Source: https://www.californiaspecialedlaw.com/wiki/hearing-decisions/oah-2010010284/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 11:57:54+00:00

Document:
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OPPORTUNITIES UNLIMITED CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL AND NEW VILLAGE CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert F. Helfand, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), State of California, heard this matter in Los Angeles, California, on April 19, 20 and 21, 2010.
Nicole Hodge, Esq., of the Hodge Law Firm, represented Student (Student). Student was present throughout the hearing. Lakesha Harris, a consultant to Student, was present on the first day of the hearing.
Mary L. Kellogg., Esq., of Lozano Smith, represented the Los Angeles Unified School District and SELPA (District). Sharon Snyder, Due Process Specialist with the District, was also present throughout the hearing. Patrick Balucan, Assistant General Counsel for the District, was present on April 20, 2010.
Opportunities Unlimited Charter High School (OUCHS) was represented by its executive director, Angelique Jacques Marcoulis.
New Village Charter School (NVCS) was represented by William H. Edmonson, Esq., and Rachel N. Perahia, Esq., of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.
At the close of the hearing, at the parties’ request, the parties were given time to file written closing arguments and rebuttal briefs. The matter was deemed submitted upon receipt of the closing rebuttal briefs on May 12, 2010. The parties stipulated that the decision due date would be June 11, 2010.
The following witnesses testified during the hearing: Student, Ethel Earley, Roichelle Hooks, Larry Weber, Student’s Grandmother, Joe Bennett, Alicia Garcia, Lakesha Harris, Deanne Torvinen, and Angelique Jacques Marcoulis.
Student filed a request for due process on December 3, 2009, which named the District as the respondent. 1 On January 14, 2010, Student filed an amended request for due process (amended complaint) which added as respondents NVCS, OUCHS, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). On January 25, 2010, OAH issued an order granting Student leave to file the amended complaint. On March 15, 2010, Student moved to dismiss LACOE which was granted on March 17, 2010. On April 8, 2010, the parties stipulated to continue the due process hearing scheduled for April 12, 2010, to April 19, 2010. On April 8, 2010, OAH granted the request to continue.
On April 6, 2010, OUCHS filed a motion to dismiss Student’s claims alleged against it which accrued after September 18, 2010, Student’s last day attending OUCHS. On April 19, 2010, the ALJ heard oral arguments on the motion. Student did not oppose the motion which was granted orally. 2 On April 21, 2010, the District moved to strike the last two paragraphs of Issue 3 in the amended complaint on grounds that these paragraphs raised new issues from the original complaint and that the amended complaint had never been served on the District. Student did not oppose the motion and agreed to strike the two paragraphs. Accordingly, the ALJ orally granted the District’s motion without prejudice.
(c) Failing to draft appropriate and measurable IEP goals each year?
1 OAH did not file the due process request until January 11, 2010.
2 A written order to this effect was filed on April 22, 2010.
3 It appears that Gardena forwarded copies of Student’s cumulative file to the wrong location. A reference on Gardena records indicated that Student’s records may have been sent to a charter school named Youth Opportunity Alternatives in lieu of OUCHS.
4 NVCS has between 150 and 160 female students of which approximately 13 are receiving special education services.
5 The three California State University campuses were Long Beach, Los Angeles and Dominguez Hills.
6 Additionally, Student took a life skills course on parenting.
7 This equals approximately 618 class periods.
8 Harris testified that Mother re-obtained Student’s educational rights as of May 5, 2009, through Student’s 18th birthday on March 12, 2010.
9 Torvinen testified that Harris had informed her that Mother was the best person to complete the BASC-2 rating scales to indicate how Student functioned in the home environment.
10 Student contends that neither Mother nor Castillo were familiar enough with Student to render an accurate ranking. The BASC-2 contains a selection that the rater does not possess enough information to respond. The scoring will pick up if the rater does not possess enough knowledge to rate the individual. This did not occur here.
11 Korich is listed as a “DPC.” No evidence was produced to explain this designation.
12 The IEP team also examined whether Student was eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability (SLD) at the request of Harris, who was in attendance at the meeting. The team concluded that Student’s academic achievement and cognitive functioning did not demonstrate characteristics of SLD.
13 Garcia testified that Student did not need the Expository Composition course to graduate high school.
14 Alternatively, as stated in Legal Conclusion 33, the evidence demonstrates that had an IEP team meeting been held during the 2008-2009 school year, Student would not have been found eligible for special education under the category of ED.
