accurately produce a speech sound.
(Id.) A.S. scored in the average range on both
tests. (Id.) Ms. Schultz also obtained feedback
about A.S.'s communication from A.S.'s teachers and
observed A.S. in the classroom. (Id. at 2981-82.) In
light of the standardized tests, her classroom observations,
and teacher input, Ms. Schultz concluded that “[A.S.]
does not demonstrate a disability in the area of
communication at this time.” (Id. at 2982.)
a District occupational therapist evaluated A.S.'s fine
motor skills. (Id. at 2983.) The occupational
therapist examined several writing samples Ms. Clark provided
and administered to A.S. the Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of
Motor Proficiency-2. (Id. at 2984.) She concluded
that A.S.'s fine motor skills fell within the average
range and did not recommend specialized instruction in that
area. (Id.) Nonetheless, she suggested that A.S.
“be given accommodations such as lined paper for
assignments and early access to keyboarding.”
these assessments, the District concluded that A.S. was
eligible for special education services under the eligibility
category of “Specific Learning
Disability.” (Id. at 2961.) In particular, the
evaluation team found that “[A.S.] is developing
reading and written expression skills at a rate and level
significantly below her same age peers[.]”
(Id.) As a result, the team concluded that A.S.
“qualifie[d] for specially designed instruction in the
areas of reading and writing as well as supplementary aides
and services to support her in the general education
classroom.” (Id.) The evaluation team further
concluded that A.S. did not require specially designed
instruction in the areas of math, communication, fine motor
skills, or social-emotional functioning. (Id. at
2993.) Finally, the team recommended several specific
accommodations for A.S., including, among other measures,
preferential seating, oral test instruction, and access to a
keyboard for written assignments. (Id. at 2968.) The
District documented the initial evaluation in a written
report. (Id. at 2960-94.)
October 15, 2015, A.S.'s evaluation team met with the
Parents to review A.S.'s initial evaluation.
(Id. at 2993.) The evaluation team provided the
Parents a copy of the draft evaluation report, which the
Parents signed at the meeting. (Id. at 2964.) The
Parents requested that A.S. undergo an assistive technology
assessment, and the team agreed. (Id. at 2994.) The
District later sent the Parents a prior written notice
(“PWN”) that summarized the meeting.
(Id. at 2993-94.) The PWN indicated that, within 30
days, the District would hold a meeting with the Parents to
formulate an IEP for A.S. (Id.)
thereafter, the District conducted an “assessment
revision” to determine whether A.S. would benefit from
the use of assistive technology in the classroom.
(Id. at 3002.) An assistive technology specialist
evaluated A.S. using Co:Writer, a software program designed
to help students write complete sentences. (Id.) The
specialist recommended that A.S. be given access to a
computer with word prediction, spelling support, and
text-to-speech software when completing writing assignments.
(Id. at 3003.)
November 5, 2015, A.S.'s entire IEP team met to discuss
the assistive technology evaluation and A.S.'s IEP.
(Id. at 3005.) The IEP team included Ms. Schoot, Ms.
Clark, Ms. Heras, Ms. Lederman, Tara Slinn, the
District's Director of Elementary Special Services, and
the assistive technology specialist. (Id. at 3008.)
L.C. was ill and did not attend, but J.S. was there.
(Id.; see also Tr. 489:11-15,
1844:6-15.) After reviewing the assistive technology
assessment, J.S. agreed that A.S. be given access to
Co:Writer in the classroom. (Id. 487:16-488:20.) In
addition, the team reviewed with J.S. a draft of A.S.'s
IEP. (Id. 1845:4-11).)
2015 IEP began on November 5, 2015. (AR at 3008.) The IEP
identified A.S.'s “[d]isability” category as
“Specific Learning Disabilities.” (Id.)
In addition to summarizing the District's assessment of
A.S., the IEP noted that “[A.S.'s] parents reported
that [A.S.] has dyslexia and difficulty with language”
and explained that Ms. Gorsuch had concluded that
“[A.S.] demonstrated a pattern of academic and
cognitive strengths and weaknesses consistent with . . . the
specific learning disability of dyslexia.”
(Id. at 3011.)
also identified the special education services and
accommodations A.S. required for the 2015-16 school year.
Under the IEP, A.S. would receive specially designed
instruction in reading for 20 minutes per day, five times per
week, as well as specially designed instruction in writing
for 20 minutes per day, five times per week. (Id. at
3026.) A.S. would spend the remainder of the school day in
the general education setting. (Id.) Moreover, A.S.
would receive the following accommodations: visual aids, a
word processor or computer with word prediction and
text-to-speech software, audiobooks, BrightLines paper,
redirection to task as needed, preferential seating, extra
time for writing assignments, modifications in homework and
classwork, modified grades in content areas impacted by her
disability, and certain testing accommodations. (Id.
at 3023.) Finally, the IEP set four annual goals for A.S. in
reading, reading comprehension, and writing. (Id. at
3020-21.) At the administrative hearing, Ms. Schoot and Ms.
