Torrance USD Denied FAPE by Failing to Share IEP with High School Staff

What Happened

Student is a teenager with Asperger's Syndrome who was identified by Torrance Unified School District in 2003 and qualified for special education under the category of autistic-like behavior. Her initial IEP provided Resource Specialist Program (RSP) support, speech and language services, group counseling, and important accommodations — including access to a private bathroom because Student experienced severe, phobia-like panic reactions to flushing toilets, a documented feature of her disability. The 2003 IEP was developed while Student was in seventh grade at Calle Mayor Middle School.

The serious problems began when the district placed Student in three high school classes at South High School during eighth grade, without informing South High staff that Student had an IEP at all. The middle school RSP teacher never forwarded the IEP to South High, no "snapshot" of Student's needs was prepared for her high school teachers, and the high school principal was entirely unaware Student was even on campus. Student received none of her accommodations at South High — no shortened assignments, no note-taking support, and critically, no access to a private bathroom. Student had multiple humiliating accidents due to the lack of bathroom access. She became overwhelmed, dropped her science class, received failing grades, and grew more socially isolated. Parent eventually enrolled Student in Village Glen West, a non-public school for students with autism spectrum disorders, at a cost of $25,268 for the 2005–2006 school year. Parent then requested a due process hearing seeking reimbursement, compensatory education, an independent educational evaluation (IEE), and prospective placement at Village Glen.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in Student's favor on the most significant issues while denying several others. The district's initial 2003 assessment and IEP were found to be appropriate — the claims about inadequate testing and Child Find violations did not succeed, as Student was academically performing well before 2003 and the district had no obligation to act solely on a health form that mentioned Asperger's but was not part of the district's educational records system.

However, the district clearly failed Student in the following ways: First, the district never provided Student's IEP to South High staff, making it impossible to implement any accommodations during eighth grade. This was a procedural violation that caused real, documented harm — failed classes, social breakdown, and physical humiliation — constituting a denial of FAPE. Second, the December 2004 IEP was fatally flawed because the entire IEP team was made up of middle school staff only, with no one from South High present, even though Student was attending high school for half the day and would be there full-time within months. Without high school input, the present levels of performance were inaccurate, the goals were incomplete, and the transition plan was never carried out. Third, the October 2005 IEP omitted critical accommodations for Student's bathroom access, sensory sensitivities, and the overwhelming size of the high school environment — needs that were extensively discussed at the meeting but left out of the final document. The ALJ found that finishing those details "after the meeting" without the parent present was a procedural violation that excluded Parent from meaningful participation. Fourth, when Parent requested an IEE in October 2005, the district waited nine months before responding — and only did so after the due process hearing was filed. That delay was found unreasonable, entitling Student to an IEE at public expense.

What Was Ordered

1. The district must pay Student's tuition and all related costs, including transportation, at Village Glen for the 2005–2006 school year: $25,268.00.
2. Student shall continue attending Village Glen for the full 2006–2007 school year at the district's expense, because no appropriate transition plan or sensory/bathroom accommodations existed to support a return to the general education high school setting.
3. Student is entitled to a comprehensive psycho-educational IEE at public expense, which must include assessment of Student's needs in the areas of occupational therapy and adaptive physical education.
4. Student's request for compensatory education services was denied because Parent did not present sufficient evidence of Student's current service needs to support a specific award.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Your child's IEP must follow them to every school site they attend, not just their "home" school. The law requires the district to ensure that every teacher and staff member responsible for your child has access to the IEP and knows their specific role. If your child takes even one class at another campus, ask in writing to confirm that the IEP has been provided to that school's staff.

2. IEP team membership matters enormously. When an IEP is being developed that will cover a period when your child will be in a new school or program, representatives from that new setting must be at the table. An IEP built entirely on observations from one environment — where your child is doing fine — will not capture what your child needs in the harder environment they're about to enter.

3. Accommodations left out of the written IEP don't exist. Even if an accommodation is discussed at the IEP meeting, it has no legal force unless it appears in the written document. If the team says they will "figure out the details later," ask for the meeting to be continued until those details are finalized — and make sure you are present for that discussion.

4. If you disagree with a district evaluation, request an IEE promptly — and follow up in writing. The district must either fund an independent evaluation or immediately file for due process to defend its own assessment. Waiting nine months without a response, as happened here, is unreasonable. Document your request in writing and keep a copy.