2) Whether the District failed to offer Student a FAPE by failing to provide a transition assessment and a transition plan for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years?
Student’s proposed resolution is that (1) an independent transition assessment and plan be funded, (2) Student be provided with a cosmetologist kit (estimated cost of $400) so as to permit her to attend cosmetology school, and (3) she be provided three years of dance classes at the Debbie Allen Dance Academy (estimated monthly cost of $665).
1. Student is an 18-year-old female who currently attends Crenshaw High School within the District. Student has had an unstable home life as her parents have had periods of imprisonment. During these times, Student lived with her grandmother or aunt, who would become her guardians. Student’s initial IEP meeting occurred on October 3, 2002. Student had been found eligible for special education and related services under the eligibility category of emotional disturbance (ED).
2. During school year 2006-2007, Student was dually enrolled for the ninth grade at a non-public school, Little Citizens Westside Academy (Little Citizens), and Gardena High School, a District school. Little Citizens is a non-public school (elementary through high school) that provides small-group instruction, academic remediation and addresses emotional/behavioral issues in a structured setting for special education students.
3. On September 26, 2006, an IEP meeting was held at Little Citizens. Attending the meeting were Student’s grandmother (Grandmother); Howard Gellerman, administrative designee; Teisha Chambliss, special education teacher; Marilyn Hagoes, counselor; and Regina Spencer, an agency representative. The team found Student to be “making excellent behavioral and academic progress.” Student was an active participant in weekly counseling sessions working on her goals of improving relationships with peers and school staff. The team noted that learning conflict resolution skills and how to effectively express her needs, wants, and feelings were currently impeding Student’s academic performance. Student’s teachers reported that she attended class regularly, was on task, completed assignments, and was well behaved. The team found that Student had achieved all her goals.
5. At Little Citizens, Student received a grade of B in Language Skills, Spanish 1A and Physical Education. Student’s grades at Gardena were A in Health, D in English 9A and B in Algebra 1A.
6. On January 27, 2007, the IEP team reconvened at Little Citizens. Student’s Grandmother and then guardian attended. Also in attendance were Larry Weber, District administrative designee who is also a school psychologist; Annette Gordon, a least restrictive environment counselor; Hagoes; Spenser; and Amy Gardener, the IEP coordinator at Gardena. The team determined that Student had already met each and every one of her annual goals and objectives. Student’s teachers reported that she was doing well at Gardena, and she regularly attended, completed assignments, and there were no behavioral concerns. The team was of the opinion that Student’s significant improvements in academic task completion and interpersonal relationships allowed Student to access the general education curriculum. The team recommended that Student be enrolled in general education classes at Gardena. The team also recommended that Student receive 30 minutes of counseling per month in case any issues arose as to her transition to full-time general education on a public school campus. The team also did not require any other services as the team did not feel Student was in need of any services. Grandmother consented to the IEP and signed it that day.
7. Student attended the second semester at Gardena. She received an A in Introduction Composition; B in English 9B and Chorus; C in Physical Education; and D in Algebra 1B and Life Skills. Student received S (satisfactory) in both work habits and conduct in all her classes except for Algebra 1B where she received a U (unsatisfactory) in both.
8. OUCHS is a charter school chartered by the District. OUCHS is part of the Los Angeles Unified School District Special Education Local Planning Area (SELPA). OUCHS educates students who have been historically academically low-achieving and prepares them to be successful adults in careers and/or college. As part of the school’s program, OUCHS provides its students with an advisory class which includes personal as well as career counseling. Each student at OUCHS has a transition plan as part of the program.
10. Student performed well at OUCHS. OUCHS is on a trimester system. Student’s first trimester grades were B in Geometry, World History, Physical Education and Literature Analysis; C in Biology; and A in Spanish 1. She received all satisfactory marks for work habits and conduct. In the second trimester, Student received B in Literature Analysis, Standard Enrichment, and U.S. History; and A in Geometry and Earth Science. She was marked satisfactory in work habits and conduct with an excellent in work habits in Earth Science and Standard Enrichment. During the third trimester, Student received satisfactory in work habits in half her courses and excellent in the other half. She received either an excellent or satisfactory in conduct in all her courses except for Standard Enrichment where she received an unsatisfactory. Student’s third trimester grades were C in Physical Education; B in Earth Science and Standard Enrichment; and A in Geometry, Community Health Issues, and Literature Analysis.