Clark testified that, during the 2015-16 school year, they
consistently provided A.S. the accommodations required by her
IEP. (See, e.g., Tr. 720:15-724:4, 1850:13-1851:9.)
2015-16 School Year
mid-January 2016, L.C. contacted Ms. Lederman, the principal,
and asked to schedule an “issue review” for A.S.
(AR at 3038.) Specifically, L.C. stated that she had concerns
about A.S.'s “[IEP] goals and progress.”
(Id. at 3037.) On February 2, 2016, the Parents met
with A.S.'s IEP team. (Id. at 3044-48.) At the
meeting, L.C. expressed that she “fe[lt] as though
[A.S.] [was] not making positive changes.”
(Id. at 3044.) In response, Ms. Schoot stated that
A.S. was starting to self-correct as she read, that
A.S.'s reading fluency was progressing, and that
A.S.'s reading comprehension had improved. (Id.
at 3044-45.) Ms. Schoot also stated that, in a period of just
40 days, A.S. had moved up two levels, from level
“G” to level “I, ” in the
District's Fountas & Pinell (“F&P”)
reading assessment program-a progression that typically
developed over the course of 10 to 12 weeks. (Id. at
3044.) Similarly, Ms. Clark expressed that A.S. had made
progress in the general education setting. (Id. at
the meeting, the Parents made, and A.S.'s IEP team
considered, several requests related to A.S.'s IEP:
• The Parents asked that they be allowed to “drop
in” during A.S.'s general education classes so that
they could monitor A.S. (Id. at 3049.) The IEP team
explained that, consistent with District policy, the Parents
could schedule times to volunteer or visit but could not drop
in at undesignated times because such visits would disrupt
the learning environment. (Id. at 3050.)
• The Parents requested that the District reassess
A.S.'s communication skills. (Id.) The IEP team
explained that, given the results of the initial evaluation
of a few months earlier, A.S. did not qualify for specially
designed instruction in communication; however, Ms. Heras
stated that Ms. Schultz, the speech language pathologist,
would contact the Parents about the request. (Id.)
• The Parents requested that A.S. receive full-time,
one-on-one support in the special education classroom.
(Id. at 3049.) The IEP team discussed this request
and concluded that, because A.S. was benefitting from
small-group instruction, one-on-one instruction was
unnecessary and “too restrictive.” (Id.
• The Parents requested that A.S. work with a tutor over
the summer break. (Id. at 3049.) Ms. Lederman
explained that, later in the school year, the District would
share with all parents information about fee-based summer
instruction. (Id. at 3050.)
• The Parents requested that A.S. be required to use Co:
Writer at all times. (Id. at 3049.) The IEP team
explained that they would encourage A.S. to use Co:Writer but
could not force her to do so. (Id. at 3050.)
• The Parents requested that, when a substitute was
present in Ms. Clark's classroom, A.S. spend the entire
day in the special education classroom or a different general
education teacher's classroom. (Id. at 3049.)
The IEP team discussed this request but denied it, reasoning
that “[i]t [was] important that [A.S.] be with her
peers in a least restrictive environment.”
(Id. at 3050.) For the same reasons, the IEP team
denied the Parents' request that A.S. remain in the
general education classroom whenever a substitute was
teaching on Ms. Schoot's behalf. (Id.)
• The IEP team considered and denied the Parents'
requests that L.C. be allowed to work with A.S. in the
special education classroom, that A.S.'s teachers not
correct her work, and that L.C. be allowed to read with A.S.
in the general education classroom five days per week.
• The Parents requested that Ms. Schoot and Ms. Clark be
trained in the Orton-Gillingham Approach to reading
instruction. (Id. at 3049.) The IEP team explained
that school staff would “utiliz[e] the curricula and
methodologies as trained by the District”; however, Ms.
Schoot agreed to review an Orton-Gillingham manual.
(Id. at 3050).
• The IEP team agreed that A.S. would be given a
BrightLines notebook to use at home, that A.S. would not
participate in state or district standardized testing, that
Ms. Clark would encourage A.S. to use Co:Writer in the
general education classroom, that A.S. would not be provided
crossword or scrambled puzzles, and that A.S. would not work
with parent volunteers in the general education classroom.
(Id. at 3051.)
• Finally, the IEP team agreed to allow L.C. to schedule
a time to speak to A.S.'s classmates about dyslexia.
team memorialized the Parents' requests in a PWN.
