Subject: Follow-Up: Kaleb’s Paraeducator Assignment and IEP Implementation
Dear Mrs. Wallner,
We are writing to formally follow up regarding Kaleb’s paraeducator assignment and the implementation of his IEP. The information below outlines our ongoing concerns and requests for written clarification and corrective action to ensure Kaleb’s services remain consistent, transparent, and compliant with his IEP.
Thank you for your response and for inviting us to visit Kaleb’s classroom. We appreciate your acknowledgment of the importance of consistency and transparency for Kaleb’s success.
However, we must respectfully disagree with your assertion that Kaleb’s IEP has been “fully implemented as written” and that his 1:1 paraeducator support “continued without interruption.” Our observations and communications with staff clearly indicate otherwise. From the date of Ms. Motoko’s sudden removal on Friday, October 17, 2025, through the following days, no one was identified to us—or appeared to be—serving as Kaleb’s assigned 1:1 paraeducator. During that period, Kaleb’s IEP-required one-on-one support was disrupted, and the resulting uncertainty caused unnecessary confusion and distress for both Kaleb and us, as his parents.
Even now, while a new paraeducator has reportedly been placed, that only occurred after several school days without clarity and after multiple written requests from us. During that time, no one introduced the new paraeducator to us, and at morning line-ups, we only observed Mrs. King and her regular classroom aide with Kaleb. Then, on Thursday (10/23/25), Mary spoke directly with the individual who appeared to be serving as Kaleb’s new paraeducator and asked whether she was indeed assigned to him. She responded that she was only substituting and that she had been there since the previous Friday, even though the first time we saw this person was on Thursday (10/23/25). This morning, Mary approached Mrs. King for clarification, and Mrs. King indicated that the woman Mary spoke with on Thursday is indeed Kaleb’s new paraeducator. Mrs. King explained that this individual had previously substituted for her, has children attending Ehrhardt Elementary, knows the class well, and that Kaleb is familiar with her. Given these conflicting responses—and the fact that no one from the District has made any effort to formally introduce the new paraeducator to us—we remain uncertain, even now, as to who is actually assigned as Kaleb’s dedicated one-on-one paraeducator. This ongoing lack of clarity has been deeply distressing for our family and raises serious concerns about the District’s attentiveness to Kaleb’s needs and its compliance with his IEP.
This sequence of events constitutes an interruption of services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and California Education Code, which require that all IEP services be delivered consistently and as written (IDEA 34 C.F.R. §300.323(c)(2); Cal. Ed. Code §56344(c)).
In addition, your response does not address the core procedural issues we raised—namely, that:
- the paraeducator reassignment occurred without prior IEP team discussion,
- there was no notice or input from parents, and
- the change was later framed as an “internal staffing shift.”
Such unilateral decisions and post-hoc explanations conflict with IDEA procedural safeguards requiring parental participation in all decisions regarding the provision of FAPE and any changes to a child’s services or placement (34 C.F.R. §§300.501, 300.324, and 300.503).
While we appreciate the offer to visit Kaleb’s classroom, a classroom observation cannot substitute for a substantive written response. The concerns we have raised are about process, compliance, and transparency, not simply observation.
Accordingly, we are again formally requesting detailed written responses to the following:
1. Authorization of Change
Please identify who authorized the removal and replacement of Kaleb’s paraeducator, when the decision was made, and the rationale behind it.
- Was the decision initiated by Mrs. King, a site administrator, or the VI department?
- Who approved the change at the district level, and when was that approval granted?
- What specific information or performance-related reason was used to justify removing a paraeducator who had been working effectively with Kaleb?
- If this was part of a broader staffing redistribution, please provide the documentation or directive authorizing it.
2. Notice and Procedural Compliance
Under IDEA and California Education Code, parents are required to be informed and consulted before any changes in the delivery of services are made.
- Please explain why no prior notice or IEP team discussion occurred before Ms. Motoko’s removal and the reassignment of her role.
- Provide any documentation or record showing parental notice, consent, or IEP team communication prior to the change.
- Clarify why this action was taken outside of the IEP process despite its direct impact on Kaleb’s support structure and access to education.
3. Service Interruption
Our view is that from the day of Ms. Motoko’s removal through the day a new paraeducator appeared to have been identified, Kaleb was left without his dedicated one-on-one paraeducator. You contend otherwise.
- Please confirm the exact dates during which Kaleb had an assigned 1:1 paraeducator.
- Explain what interim supports, if any, were provided to fulfill his IEP during those days.
- Identify what steps the District will take to ensure that his mandated services continue without interruption.
4. Communication Breakdown
Immediately following the staffing change, Mrs. King stopped responding, and Mr. Peterson ceased communication, stating that all communications regarding the matter should go through you, Mrs. Wallner.
- Please explain why communication stopped, and whether Mrs. King and Mr. Peterson were instructed not to respond to our inquiries.
- Describe what corrective action the District will take to ensure consistent, transparent communication with parents when service delivery or personnel changes occur, so that parents are not left without information or support during critical periods.
5. Reason for Removal of Prior Paraeducator
The removal of Ms. Motoko remains unexplained.
- Please provide the specific reason she was removed from Kaleb’s assignment.
- Clarify whether this was related to staffing shortages, reassignment to another student, or interpersonal or performance concerns.
- Explain how this decision was determined to be in Kaleb’s best educational interest, given that Ms. Motoko had been working effectively and Kaleb had shown comfort and progress with her.
6. Assurance of Compliance
We are requesting written assurance that:
- Kaleb’s IEP services will be implemented fully and without alteration unless approved by the IEP team.
- Any future changes to service delivery, staffing, or assignment of his 1:1 paraeducator will be discussed at an IEP meeting prior to implementation.
- The District will adhere strictly to procedural safeguards outlined in IDEA and California Education Code to prevent unilateral decisions that affect Kaleb’s services.
7. Immediate Corrective Action and Paraeducator Qualifications
We request confirmation that:
- Kaleb’s 1:1 paraeducator support has been fully restored and remains exclusive to him for the entirety of the school day.
- The current paraeducator’s name, assignment date, and VI department supervision are provided in writing.
- The paraeducator assigned to Kaleb meets the qualifications specified in his IEP for working with a student who is blind and has multiple disabilities, including:
- Experience or training in supporting students with visual impairments and additional disabilities;
- Familiarity with orientation and mobility safety procedures; and
- The ability to implement adaptations, prompts, and instructional supports under the direction of the VI teacher and classroom teacher.
- The District will take immediate corrective action to ensure no further lapses in 1:1 support and to verify that Kaleb’s assigned paraeducator meets all IEP-specified qualifications pending the IEP meeting.
Please provide your responses in writing within 10 business days so the record accurately reflects how the District is addressing these concerns. Kaleb’s access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) depends on transparent communication and faithful adherence to his IEP.
We remain committed to collaborating in good faith, but we also expect accountability and full compliance with the procedural and substantive protections guaranteed under IDEA and state law.
Sincerely,
Yang and Mary Xiong
Parents of Kaleb Xiong
cc: Mr. Peterson; Mrs. King; Ms. Anne Rigali, Director of Special Education, Elk Grove Unified School District;
Ms. Marianne Williams, Principal, Ehrhardt Elementary School;