11. Starting in October 2007, Student also received two counseling sessions per month for approximately 60 to 90 minutes from Cheryl Woodruff of the California Institute of Health and Social Services, Inc. Issues covered in the sessions involved family matters, peer relationships and school. This counseling was provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services and was conducted at the OUCHS campus. The counseling continued for a four-month period.
12. During the school year, Student took and passed the California High School Exit Examination with scores of 385 in English Language Arts and 359 in Math.
13. In or before September 2008, Student was placed by her social worker from the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services at St. Anne’s, a program for pregnant girls. St. Anne’s has a partnership with NVCS, which is located adjacent to it, to educate those at St. Anne’s. NVCS is a small charter high school chartered by the District specializing in educating girls with challenges. 4 NVCS provides its students with counseling for emotional issues along with a program designed to prepare its students for careers and/or college. The school employs a part-time school psychologist and utilizes interns from the University of Southern California to act as counselors and mentors to its students. NVCS is part of the District SELPA. The school also employs a special education teacher and a second is provided by St. Anne’s. Complementary services, such as personal counseling and tutoring, are offered by St. Anne’s.
14. On September 22, 2008, Student submitted a two-page enrollment application. She listed only OUCHS under the heading “Previous School/Program Information,” although there was room to enter four entities. In the section entitled “Special Services,” there is a specific box listing five questions involving special education services. Student checked “no” in responding to whether she received special education services, had an IEP, 504 plan, or had difficulties that interfere with her ability to go to school and learn.
15. NVCS sent requests for Student’s educational records to OUCHS on October 14, 2008, and to Little Citizens and Gardena one week later. Deanne Torvinen, NVCS school psychologist, first learned that Student had an IEP because of a notation in the Gardena records. About the beginning of November 2008, NVCS received copies of Student’s IEPs.
16. After receiving the IEP, Torvinen met with Student and informed her that NVCS would need to “update” the IEP and start from scratch. Student informed her that the IEP was no longer in effect. NVCS also implemented the IEP by making available one 30-minute counseling session per month. Torvinen conducted five or six sessions with Student for an approximate total of four hours. Torvinen testified that she also spent additional time meeting with Student. Additionally, Student met on a number of occasions with Joe Bennett, NVCS principal, and Vasquez for counseling relating to personal issues. Student admits that as of this date she no longer was emotionally disturbed and/or required special education and related services.
18. NVCS requires its students to take a career transition class called Workforce Development and an advisory class which provided academic direction and counseling. This class is taught by Brenda Vasquez of St. Anne’s. It is designed to focus students on their plans following high school including career planning, procuring internships, and learning independent living skills. 6 Students are taught resume writing, interview and self-advocacy skills. Vasquez also assists students in obtaining job internships as part of the St. Anne’s program, of which Student is still a participant. Student did admit that she received instruction on how to obtain employment, resume writing, and internships in Workforce Development.
19. During the 2008-2009 school year, Student was absent for about 61 percent of all class periods due to health problems, medical appointments and maternity leave. 7 During the first semester, Student took 11 classes for credit. She received an A in Custom Fashion Design, Hip-Hop Aerobics, and Introductory Piano. She received a B in Chemistry and a C in Senior Project, Cosmetology Make-up, Yoga, American Government, and Custom Fashion Illustration. Student received a D in Algebra 2A and failed Mosaic Art.
22. Torvinen, assisted by two other teachers, conducted Student’s assessment. Student was administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ-III). Student was within the low-average to average range in all areas, with her math skills better developed than her reading and written language skills. Although Student’s scores in reading and written language were within the sixth-grade level, her teachers reported that Student functions in class at a higher level than indicated on the WJ-III, and that she demonstrates sufficient skills to be successful with the high school curriculum. In the speech/language area, Student’s test results on the WJ-III and observations showed that Student appeared to have adequately developed communication skills. She demonstrated average to above-average fine and gross motor skills based on observations and the Bender Gestalt II standardized test. On the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition (WRAML-2), Student was within the average skill level in verbal and visual memory abilities as well as in attention and concentration skills.
