District Wins Most Claims but Must Fix Behavior Plan Dropped at March 2005 IEP

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old child with autism who had been enrolled in Downey Unified School District since 1999 and attended a special day class at an elementary school. He had significant language delays, aggressive behavior, and needed support in academics, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education. Beginning in late 2003, Student's behavior at school escalated — he was hitting, kicking, spitting, and tackling classmates and staff. The district responded at the March 2004 IEP meeting by developing a Behavior Support Plan that proved effective: over the following year, Student's serious aggressive incidents dropped dramatically.

At the March 2005 annual IEP meeting, however, the IEP team — perhaps because Student had been doing well — made no mention of behavioral goals, did not continue the Behavior Support Plan, and did not order a functional behavior assessment. After that meeting, Student's behavior deteriorated rapidly. He was sent home repeatedly, visited the principal's office 32 times, stabbed a classmate with a pencil, and ultimately was suspended and placed in a behavioral clinic. Student lost significant classroom instruction time as a result. The parents filed for due process in October 2005, raising six issues including whether the district provided an appropriate education, conducted adequate assessments, addressed behavioral needs, violated discipline procedures, violated parental procedural rights, and whether they were owed reimbursement for a private psychoeducational evaluation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on all issues except one. On the core question of whether the district provided an appropriate education for school years 2002–2005, the ALJ found that the district generally met Student's needs: it reviewed his IEP annually, adjusted services when needed (for example, increasing occupational therapy when Student wasn't making progress in writing), and Student made measurable academic gains in reading and math. The district's educational programming was found to be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

The one area where the district failed was its handling of Student's behavioral needs at the March 2005 IEP meeting. The ALJ found that the district had clear notice of a serious behavior problem a year earlier, had developed a Behavior Support Plan that worked, and then simply abandoned it without any behavioral goals, plan, or functional behavior assessment in 2005. Once the plan was dropped, Student's behavior became assaultive, he lost classroom time, and was ultimately removed from school. The ALJ found this constituted a denial of a free appropriate public education.

On the other issues: the ALJ found the district's assessments were adequate; the suspension did not reach the 10-day threshold that would require a manifestation determination; the district's failure to provide IEP documents in Spanish did not legally harm the parents because the father — though a Spanish speaker — was fluent in English and meaningfully participated in all IEP meetings; and the parents were not entitled to reimbursement for their private psychoeducational evaluation because they had not formally communicated disagreement with the district's assessment before hiring their own evaluator.

What Was Ordered

1. The district must implement the behavioral intervention plan developed by Vista Behavior Consulting.
2. The district must provide compensatory educational tutoring for each school day hour Student missed due to behavioral incidents and disciplinary actions between March 17, 2005 and December 13, 2005, and during the subsequent placement at the Vista clinic.
3. The district must provide the designated instructional services hours in speech and language therapy, adapted physical education, and occupational therapy that Student missed during that same period.
4. The specific hours of tutoring and services, and how they will be delivered, must be determined at an IEP meeting.
5. All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. If a behavior plan is working, its removal must be justified — and replaced. This case shows that a district cannot simply drop an effective behavior plan because a student is doing well. The district's failure to continue or replace the Behavior Support Plan at the 2005 IEP — despite knowing the student had a history of serious aggression — was found to be a FAPE violation. If your child has a behavior plan, ask at every IEP whether it will be continued and why.

2. Lost school time due to behavioral escalation can be compensated. Because the district's failure to address behavior caused Student to miss classroom instruction, the ALJ ordered make-up tutoring and related services. If your child misses school because the district failed to have an adequate behavior plan in place, you may be entitled to compensatory services for that lost time.

3. To get reimbursement for a private evaluation, you must formally disagree with the district's assessment first. The parents here paid for a private psychoeducational evaluation but lost their reimbursement claim because they never told the district they disagreed with its assessment before hiring the private evaluator. If you want the district to fund an independent evaluation, put your disagreement in writing before you proceed.

4. Procedural violations only matter legally if they actually harmed your child or blocked your participation. The district failed to provide IEP documents translated into Spanish, which was a real procedural flaw. But because the father was English-proficient and actively participated in every IEP meeting, the ALJ found no harm. Parents who rely on an interpreter or who cannot meaningfully participate in English-only IEP meetings should document this clearly — it strengthens procedural claims.