District Ordered to Address Attendance Crisis After Failing to Document It in IEPs

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old with an intellectual disability (classified as mental retardation) attending East Bakersfield High School (EBHS) within Kern High School District. His IEP called for him to attend the Ruggenberg Career Center (RCC), a vocational and daily living skills program, for much of his school day. However, Student had severe attendance problems throughout the 2004-2005 school year. RCC dropped Student from its program twice due to excessive absences, each time sending him back to EBHS. Despite this serious and ongoing problem, neither the November 30, 2004 IEP Addendum nor the February 9, 2005 IEP meaningfully documented the attendance issue, the district's plan to fix it, or what Student needed to do to return to RCC and succeed there.

Student's parent — whose educational rights were later transferred to Student's sister — raised five issues at hearing. These included claims that the district failed to hold required IEP meetings, excluded the parent from IEP meetings, used pre-typed IEPs that predetermined outcomes, failed to accurately describe Student's strengths, and denied Student designated instructional services (DIS) such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and behavioral support. The parent also requested that Student be transferred to another school, provided a one-on-one aide and door-to-door transportation, and offered independent assessments at district expense.

What the ALJ Found

The district prevailed on the majority of claims. The ALJ found that the district made legally adequate attempts to notify the parent of IEP meetings by mail and telephone, even though the parent did not attend. The district's failure to produce written documentation of its notification attempts was a technical procedural violation, but the ALJ found it did not rise to the level of denying FAPE because it did not seriously interfere with the parent's ability to participate. The use of pre-typed IEPs was also not found to be illegal — the district had a computer available at meetings and the team had the ability to make changes. Student's strengths, goals, and present levels of performance were found to be adequately documented and supported by teacher observations. The parent's claims about DIS services, assistive technology, safety concerns, and least restrictive environment were all denied for lack of evidence.

However, the parent partially prevailed on Issues 3 and 4. The ALJ found that both the November 30, 2004 IEP Addendum and the February 9, 2005 IEP failed to document Student's serious attendance problems and the district's plan to address them. This omission was not a minor clerical gap — it deprived the parent of meaningful information needed to participate in decisions about Student's education. The IEP team discussed attendance internally, but those discussions never made it onto paper, leaving the parent without the ability to ask questions, propose solutions, or hold the district accountable for getting Student back to RCC successfully.

What Was Ordered

1. Within 30 days of the order, the district must convene an IEP meeting (which may be combined with Student's annual IEP meeting if scheduled in that window).
2. At that meeting, the IEP team must discuss Student's school absences and determine whether those absences are preventing Student from receiving meaningful educational benefit from the IEP.
3. If absences are found to be impeding educational benefit, the district must develop an appropriate program to address Student's educational and behavioral needs related to attendance.
4. The district must update Student's vocational education plan to ensure Student can meet the goals and objectives from the February 12, 2004 and February 9, 2005 IEPs within one year.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. What the IEP team discusses must be written down. In this case, district staff admitted they talked about Student's attendance at IEP meetings — but none of it appeared in the IEP document. The ALJ found this violated the parent's right to participate. If a concern is serious enough to discuss, it must be documented in the IEP so parents can respond, ask questions, and hold the district to a plan.

2. An IEP that ignores a known barrier to learning is inadequate. Student missed a huge portion of the school year and was dropped from his vocational program twice. The district knew this was happening but wrote IEPs that planned for him to return to RCC without addressing why he kept missing school. An IEP must be a realistic, working document — not a wish list that ignores the student's actual circumstances.

3. Pre-typed IEPs are not automatically illegal, but they raise red flags. The ALJ found no violation here because the district had the ability to make changes during the meeting. However, parents should always ask at the start of an IEP meeting whether changes can and will be made during the discussion — and insist that any changes be reflected in the final document before signing.

4. Procedural violations only matter if they cause real harm. The district failed to keep written records of its attempts to contact the parent, which is technically required by law. But because the parent actually had notice of the meetings, the ALJ ruled the violation did not deny FAPE. Parents should know that not every technical error wins a case — the violation must meaningfully interfere with the student's education or the parent's ability to participate.