24. On November 20, 2009, an IEP team meeting was held at Crenshaw High School, where Student was currently attending. Even though the assessment was done by NVCS, Harris, on behalf of Student, requested that the IEP team be from Student’s new placement. Attendees included Student; her aunt who was in attendance as her foster parent; Ethel Earley, a special education teacher and coordinator who acted as the administrative designee; R.M. Walker, a special education teacher; A. Beck, a general education teacher; Roichelle Hooks, school psychologist for Crenshaw; C. Harley, a counselor; Harris; and M. Korich. 11 The team reviewed Student’s present levels of performance in the areas of math, reading, general ability-cognition and processing, social-emotional, and written language. In math and reading, Student scored in the average range on the WJ-III and Student’s classroom teachers reported that she was an excellent student and did not need any supports or accommodations to access the general education curriculum. In written language, Student’s English teacher reported that she was able to write a five-paragraph essay containing a basic thesis statement and that her writings contained few grammar or punctuation errors. In general ability, the team relied on the Torvinen assessment report to demonstrate that Student does not need special education services or accommodations. In social-emotional, the team relied on the Torvinen report to determine that Student no longer appeared to be a student with an emotional disorder. Hooks, a credentialed school psychologist had counseled Student prior to the IEP meeting and felt that the NVCS assessment was “accurate.” Hooks opined that the results from the BASC-2 by each of the raters—Mother, counselor and teacher—showed that Student’s scores were consistent in school and out of school environments.
25. The IEP team determined that Student no longer was eligible for special education services as she does not qualify under the eligibility categories of emotional disturbance or specific learning disability. 12 Student’s aunt did not agree to the IEP as she deferred to Mother. On November 24, 2009, Mother signed the IEP consenting to the IEP but also disagreed with services in that she requested “compensatory time” for the counseling that Student had missed in the preceding two years. The District elected to provide nine compensatory counseling sessions for the sessions Student was not given while at OUCHS.
26. Student admits that as of this date she no longer was emotionally disturbed and/or required special education and related services.
27. Because of Mother’s concerns expressed when signing the IEP document, Earley testified that Student was placed in a developmental reading class, which is taught by Earley, to assist her in her English class. The class is a learning center class where a student can get help in class work or receive tutoring if needed. It also allows students a place and time to complete homework. The class is a general education class. Student’s placement was not for purposes of academic support but rather for mentoring of Student.
28. Following the IEP meeting of November 20, 2009, Alicia Garcia became Student’s counselor. Garcia has been a school psychologist for 10 years with the District. She received her B.S. in psychology from the University of California, San Diego, and a M.S. in psychology from California State University, Northridge. She possesses credentials in teaching (general studies) and pupil personal services (counseling). Garcia provides the nine compensatory counseling sessions resulting from Mother’s November 24, 2009 request. Garcia provides counseling once a month for 30 minutes, although Student may access her at other times if Student feels the need. Garcia has met with Student for six sessions up to the present. Garcia testified that three more sessions are scheduled. During the sessions, Garcia and Student cover personal issues as well as goal-setting and transition issues since Student will graduate at the end of the 2009-2010 school year. Garcia opined that Student does not need counseling to obtain educational benefit, and Student does not meet the eligibility category of emotional disturbance.
29. Student’s first semester marks were A in Library, C in Developmental Reading, B in American Literature, and a failure in Composition. 13 Garcia testified that Student’s failing grade was a result of absences and being tardy as this class was first period. Garcia believed that the absences and tardies resulted from Student’s parenting duties. Student has a grade point average of 2.659 and is ranked 140 out of a class of 371.
30. Student proposes as an appropriate remedy that Student be (1) given an independent transition assessment and plan at Respondents’ expense; (2) provided a cosmetologist kit which she will need to attend cosmetology school; and (3) provided three years of dance classes at a dance school, the Debbie Allen Dance Academy.
31. Student contends that the Respondents have never provided her with a transition assessment and an individualized transition plan. The evidence clearly demonstrated that Student did develop a plan for post-secondary education in that she explored her options for her future including college planning, attending cosmetology school to become a cosmetologist, and attending a dance academy with the prospect of becoming an instructor, at both OUCHS and NVCS within the advisory and workforce development classes. Thus, Student received comparable transition services.
32. Harris testified that the Respondents have failed to refer Student to the State Department of Rehabilitation which would provide her a cosmetologist kit and place her in a school for cosmetology. Student testified that Crenshaw has referred her to the Department of Rehabilitation where her application is pending. Student offered no evidence as to whether she is or had been in the past eligible for such a program. Harris also admitted that special education is not a requirement to obtain services from the Department of Rehabilitation.
33. Student testified that she finds dancing to be therapeutic in that it helps her express her emotions as well as relieves the stress of everyday life. Student seeks to have dance lessons for a three-year period as compensation for the failure of Respondents to provide her counseling for a three-year period. Student, by her own admission, did not need special education services as she was no longer suffering from emotional disturbance in the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
(1) An inability to learn which cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
9. A child with disabilities attending a charter school shall receive special education and related services in the same manner as a disabled child who attends a public school of the agency granting the charter. The local educational agency that granted the charter shall ensure that all disabled children enrolled in the charter school receive special education and related services in compliance with federal and state law. (Ed. Code, § 47646, subd. (a).) Education Code section 47641, subdivision (b), provides that where a local educational agency grants a charter, the charter school may be deemed a public school of the granting agency.
