District Violated FAPE by Cutting PT and Reducing OT for Young Student with Autism

What Happened

Student is a young child with autism and a speech/language disorder who lives within the Glendora Unified School District. Despite having a high nonverbal IQ of 126, Student has significant physical challenges: low muscle tone, impaired gait, poor balance, joint laxity, tactile defensiveness, and fine motor deficits that affected his ability to write, eat independently, and safely move around his school campus. Since July 2003, the District had been providing Student with physical therapy (PT) twice a week and occupational therapy (OT) twice a week, each in 60-minute sessions. These services were tied to specific IEP goals around mobility, posture, gait safety, handwriting, and self-care.

At the October 14, 2005 IEP meeting, the District proposed eliminating PT entirely and cutting OT by more than half — from two 60-minute sessions per week down to one 50-minute session. The District argued that Student had met some of his goals and that the remaining deficits would not improve further with continued services. The District itself filed for due process to get approval to proceed with this reduced IEP. Student's family opposed the cuts, arguing that Student still had significant unmet needs and that the reduced services would prevent him from safely accessing his school environment and making meaningful progress.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the District failed to meet its burden of proof on both issues. On physical therapy, Student had met only one of his three PT goals — the posture goal — while his goals for strength, coordination, tricycle riding, and safe campus mobility remained unmet. The ALJ found that Student could not safely walk 400 feet across campus, fell on the playground, and lost his balance regularly. The District's own physical therapist acknowledged that Student still had impairments in motor control and proprioceptive awareness, yet recommended discontinuing services. The ALJ was not persuaded, finding that the therapist had not tested Student in school settings, had not tried to help Student overcome his tactile defensiveness so he could benefit from weighted interventions, and had incorrectly concluded that adapted physical education (APE) could substitute for PT. The ALJ was clear: APE teaches gross motor skills, but PT builds the underlying neurological foundations that make those skills possible — they are not interchangeable.

On occupational therapy, the District acknowledged Student still needed help with handwriting, self-care (zipping, buttoning, opening containers), and fine motor control, yet proposed cutting services by more than half. The ALJ found that Student's expert, Dr. Susan Spitzer — an occupational therapist with a doctoral degree and extensive experience with autism — was more credible and persuasive than the District's OT, who had not administered any standardized tests. Dr. Spitzer's evaluation, based on multiple school observations and a battery of standardized assessments, demonstrated that two 60-minute weekly OT sessions were necessary for Student to access his educational program. The ALJ agreed: one 50-minute session per week was insufficient to allow Student to make progress toward his IEP goals.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's proposed elimination of physical therapy services was found to be not an offer of FAPE and could not proceed.
2. The District's proposed reduction of occupational therapy from two weekly 60-minute sessions to one 50-minute session was found to be not an offer of FAPE and could not proceed.
3. Student prevailed on both issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts cannot cut related services just because a student hasn't improved — lack of progress may mean the student needs more help, not less. The District argued that because Student's gait hadn't improved, PT was no longer useful. The ALJ rejected this, finding that an inability to make progress is a reason to continue services and explore new approaches, not a reason to eliminate them.

2. APE is not a substitute for physical therapy, and districts cannot swap one for the other. PT addresses the underlying neurological causes of movement difficulties. APE teaches gross motor skills. If your child has a PT goal in their IEP, the district cannot simply replace that service with APE and call it equivalent.

3. Expert evaluations matter — especially when they include standardized testing and school observations. The student's occupational therapy expert conducted multiple school visits, administered standardized tests, interviewed teachers and parents, and produced a detailed 14-page report. The District's OT did none of that. The depth and rigor of the parent's expert made a decisive difference in this case.

4. When a district proposes to reduce services, it carries the burden of proving that the reduced program still offers FAPE. Because this case was filed by the District, the District had to prove its reduced IEP was appropriate — and it failed. If your district is trying to cut services, ask them to explain in detail how the reduced program will still allow your child to access their education and make meaningful progress toward each IEP goal.