(Id. at 3049-51.) The Parents did not request
another IEP meeting during the 2015-16 academic year. (Tr.
1859:2-5.) During that time, the District provided the
Parents reports on A.S.'s progress toward her annual IEP
goals. (AR at 3030-34.)
after the 2015-16 school year ended, L.C. wrote Ms. Lederman
and requested that the District hold another IEP team meeting
“ASAP” because she did not want A.S. to wait
until October or November to receive “help.”
(Id. at 3055.) Ms. Lederman responded that, although
A.S.'s IEP review would occur after the school year
started, A.S. would still receive IEP services in September.
(Id.) A few days later, the Parents e-mailed the
District Superintendent, Ron Thiele, and other District
personnel. (Id. at 3054.) The Parents stated that
they “ha[d] been unsuccessful in resolving [a]
dispute” with A.S.'s school “concerning
[A.S.'s] IEP and her placement” and requested
mediation services before the beginning of the school year.
(Id.) In response, Melissa Madsen, the
District's Executive Director of Special Services, sent
the Parents the contact information for Sound Options Group,
which could provide mediation at no cost to the Parents.
(Id. at 3053.) After speaking with Sound Options,
L.C. informed the District that they wished to take part in a
facilitated IEP team meeting before the school year began.
Parents met with A.S.'s IEP team on August 31, 2016.
(Id. at 3068, 3327.) A Sound Options facilitator
participated in the meeting. (Id. at 3068.) The IEP
team agreed to take new baseline data on A.S. and prepare
revised IEP goals at the beginning of the school year. (Tr.
at 1639:1-6, 1835:17-23; AR at 3076, 3079, 3327-41.) After
the meeting, L.C. emailed Mr. Thiele and reported that the
Parents were satisfied with the meeting. (Id. at
3062.) In fact, L.C. expressed that meeting was
“fabulous” and stated that, “[f]or the
first time in three years, ” she had “hope for
[A.S.] and the school year.” (Id.)
October 27, 2016, the District convened an IEP meeting
between the Parents and A.S.'s IEP team. (Id. at
3087.) Prior to the meeting, the District sent the Parents a
draft IEP for the Parents' review. (Tr. 1860:21-1861:13.)
At the meeting were the Parents; Ms. Lederman; Ms. Schoot;
Ms. Madsen; Ms. Heras; Ms. Slinn; Christina Desmond, a speech
language pathologist; and Amy Van de Vord, A.S.'s third
grade general education teacher. (AR at 3089.) The IEP team
discussed with the Parents A.S.'s educational performance
and progress toward her 2015 IEP goals. (Id. at
3104-11.) That information was also memorialized in the IEP.
(Id. at 3089-101.)
team addressed in detail A.S.'s educational performance
in reading, writing, and math. (See id.) With
respect to reading, the IEP team noted that, as of October
2016, A.S. was reading at an instructional level “J,
” as measured by the F&P curriculum. (Id.
at 3091.) A.S. had thus improved several instructional levels
since the 2015 initial assessment, when she was reading at an
instructional level “G, ” but still did not meet
the grade-level expectation to read between instructional
levels “M” and “O.” (Id.)
With respect to writing, the IEP team noted that A.S. wrote
stories quickly but struggled with spelling, punctuation, and
capitalization. (Id.) Ms. Van de Vord observed that
A.S. used Co:Writer to support her spelling, but Co:Writer
“sometimes interrupt[ed] her thought process.”
(Id.) With respect to math, the IEP team stated
that, when A.S. worked independently, she was often unable to
correctly read or work through multi-step math problems
without support. (Id.) Separately, Ms. Van de Vord
stated that A.S. is a good listener, “very sweet and
kind to her peers, ” and “not shy to
participate.” (Id. at 3092.)
team also documented A.S.'s progress toward her 2015 IEP
goals. (Id. at 3092-93.) Ms. Schoot explained that,
as of October 2016, A.S. could correctly read 94% of the
words at an instructional level “J.”
(Id. at 3092.) Accordingly, A.S. had not met her
2015 IEP goal to improve her reading accuracy from 94% to
98%; however, she had progressed to a more advanced reading
level without sacrificing accuracy. (Id.) Ms. Schoot
also noted that A.S. could correctly answer eight of 12
reading comprehension questions at the second-grade level and
13 of 20 questions at the third-grade level. (Id. at
3092-93.) A.S. had thus progressed toward, but ultimately
fallen short of, her 2015 goal to correctly answer 83% of a
set of third-grade level reading comprehension questions.
