4. Due Process in SDUSD

4.1 Overview

When a parent disagrees with SDUSD about eligibility, the adequacy of services, or a placement offer, they can pursue due process. This is a legal mechanism under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to resolve disputes through an impartial hearing.

• Filing a Complaint: Must be in writing, typically submitted to California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Parents must also provide a copy to SDUSD.
• Resolution Session and/or Mediation: Attempts at a settlement or agreement without a formal hearing. A “resolution meeting” is required within 15 days of filing, unless the parent waives it. Mediation is optional but often encouraged to avoid a full hearing.
• Formal Hearing: An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) hears testimony, reviews evidence, and decides if the child was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). If the ALJ rules for the parent, the decision may order specific remedies such as compensatory education or placement changes.

4.1.1 Step-by-Step Guide for Parents

Below is a simplified outline of the due process timeline in SDUSD (mirroring the general California process):

1. Draft and File the Complaint: Parents prepare a written complaint describing the issue(s) (e.g., inadequate IEP, failure to assess). The complaint must include facts and a proposed resolution. Send it to OAH and the SDUSD Special Education/Due Process office.
2. District Response & Resolution Meeting: SDUSD responds within 10 days, possibly contesting the sufficiency of the complaint. Within 15 days, a resolution session is held (unless waived) to see if the parties can settle. If unresolved after 30 days, the case proceeds.
3. Mediation (Optional): Either side can request mediation. A neutral mediator helps facilitate an agreement. If settlement is reached, the case concludes; otherwise, it goes to hearing.
4. Pre-Hearing Exchange & Conference: Parties exchange evidence and witness lists at least 5 business days before the hearing. A pre-hearing conference call with the ALJ clarifies issues, motions, and logistics.
5. Due Process Hearing: A somewhat trial-like proceeding before an ALJ. Parents (or their counsel) present witnesses, cross-examine SDUSD witnesses, and introduce exhibits (IEPs, evaluations, etc.). The ALJ then issues a written decision, typically within 45 days after the resolution period.
6. Decision & Potential Appeal: If the parent prevails, the ALJ may order remedies. If a parent disagrees with the outcome, an appeal to state or federal court must be filed within 90 days.

4.1.2 Best Practices for Building a Strong Case

• Keep Organized Records: Compile all relevant IEPs, progress reports, emails, and meeting notes. Document missed services, assessment timelines, or any repeated concerns.
• Focus on Specific Violations: Identify the core issues (e.g., “Speech therapy was never provided” or “District did not evaluate in suspected area of need”). Clear, concise allegations help the ALJ assess the facts.
• Use Independent Evaluations: A private assessment (or Independent Educational Evaluation) can bolster your case if it shows the child needs services not offered by SDUSD.
• Highlight Impact on Your Child: Demonstrate how the district’s failure caused academic or emotional harm or prevented meaningful progress (Endrew F. standard). Concrete data or expert testimony is powerful.
• Consider Mediation or Settlement: Many disputes resolve before a formal hearing. SDUSD often negotiates, especially if it sees a potential legal risk or wants to avoid litigation costs.

4.2 SDUSD Due Process History: Common Themes

• Parent Victories: Occur when the parent demonstrates that the district’s IEP or placement failed to address a clear need, or when procedural violations significantly compromised the process. For example, in a 2021 case, an ALJ found SDUSD denied FAPE by failing to offer necessary services (ABA therapy, 1:1 aide) and by predetermining the placement, leading to an award of compensatory services.
• District Victories: If SDUSD offers evidence that its assessment, IEP goals, and placement options are reasonably calculated for progress (as required by Endrew F.), ALJs may rule in its favor. In multiple 2022–2023 cases, SDUSD showed the student was making academic gains, and the ALJ concluded that the district’s offer met IDEA requirements.

Below are highlights of patterns seen in SDUSD due process decisions from roughly 2019–2024:

• Procedural Compliance: ALJs scrutinize whether SDUSD followed timelines, included parents, and provided a clear IEP offer. Even a small procedural misstep can lead to a loss if it significantly impedes parent participation.
• Parentally Placed Private School Students: In line with Capistrano USD v. S.W. (2021), SDUSD has prevailed when parents kept the child in private school without requesting district services. The district generally owes no FAPE duty during such unilateral placements unless parents signal a desire to return.
• COVID-19 Cases: Some disputes involved remote learning. ALJs found that if a child couldn’t access education online and SDUSD offered no alternative, that could deny FAPE. However, in other cases, the ALJ upheld SDUSD’s remote approach if it was consistent with statewide closures and included individualized supports.

4.2.1 Key Legal Precedents

Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. (2017): Clarified that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” If the student only makes trivial gains, the IEP may be inadequate.

Capistrano USD v. S.W. (9th Cir. 2021): Held that a district is not required to provide an IEP or services while a child is unilaterally placed in private school, unless parents request district involvement. SDUSD uses this precedent to defend against claims for reimbursement when the child was never offered back to public school.

4.3 Remedies

If a parent prevails in a due process hearing, potential remedies include:

• Compensatory Education: Extra services (e.g., tutoring, therapy) to make up for what the student missed due to SDUSD’s failure to provide FAPE.
• Reimbursement: For private educational services or tuition if parents unilaterally placed the child outside the district and can prove the district’s offer was inadequate. ALJs often look at whether the private services were appropriate and whether parents notified SDUSD of their concerns.
• Prospective Placement: Ordering the district to place the child in a non-public school or specialized program if the public-school setting is inadequate. In rare cases, an ALJ may also direct specific changes (e.g., adding 1:1 aides, modifying goals) or require SDUSD to fund independent evaluations.

IEP Corrections & Training: ALJs can also order SDUSD to reconvene the IEP team to correct procedural errors (e.g. clarify service minutes) or, in systemic issues, mandate staff training in IEP development. While attorneys’ fees are not awarded by the ALJ, parents who prevail may seek them via settlement or in a subsequent court action.

Overall, the best way for families to secure positive outcomes is to document their child’s needs thoroughly, collaborate where possible, and use **due process** judiciously when significant disagreements remain. With an understanding of precedents like Endrew F. and Capistrano – and by following the steps and best practices above – parents stand a better chance of ensuring their child receives the free appropriate public education to which they are entitled.