San Jose Unified School District v. H. T. et.al.

Background

This case arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a federal law governing special education. H.T. was a minor student eligible for special education services because of autism and a speech or language impairment. The District conducted a functional behavior assessment, which generally uses observations, interviews, and records to evaluate a student’s behavior and educational needs.

H.T.’s parent requested the assessment and provided the District with a list of 36 concerns. The behavior analyst assigned to conduct the assessment observed H.T., interviewed teachers, and reviewed education records, including earlier assessments. The analyst was not given the parent’s email listing the concerns before preparing the draft assessment. She also made one unsuccessful telephone call to the parent and left a voicemail. After the parent emailed a District official, the official directed the analyst not to make further contact with the parent.

The District later provided the analyst with the parent’s email, but the analyst made only minor changes to the assessment. The parent disagreed with the assessment and requested an independent educational evaluation at public expense. The District denied that request. The District and H.T. each requested an administrative due process hearing, and the proceedings were consolidated.

Administrative Decision

Administrative Law Judge Robert G. Martin found that the District did not conduct the functional behavior assessment appropriately because it unreasonably failed to obtain the parent’s input. The administrative judge ordered the District to fund an independent functional behavior assessment evaluation of H.T.

The administrative judge also found against H.T. on two claims. First, H.T. did not prove that the failure to conduct an appropriate assessment denied him a free appropriate public education, meaning the special education services required by federal law. Second, although the District failed to provide all requested education records, H.T. did not prove that this violation denied him a free appropriate public education.

District’s Motion

The District asked the court to overturn the finding that its assessment was inappropriate. It argued that the administrative judge failed to account for the parent’s lack of cooperation and failed to consider whether the failure to obtain parental input was harmless.

The court gave substantial weight to the administrative decision because it was careful, detailed, and based on the evidence. The court agreed that the District had a duty to make reasonable efforts to obtain parental input and that the parent’s conduct did not excuse the District from that duty. The court found that the District gave up too quickly after only one telephone call and that nothing in the parent’s communications showed a categorical unwillingness to participate.

The court also rejected the District’s argument that the parent’s initial email listing concerns itself satisfied the District’s duty. The email was not provided to the behavior analyst until after the draft assessment was completed. The court further held that once the administrative judge determined that the assessment was inappropriate, the District had to fund an independent educational evaluation; H.T. did not have to separately prove that the assessment denied him a free appropriate public education to obtain that evaluation.

The District’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and the administrative judge’s decision on the District’s issue was affirmed.

H.T.’s Motion

H.T. asked the court to overturn the administrative findings that the assessment error and the failure to provide all requested records did not deny him a free appropriate public education. H.T. argued that failing to include parental input in the assessment should automatically establish a denial of a free appropriate public education.

The court rejected that argument. It explained that courts generally examine both whether special education procedures were followed and whether the student was denied educational benefits. A procedural violation does not automatically establish a denial of a free appropriate public education. On the facts of this case, H.T. did not identify additional information the parent could have provided or show that including the parent’s input would have changed the assessment or affected participation in the individualized education program.

As to the records claim, the administrative judge found that the District failed to provide the behavior analyst’s notes, which had been stored on her laptop and were later destroyed when the laptop was wiped. The court accepted the finding that the analyst had incorporated the information from those notes into the assessment. H.T. did not show how the failure to produce the notes denied him a free appropriate public education.

H.T.’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, and the administrative judge’s decisions on both of H.T.’s issues were affirmed.

Disposition

The court denied the District’s motion for summary judgment, denied H.T.’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and affirmed the administrative judge’s decision. The order directed the parties to submit a joint status report addressing whether any issues remained or whether the file could be closed.