(Id. at 3092.) In writing, Ms. Schoot explained that
A.S. could now write topic sentences but continued to work
toward writing paragraphs with supporting sentences and a
conclusion. (Id. at 3093.) As a result, A.S. had yet
to meet her 2015 goal of writing four grade-appropriate
sentences. (Id.) Finally, Ms. Schoot noted that,
when using a computer with teacher support, A.S. used correct
punctuation in her writing assignments 50% of the time.
(Id.) According to Ms. Schoot, A.S. had thus
satisfied her 2015 goal to increase her punctuation accuracy
from 0% to 50%; however, the 2015 IEP goal does not indicate
that it would be measured by A.S.'s work with teacher
support. (Id.; see also Id. at 3021.) In
sum, A.S. had either met or progressed toward all four of her
2015 IEP goals.
the 2016 IEP identified A.S.'s accommodations and
modifications for the 2016-17 school year. (Id. at
3097-98.) With respect to accommodations, the IEP required
that A.S. have daily access to audiobooks in the general
education classroom, daily use of BrightLines paper in all
classrooms, daily use of visuals in all classrooms,
additional time to complete tasks in all classrooms, and an
electronic or adult reader to read text that did not measure
reading ability. (Id. at 3097.) In addition,
A.S.'s general education teacher was to provide A.S.
preferential seating and read aloud to A.S. any materials and
tests “to verify [A.S.] kn[ew] what [was] expected of
her.” (Id.) With respect to modifications,
A.S.'s general education teacher was to refrain from
correcting A.S.'s work in writing and was not to ask A.S.
to read aloud in a large group, among other measures.
(Id. at 3097-98.) Finally, the 2016 IEP provided
that A.S. would undergo 30 minutes per day of specially
designed instruction in reading and 30 minutes per day of
specially designed instruction in writing, an increase of 10
minutes per day in each subject. (Id. at 3100;
see also Id. at 3026.) The 2016 IEP also set new
goals in reading and writing. (Id. at 3092-93.)
at the October 27, 2016, IEP meeting, the Parents made, and
the IEP team considered, several specific requests concerning
A.S.'s IEP. (Id. at 3102-03.) Specifically:
• The Parents requested that the District reassess A.S.
in math to determine whether she qualified for specially
designed instruction in that area. (Id. at 3103.)
The IEP team agreed. (Id.; id. at 3107.)
• The Parents requested that the District reassess A.S.
in communication. (Id. at 3102.) The IEP team
discussed the request but decided a communication
reassessment was not warranted “because previous
testing by the School District was strong and valid”
and “[t]here [was] no reason to believe that
[A.S.'s] scores would drop significantly enough to
qualify her for speech/language services.”
(Id. at 3103, 3108.)
• The Parents asked that the District change A.S.'s
IDEA disability category from “Specific Learning
Disability” to “Dyslexia.” (Id. at
3102.) The IEP team rejected the request, explaining that
“Dyslexia” is not a qualifying disability
• The Parents requested that A.S. be “reevaluated
by district specialists” outside of her elementary
school. (Id.) The IEP team rejected the request
because the school personnel who had evaluated A.S. did so in
accordance with District training on the administration of
standardized assessments. (Id. at 3103.)
• The Parents requested that A.S. receive extended
school year (“ESY”) services. (Id. at
3102.) The IEP team rejected this request because the
District makes decisions regarding ESY in the spring and
“there [was] no data to suggest that [A.S.] require[d]
the service at [that] time.” (Id. at 3103.)
• The Parents requested that A.S. receive one-on-one
support in the general education classroom. (Id. at
3102.) The team rejected the request because “[t]here
was . . . no data” to suggest that A.S. required such
assistance and explained that “interventions in the
classroom should be implemented before making such a
decision.” (Id. at 3103.)
• The Parents requested that the District inform them of
the credentials of the educational assistants who support
students in the special education classroom. (Id. at
3102.) The IEP assured the Parents that the educational
assistants were properly qualified and trained but stated
that the District “is not at liberty to share the
qualifications of staff members to parents.”
(Id. at 3103.)
• The Parents requested that A.S.'s IEP be revised
to require the District to instruct A.S. through the
Orton-Gillingham method. (Id. at 3102.) The IEP team
rejected the request on the ground that “[t]he District
does not identify specific programs in the IEP goals.”
(Id. at 3103.)
end of the October 27, 2016, IEP meeting, the Parents signed
the IEP but indicated that they did not agree with the IEP.
(Id. at 3089 (showing that L.C. wrote
“dissent” next to her signature and J.S. wrote
“not agree fully” next to his).) The District
provided the Parents a PWN, dated November 4, 2016, which
proposed to implement the IEP on November 8, 2016.
(Id. at 3102-03.) The PWN also memorialized the
Parents' requests and the District's reasons for
declining to implement those requests. (Id.)
2016 Assessment ...