10. Student contends that the January 27, 2007 IEP is invalid as the IEP team did not include a general education teacher. Student further contends that the September 26, 2006 IEP is the last valid IEP and should have been implemented by the Respondents.
12. California implements the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through its special education laws. (Miller v. San Mateo-Foster City Unified Sch. District (N.D. Cal. 2004) 318 F.Supp.2d 851, 860.) Education Code section 56505, subdivision (l) provides that any request for a due process hearing shall be filed within two years from the date the party initiating the request knew or had reason to know of the facts underlying the basis for the request. (See also, Draper v. Atlanta Ind. Sch. System (11th Cir. 2008) 518 F.3d 1275, 1288; 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(c).) The two-year limitation period does not apply if the parent was prevented from filing a due process request due to either (1) specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had solved the problem forming the basis of the due process hearing request, or (2) the local educational agency withheld information from the parent which is required to be provided to the parent. (See also, J.L. v. Ambridge Area Sch. District (W.D. Pa. Feb. 22, 2008) 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13451, *23-24.) Student does not contend that either of the two exceptions apply to this matter.
13. Student is precluded from contesting the validity of the January 27, 2007 IEP because Student filed her due process request outside the two years of the statutory limitation period which expired on January 27, 2008.
Issue 1A: Whether the District and charter schools failed to provide Student with a FAPE during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years by failing to provide counseling services pursuant to Student’s last IEP?
15 Student contends that OUCHS failed to provide counseling services because it was unaware of Student’s IEP. Student also alleges that OUCHS failed to obtain Student’s academic records which would have indicated that Student had an IEP requiring that she receive counseling one time per month for 30 minutes. Student avers that the District failed to provide OUCHS her academic records including her IEP. The District and OUCHS contend that the actions of Student and Grandmother failed to inform OUCHS that Student was receiving special education services through an IEP and that Student attended Little Citizens Westside Academy even when specifically asked during the application process. They also contend that (1) Student received counseling in excess of that called for in the January 27, 2007 IEP as the OUCHS program requires their students to participate in an advisory class which deals with personal as well as career and future planning, and (2) Student received counseling through an outside agency by Cheryl Woodruff of the California Institute of Health and Social Services.
16. As discussed above in Legal Conclusions 10 through 13, the operative IEP for the 2007-2008 school year was the January 27, 2007 IEP. That IEP provides Student with one 30-minute counseling session per month for the purpose of aiding her transition to full-time placement on a large public school campus, Gardena High School, in general education classes. Student was able to successfully make that transition as evidenced by her second semester grades and her belief that she no longer had an IEP in effect. (Factual Findings 6 and 7.) OUCHS relied on the misstatements from Grandmother and Student that she did not have an IEP, and the transcript from Gardena, which did not reference an IEP that was in effect, in not implementing the operative IEP. (Factual Findings 8 and 9.) Even so, Student was provided with counseling as part of the OUCHS program in its advisory class as well as the twice per month (for a total of 60 to 90 minutes) counseling by Woodruff provided by an outside agency, which was more than the IEP provided. (Factual Findings 6, 8, and 11.) Student has offered no evidence that the counseling received was not appropriate nor has she offered any evidence that Student was emotionally disturbed as defined in Legal Conclusion 8. In fact, Student succeeded at OUCHS as demonstrated by her grade average of B, with no grade below a C, as well as passing the California High School Exit Examination. (Factual Findings 10 and 11.) Thus, Student has not met her burden of proof to demonstrate that the services provided by OUCHS fell significantly below the services called for in the IEP.
17. Alternatively, mootness describes the doctrine under which courts decline to hear a case because it fails to present an existing controversy. (See Wilson v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Comm. (1952) 112 Cal.App. 2d 450, 453.) Here, Mother, when partially consenting to the November 20, 2009 IEP, disagreed with the IEP only as to requesting that Student receive compensatory counseling for the sessions which had not been provided under the operative IEP. (Factual Finding 25.) The District elected to provide nine compensatory counseling sessions for the nine sessions Student did not receive at OUCHS pursuant to the January 27, 2007 IEP. (Factual Findings 6, 8 through 12, 25, 27, and 28.) Since the District has and is providing the compensatory counseling sessions for the 2008-2009 school year, the issue is moot.
