District Wins: Truant Student's Parent Denied Reimbursement for Private Residential Schools

A parent sought reimbursement for three private residential school placements after her son, a high school student with learning disabilities and speech impairment, stopped attending his public school following a juvenile court order. The ALJ found that the district's IEPs and behavioral supports were adequate and that the parent's failure to notify the district of her intent to seek reimbursement before enrolling her son in private schools was fatal to her claims. All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a high school student with a primary disability of specific learning disability (SLD) and a secondary disability of speech-language impairment (SLI), including moderate-to-severe stuttering. He attended Hillsdale High School in the San Mateo Union High School District. By tenth grade, his main behavioral problem had shifted from classroom disruption to chronic truancy — he was failing all his classes because he simply wasn't showing up. In November 2003, the IEP team developed a behavior support plan (BSP) to address his attendance, changed his speech services from direct therapy to consultation (because pulling him out of class for therapy made little sense when he was barely attending), and continued his academic program.

In March 2004, a juvenile court ordered Student to attend a residential wilderness program in Idaho following a petty theft conviction. He then attended two additional private residential schools — CEDU High School in California and Mount Bachelor Academy in Oregon — eventually earning a high school diploma in June 2006. Throughout this entire period, Parent never asked the district to fund these placements, never told the district she was dissatisfied with its program, and never gave the district a chance to offer an alternative. In July 2006 — more than two years after Student left the district — Parent filed a due process complaint seeking reimbursement for all three private placements and related transportation costs.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Here is a summary of the key findings:

On behavioral assessment: The district was not required to conduct a formal functional behavioral assessment (FBA) for truancy. Truancy alone does not rise to the level of a "serious behavior problem" under California law (which requires self-injurious, assaultive, or seriously destructive behavior). The November 2003 BSP — which included a daily planner check, one-on-one support, weekly progress reports, positive reinforcement for attendance, and a referral to a truancy officer — was found to be a reasonable response to Student's attendance problems.

On mental health services: Student's teachers did not observe behaviors suggesting a need for mental health services during the 2003–2004 school year. Expert witnesses hired by the parent who later worked with Student at his private schools offered opinions that he would have needed mental health services at Hillsdale, but the ALJ found these opinions too speculative — those experts never saw Student at Hillsdale and worked with him more than two years after he left.

On IEP procedural issues: The absence of a school psychologist at the November 2003 IEP was not a violation — federal law only requires a school psychologist when determining initial eligibility under the SLD category, and Student's eligibility was already established. While the IEP's present levels of performance section was thin (referencing prior assessments instead of new data), the ALJ found this was a technical flaw that did not deny Student a meaningful educational opportunity or prevent Parent from participating in the IEP process.

On speech-language services: Switching Student from direct speech therapy to consultation was reasonable given his severe truancy. His speech therapist credibly testified that pulling him from class for therapy would only worsen his already-inadequate class attendance, and that Student already knew the strategies he needed to manage his stuttering.

On reimbursement: Even if the district had denied Student a FAPE (which the ALJ found it had not), reimbursement would still have been denied. Federal and state law require parents to notify the district of their intent to reject the district's placement and enroll their child privately before doing so. Parent never gave this notice — the district did not even learn Parent was seeking reimbursement until the due process complaint was filed more than two years after Student left. Without that notice, the district had no opportunity to fix any problems or offer an appropriate alternative placement.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims for relief were denied.
The district prevailed on every issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must notify the district before placing your child privately if you want reimbursement. This is the most important takeaway from this case. The law requires parents to tell the district — either at the last IEP meeting they attended or in writing at least ten business days before removing their child — that they are rejecting the district's placement and intend to seek reimbursement for a private school. Waiting until after the fact, even years later, will almost certainly result in denial of reimbursement, regardless of whether the district's program was appropriate.
Truancy is treated differently than other behavioral problems under special education law. Courts and hearing officers have consistently found that attendance problems alone do not automatically require a full functional behavioral assessment. If your child's primary behavioral issue is truancy, document your concerns in writing and formally request an assessment if you believe one is needed — do not assume the district is required to conduct one on its own.
Switching from direct services to consultation can be legally justified when attendance is the problem. If your child is chronically absent, the district may argue — as it successfully did here — that changing services (like speech therapy) to a less intensive model is reasonable. If you disagree with a proposed service reduction, object in writing at the IEP meeting and request that the prior services be maintained.
Expert opinions based on later, private placements carry limited weight. Professionals who only worked with your child after he or she left the public school are generally not considered strong evidence of what the district knew or should have done during the period in question. If you believe the district's program was inadequate, try to document concerns contemporaneously — through emails, IEP meeting notes, and written requests — while your child is still enrolled.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. Here is a summary of the key findings:

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims for relief were denied.
The district prevailed on every issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must notify the district before placing your child privately if you want reimbursement. This is the most important takeaway from this case. The law requires parents to tell the district — either at the last IEP meeting they attended or in writing at least ten business days before removing their child — that they are rejecting the district's placement and intend to seek reimbursement for a private school. Waiting until after the fact, even years later, will almost certainly result in denial of reimbursement, regardless of whether the district's program was appropriate.
Truancy is treated differently than other behavioral problems under special education law. Courts and hearing officers have consistently found that attendance problems alone do not automatically require a full functional behavioral assessment. If your child's primary behavioral issue is truancy, document your concerns in writing and formally request an assessment if you believe one is needed — do not assume the district is required to conduct one on its own.
Switching from direct services to consultation can be legally justified when attendance is the problem. If your child is chronically absent, the district may argue — as it successfully did here — that changing services (like speech therapy) to a less intensive model is reasonable. If you disagree with a proposed service reduction, object in writing at the IEP meeting and request that the prior services be maintained.
Expert opinions based on later, private placements carry limited weight. Professionals who only worked with your child after he or she left the public school are generally not considered strong evidence of what the district knew or should have done during the period in question. If you believe the district's program was inadequate, try to document concerns contemporaneously — through emails, IEP meeting notes, and written requests — while your child is still enrolled.