Modesto City School District Case 12-13c

The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, the allegation that eight parents did not receive a psychoeducational evaluation report, and data provided by the District confirms one report that demonstrates the evaluation did not contain language that exhibits a determination was made concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56327.

The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, noncompliance in adhering to the 60-day timeline for the completion of the assessment, from the date the parent gave consent to the assessment plan for three of the students. It was also confirmed and acknowledged by the district that the triennial IEP team meetings conducted for those three students was not conducted by the triennial date. New IEP’s were not developed in a timely manner. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56381(a)(2). 3

The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, that multiple psychological assessments are used, as well as, academic assessments for determining whether a pupil is an individual with exceptional needs. The state report found the district to be in compliance. EC 56320(e).

The State investigation report confirms, and the school district acknowledges, that the district failed to properly test a student when an IEP team recommended further evaluation for Autism Spectrum Disorder. The District did not develop a new assessment plan following the IEP meeting. The state report found the district to be out of compliance. EC 56320(f).

Complainant alleges the district failed to prevent the use of official authority by an employee to intimidate, coerce, or threaten another employee to keep them from assisting a parent of a pupil with exceptional needs to obtain services or accommodations. The State investigation report confirms, and the school district affirms, evidence is insufficient to support the allegations of this claim. The state report found the district to be in compliance. EC 56046.

Complainant alleges discrimination in the population of special education students that actually receive completed tests and testing results. This allegation was not found to be substantiated.

The SCCGJ found there are lapses of management in the SELPA program. Evaluations and associated paperwork for some students in special education program was not done in a timely manner and submitted to the student’s parents or the person holding educational rights of the student. The problems at a district high school may be systemic. The principal and the assistant principal did not adequately monitor the records of special education programs to ensure timely submissions of the reports. Personnel issues and disagreements between staff at the school may have contributed to problems with the timely submission and content of these reports.

Complainant alleges that MCSD is financially reimbursed for testing upon receiving signed IEP reports. This is not a valid complaint. Funding for special education programs come from a block grant and not through receipt of signed IEP reports as confirmed by the Superintendent of MCSD.