In E.E. v. Norris School District, No. 1:20‑CV‑1291‑AWI‑CDB, 2023 WL 3124618, 83 IDELR 68 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2023), the court addressed a dispute concerning the content of an individualized education program (IEP) for a student with autism spectrum disorder. The decision examines IEP specificity, occupational therapy services, applied behavior analysis (ABA), least restrictive environment (LRE), and the modification of services during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The case provides useful guidance for impartial hearing officers on each of these issues.
The student attended kindergarten under a 2018 IEP that placed him in general education for approximately 98 percent of the school day, with speech and language services provided the remaining time. When the IEP expired in 2019, the parties were unable to agree on a new program, and the 2018 IEP remained in effect. In January 2020, the district proposed a new IEP recommending placement in a special day class at a different school site, supported by a one‑to‑one behavior aide, with general education participation reduced to approximately 32 percent. The parents disagreed, and both parties filed due process complaints.
The parents challenged the proposed IEP on several grounds. First, they argued that the IEP failed to specify the frequency, duration, and setting of occupational therapy services. The court agreed, reversing the administrative law judge (ALJ) on this issue. The court held that the lack of specificity constituted a procedural violation because it impeded the parents’ ability to monitor whether the IEP was being properly implemented. The court also found that the IEP inadequately addressed the student’s social skills and that the amount of occupational therapy offered was inconsistent with uncontested expert recommendations, resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
With respect to placement, the court upheld the ALJ’s determination that the proposed special day class with partial general education inclusion satisfied the LRE requirement. Applying the factors set forth in Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., the court concluded that the evidence supported the district’s placement decision based on educational benefit, non‑educational benefit, and the impact of the student’s behavior on the general education classroom.
The court reversed the ALJ, however, on the issue of ABA services. Although the ALJ concluded that the student’s one‑to‑one aide did not need to be trained in ABA, the court held that where the record demonstrates consensus among experts that a specific methodology is required, that methodology must be expressly included in the IEP. The court found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the consistent use of ABA by trained staff and that the failure to specify this methodology in the IEP denied the student FAPE.
Finally, the court affirmed the ALJ’s determination that the district denied FAPE by failing to implement the student’s prior IEP during COVID‑19 school closures. Given the student’s inability to access virtual instruction, the district was required to convene an IEP meeting to consider alternative instructional options. The failure to do so, combined with the absence of adequate prior written notice, significantly impeded parental participation. The court reiterated that while pandemic‑related adjustments were permissible, districts remained obligated to provide teacher‑led instruction and meaningful educational access.
The decision underscores that IEPs must include specific methodologies when supported by consensus in the record, must clearly define related services, and must be revisited when circumstances materially affect a student’s ability to access instruction. It also reaffirms that COVID‑19 disruptions did not eliminate a district’s core IDEA obligations.