IEP Procedural Violation

THE ISSUE

Emails from Mrs. King dated October 14, 2025 and October 17, 2025 confirm that she initiated a new model of paraeducator usage—one not found anywhere in Kaleb’s IEP or his Adaptation Plan.

Kaleb’s IEP  explicitly requires “one-on-one classroom support from a school district staff who is knowledgeable in working with students who are legally blind with no light perception,” further stating that “Kaleb could also potentially hurt himself by mouthing objects if he is not provided with continuous adult supervision.” This language makes unmistakably clear that the paraeducator’s role is dedicated, continuous, and exclusively assigned to Kaleb throughout the entire school day to ensure his access, safety, and participation. The paraeducator’s duties are not interchangeable with general classroom responsibilities and cannot be shared or redistributed without IEP team action.

The Adaptation Plan reinforces this requirement, stating that “direct adult support must be available at all times to assist with transitions, environmental navigation, and task participation due to total blindness and associated developmental delays.”

Despite these clear mandates, Mrs. King introduced—for the first time—a new instructional “model” that was never discussed, proposed, or agreed upon by the IEP team. She states:

“As part of promoting Kaleb’s growth, we are encouraging him to engage more directly with teacher-led instruction. The paraeducator’s role is to support instruction, not replace it. This means that at times I will work with Kaleb 1:1 while Ms. Motoko supports the class, and at other times she will provide his direct support.”

She further asserts:

“At times… waiting a few moments before his para steps in…”

These statements confirm that Mrs. King unilaterally altered how Kaleb’s IEP-mandated 1:1 paraeducator services were delivered, reframing the reduction of direct support as “instructional adjustments” or “fostering independence.” Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2) and California Education Code §§ 56341.1(a) and 56380, any modification to the delivery, consistency, or availability of a required service—especially one tied to safety and access—must be brought to the IEP team for discussion and approval before implementation. That did not occur. Because these communications and changes occurred before the paraeducator reassignment on October 17, it is clear that the root issue was not a staffing change but an unauthorized instructional change made outside the IEP team process.

Essential Communications

Documented Requests, made specifically to Mrs. King, for Collaboration on Kaleb’s One-on-One Paraeducator Services

The following timeline documents my repeated written requests for the District, and specifically Mrs. King, to work collaboratively with me through the IEP process before making any changes to Kaleb’s one-on-one paraeducator services which all have been met with no response and denials to my specific requests.

  • October 14, 2025 – I first asked Mrs. King to work with me before any changes were made to Kaleb’s one-on-one paraeducator support. I requested clarification on whether his paraeducator, Ms. Motoko, was being pulled from working with him and stated that any such change needed to be discussed in advance to ensure it aligned with his IEP and disability-related needs.
  • October 15, 2025 – I reiterated my request that the school inform me of any proposed adjustments to Kaleb’s paraeducator support and that such decisions be reviewed and discussed together through the IEP process, rather than implemented unilaterally.
  • October 16, 2025 – After observing changes in the proximity and timing of paraeducator support, I again emphasized that any modification to when, how, or where the paraeducator provides support must be reviewed by the IEP team. I specifically requested that, if changes were being considered, an IEP meeting be convened so the team could make decisions collaboratively.
  • October 20, 2025 – I formally requested that Kaleb’s one-on-one paraeducator remain continuously and exclusively assigned to him, and stated clearly that any proposed changes to the delivery of his one-on-one support must be discussed and approved by the full IEP team prior to implementation. This email stands as my strongest written request to Mrs. King for collaborative, lawful decision-making.
  • November 10, 2025 – In preparation for the upcoming IEP meeting, I noted again that my intention had always been to work in partnership with Mrs. King and the district. I explained that I would have preferred to resolve issues related to paraeducator support privately and collaboratively before the meeting, reaffirming my ongoing request for open dialogue rather than unilateral action.
  • November 17, 2025 – I requested that the November 18, 2025, Tuesday’s meeting agenda include a 15-minute block for me to present my concerns and goals at the beginning, right after the meeting is formally opened. I also informed Mrs. King that Alta California Regional Center—specifically my son’s service coordinator, Amelia Jung, and her supervisor, Sara Marquez—will be attending. I expressed my appreciation and noted that I’m looking forward to a productive and transparent discussion.
      • Mrs. King denied my request by responding that Tuesday’s IEP meeting will follow the school’s attached agenda, starting with updates from the team about Kaleb’s progress. She stated that I will be given time to share my concerns after the team has finished their updates, which indicates that she is unilaterally determining the meeting structure rather than considering my request to present at the start.
  • November 18, 2025 – I requested to reschedule due to the District’s procedural violations making it impossible for me to meaningfully participate in the proposed IEP meeting was to occur on 11/18/2024 at 12 PM.