18. Pursuant to Factual Findings 6, and 13 through 20, NVCS implemented the operative IEP and provided Student with monthly counseling sessions with the school psychologist. Additionally as part of its program, NVCS and its partner, St. Anne’s, provided personal, career and academic counseling to Student. Thus, Student was unable to meet her burden as to the 2008-2009 school year that she did not receive a FAPE because NVCS provided counseling services in excess to those required in the operative IEP.
19. Pursuant to Factual Findings 6, and 21 through 26, Student failed to demonstrate that she was denied a FAPE during school year 2009-2010. Student was found not eligible for special education under the category of ED. Therefore, Student was not entitled to receive special education or related services. Student offered no evidence to counter the determination of the Crenshaw IEP team; and Student, herself, admitted that she was no longer emotionally disturbed and needed counseling or to be in special education.
Issue 1B: Whether the District and the charter schools failed to provide Student with a FAPE during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years by failing to conduct 30-day reviews and annual IEPs each year?
21. Student contends that the Respondents committed a procedural violation of the IDEA by failing to hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of Student transferring to OUCHS, NVCS and Crenshaw High School. Student cites no authority in support of her position.
23. Pursuant to Factual Findings 8 and 13, OUCHS and NVCS are deemed public schools of the District and are not required to hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of Student transferring to the charter schools.
25. Student contends that the Respondents committed a procedural violation of the IDEA by failing to hold an annual IEP team meeting after the January 27, 2007 IEP meeting.
26. Pursuant to Factual Findings 8 through 11, there is no dispute that OUCHS failed to hold an IEP team meeting during the 2007-2008 school year. OUCHS was unaware of the fact that Student had an operative IEP in place because of the misstatements of Student and Grandmother as well as the failure of the District to provide it with Student’s educational records. OUCHS made two or three attempts to obtain Student’s records. OUCHS should have made further attempts to obtain Student’s educational records from the District. As stated in Legal Conclusion 9, the SELPA, here the District, is responsible to ensure that charter schools comply with federal and state law. Thus, Student has demonstrated that the District did commit a procedural violation of the IDEA by failing to ensure that an annual IEP meeting was held during school year 2007-2008.
27. Pursuant to Factual Findings 15, 16, 19, and 21 through 25, NVCS failed to hold an annual IEP team meeting after it was discovered that Student did have an IEP which was dated January 27, 2007. Thus, Student has demonstrated that NVCS and the District, in its role as the SELPA, did commit a procedural violation of the IDEA by failing to conduct an annual IEP team meeting.
28. Pursuant to Factual Findings 24 and 25, the District did not commit a procedural violation of the IDEA during school year 2009-2010 in that an annual IEP meeting was held on November 20, 2009.
Issue 1C: Whether the District and the charter schools failed to provide Student with a FAPE during the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, and 2009-2010 school years by failing to adopt an IEP with appropriate annual goals and objectives?
31. For school year 2007-2008, there is no dispute that neither OUCHS nor the District held an annual IEP meeting nor developed an IEP. (Factual Finding 26 and Legal Conclusions 8 through 11.) For school year 2008-2009, neither NVCS nor the District conducted an annual IEP meeting. (Factual Finding 27 and Legal Conclusions 15, 16, 19, and 21 through 25.) Thus, Student has demonstrated that the Respondents committed a procedural violation of the IDEA for those school years.
33. For school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, Student did not meet her burden of proof that Respondents deprived her of a FAPE. The evidence demonstrated that Student did not require IEP services nor that she would have continued to be eligible for special education under ED as she had succeeded academically, was able to maintain interpersonal relations, did not engage in inappropriate types of behavior or feelings, did not exhibit a pervasive depression or unhappiness, nor had a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. (Factual Findings 6 through 26.) Thus, Student has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that the Respondents committed a procedural violation of the IDEA by failing to adopt an IEP with appropriate annual goals and objectives.
Issue 2: Whether the District failed to offer Student a FAPE by failing to provide a transition assessment and transition plan for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years?
36. Pursuant to Factual Findings 9, 27, and 31, and Legal Conclusions 15, 16, 19, and 21 through 25, NVCS and the District failed to hold an annual IEP team meeting during the 2008-2009 school year and also failed to conduct a transition assessment and create a transition plan. Thus, NVCS and the District have committed a procedural violation of the IDEA.

References: Art.
22
 § 47646
 v. 
 v. 
 §1415
 v. 
 v.