In Los Lunas Public Schools Board of Education v. Schneider, No. 21‑cv‑01082‑DHU‑SCY, 2023 WL 6144506, 123 LRP 29853 (D.N.M. Sept. 20, 2023), the district court affirmed an unusually broad remedial order issued by an impartial hearing officer (IHO) after finding that the school district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The decision is notable for its approval of an expansive, IEE‑centered remedy designed to address systemic failures in the student’s educational program.
The student had Angelman Syndrome, a rare neurogenetic disorder characterized by significant developmental delays, limited or absent speech, sleep disturbances, and a generally positive affect. The student was eligible for special education under the categories of Other Health Impairment and Intellectual Disability and relied on a speech‑generating device using Proloquo2Go software as the primary means of communication.
Although the student had previously been integrated into public school settings, the student never attended the assigned middle school placement. A scheduled IEP meeting was cancelled, and the student experienced serious behavioral incidents in prior placements. The last IEP implemented while the student was attending school on campus was developed in March 2017.
The record reflected profound lapses in educational services over multiple years. The student missed sixth, seventh, and eighth grades entirely. At one point, the parent observed the student confined unclothed in a closet or storage room under staff supervision, which the parent reported caused significant harm. The student was later automatically disenrolled due to absences, without clear notice to the parents. Although the district developed an IEP in November 2018, it contained substantial errors and omissions.
Following a state complaint finding a denial of FAPE, the district provided only minimal instruction, consisting primarily of short‑term remote services requiring constant parental support. Subsequent IEPs failed to include meaningful present levels of performance and repeated unimplemented goals from prior plans. Although some behavioral services were eventually provided, implementation was inconsistent, and remote instruction failed to accommodate the student’s assistive technology. Critically, district staff and contracted providers lacked the necessary equipment and training to support the student’s communication device.
Expert testimony emphasized the need for consistent Applied Behavior Analysis programming delivered by trained personnel and highlighted the detrimental effects of inadequate communication supports and inappropriate behavioral expectations. There was no effective plan in place to educate the student during the 2021–22 school year.
The hearing officer found a denial of FAPE and ordered extensive remedial relief. The order required the district to fund a comprehensive independent educational evaluation conducted by an expert with both educational and condition‑specific expertise; to allow that evaluator to recommend the content of the student’s IEP; and to involve the evaluator in facilitating the IEP meeting. The hearing officer further ordered the district to hire a full‑time Board Certified Behavior Analyst, a registered behavior technician, and other necessary staff; to provide training to school personnel regarding Angelman Syndrome and the student’s assistive technology; and to supply appropriate software and equipment to support effective communication.
The district challenged the scope of the remedy, but the court affirmed. The court emphasized the hearing officer’s broad equitable discretion in fashioning remedies following a denial of FAPE and rejected the argument that statutory or regulatory limits on parent‑requested IEEs constrained an IHO’s authority to order an IEE as a remedial measure. The court also concluded that the order did not improperly mandate a facilitated IEP, noting that the term was used in a non‑technical sense to describe expert participation.
The court underscored the district’s lack of expertise regarding the student’s condition and communication needs and found that the hearing officer acted within his discretion in requiring expert involvement to remediate longstanding failures. The decision affirms that, where a district has demonstrated an inability to provide appropriate services, an IHO may order robust, expert‑driven remedies to ensure meaningful educational access.