Taken together, these emails show a consistent, well-documented pattern of my attempts to engage the school in collaborative, IEP-based decision-making about Kaleb’s one-on-one paraeducator services all of which were met with no direct response to my requests and a direct denial of my attempt to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

Summary Requests with District Leadership

Below are the two primary emails I sent to Mrs. Michelle Wallner (Program Coordinator) and Mrs. Anne Rigali (Special Education Director) in which I requested a written response by November 7, 2025—a reasonable timeline of ten (10) business days. However, neither Mrs. Wallner nor Mrs. Rigali provided any response or even a courtesy update. It was not until November 14, 2025, and only after my repeated requests for a status update, that Mrs. Rigali told me that Mrs. Wallner had been assigned the responsibility of responding to me.

  • 10/24/2025:  Follow-Up: Kaleb’s Paraeducator Assignment addressed to Mrs. Michelle Wallner
  • 10/27/2025:  Summary of 10/24/2025 phone contact with Mrs. Anne Rigali  & Administrative Resolution Request – Timely Attention Requested Regarding Kaleb Xiong’s 1:1 Paraeducator Services

Prior Written Notice (PWN)

  • Prior Written Notice (PWN): Although the PWN states that it was mailed and emailed to me on November 14, 2025, the District did not actually email it until November 17, 2025 at 2:37 PM—less than 24 hours prior to the scheduled IEP meeting on November 18, 2025 at 12:00 PM.
  • Other documents included with the PWN
      • KX Agenda for 11/18/2025 IEP Meeting:  NOTE: We requested to postpone the meeting.  The District provided the PWN less than 24 hours before the meeting, despite these issues being ongoing for weeks. This short notice denied us adequate time to review and respond, contrary to 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.322 and 300.503, and California Education Code §§ 56341.1 and 56346. The District also declined our reasonable request for 15 minutes at the start of the meeting to present the concerns we initiated it for—continuing a pattern of unilateral decision-making inconsistent with IDEA’s requirement that parents be equal IEP team members (34 C.F.R. § 300.501).  New IEP date has not been determined yet but we are looking at January 2026.
      • November 2025 IEP Progress Report
      • April 1, 2025 IEP

PWN Rebuttal

District Response

  • 11/24/2025 response from Mrs. Rigali:
      • Hi Mr. Xiong,Thank you for sharing your concerns. The District believes the IEP is being fully implemented and intends to discuss your concerns at Kaleb’s next IEP.If you would like to discuss further, I am happy to meet with you in person or by phone.Sincerely,Anne

Our Reply

Summary of Events for Period 11/18/2025 to 12/1/2025

I postponed the November 18, 2025 IEP meeting due to Mrs. King’s refusal to allow me to present first on the agenda and the District’s very late submission of the PWN, which did not provide adequate time for meaningful review or preparation. Following that postponement, I engaged directly with Special Education Director Anne Rigali to seek a resolution. This included an in-person meeting with Mrs. Rigali and Program Coordinator Alicia Wilson on November 18 and the submission of my PWN rebuttal on November 21. Mrs. Rigali later responded only with a general statement asserting that the District believes the IEP is being fully implemented. As a result, I spoke with Trustee Sean Yang by phone on November 24, and subsequently sent a follow-up email (copied to Trustee Yang) requesting that Mrs. Rigali provide a detailed written response to the specific requests outlined in my rebuttal by December 1, 2025.