District Prevails After Parent Refuses IEP Offers and Assessments

A 15-year-old student with a speech and language impairment at Woodside High School struggled academically, but the ALJ found that the district's IEP offers were appropriate and that the student's poor grades resulted from her own choices and her parent's refusal to consent to any IEP. The parent claimed the district denied a FAPE by failing to provide individual tutoring, a behavior intervention plan, and adequate transition services, but all claims were denied. The district prevailed on every issue.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old 10th grader at Woodside High School, eligible for special education due to a speech and language impairment. Despite being described as generally capable — with above-average verbal skills, grade-level academic functioning, and talents in art, music, and fencing — Student received poor grades in most subjects. Parent filed for due process arguing that the district denied Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by failing to provide individual tutoring in math and science, failing to include a behavior intervention plan in Student's IEP, failing to give Student opportunities to retake tests and make up late work, and committing various procedural violations related to the IEP's content.

The district had offered IEPs in January 2006 and November 2006, both of which proposed continued speech therapy, placement in regular classes, and one period per day with a Resource Specialist Program (RSP) teacher to help with study skills and homework completion. Parent refused to sign either IEP offer, meaning the last agreed-upon IEP — developed in 2004 at a different school — remained in effect throughout high school. Parent also repeatedly declined to consent to a mental health assessment and a functional analysis assessment (FAA) that the district requested to better understand Student's behavioral difficulties, and declined to allow Student to participate in the development of a behavior support plan.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district's IEP offers were appropriate and constituted offers of FAPE. Student's poor grades were attributed to three main factors: Student's own failure to take advantage of widely available tutoring (visiting her science teacher only about five times all year despite open invitations), Student's repeated choice not to retake D/F tests or turn in missing assignments even when explicitly offered that opportunity, and Parent's refusal to consent to any IEP the district proposed.

On the behavior intervention plan, the ALJ found that Student's misbehavior — sketching in class, using profanity, occasional outbursts — did not rise to the legal standard of a "serious behavior problem" requiring a formal behavior intervention plan. The district had tried to develop a behavior support plan but was blocked because Parent refused to allow Student to be interviewed and would not consent to the required FAA. The ALJ also rejected Parent's claim that the district had violated procedural rules: the IEP offers did include transition plans (Parent simply claimed they did not), were properly marked as the triennial IEP, and did state the frequency, duration, and projected start dates of services as precisely as possible given that Parent had not consented to any IEP. The ALJ found that Parent's dissent letters were adequately considered at IEP meetings even though they were filed in Student's folder rather than attached to the IEP document.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No tutoring, behavior intervention plan, test retake program, summer school, or private school placement was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign an IEP has serious consequences. When a parent declines every IEP the district offers, the last agreed-upon IEP stays in effect — even if it is years old and from a different school. The ALJ found that Student's program was hampered in part because no current IEP had ever been agreed to. Parents should engage with the IEP process, propose changes in writing, and consider accepting parts of an IEP while formally disagreeing with others rather than rejecting the entire document.
Blocking assessments can hurt your case. The district in this case wanted to assess Student's mental health and behavior to develop a support plan, but Parent refused. The ALJ noted the district could not build a behavior plan without Parent's cooperation — and then held that no plan was required anyway. When a parent blocks an evaluation, it makes it much harder to later argue the district should have done more.
Available-but-unused supports are hard to win on. The ALJ found that tutoring, test retakes, and homework make-up opportunities were all genuinely available to Student — she simply did not use them. If your child is not accessing accommodations, document why: is there a barrier? Does the child need prompting written into the IEP? Simply having an accommodation listed is not enough if the student isn't actually using it.
A behavior intervention plan (BIP) has a specific legal trigger. Under California law, a formal BIP is only required when a student has a "serious behavior problem" — meaning behavior that is self-injurious, assaultive, causes serious property damage, or is so pervasive it cannot be controlled by the existing IEP. Inattention, occasional outbursts, and poor class behavior may not meet that threshold. If you believe your child needs behavioral support, ask the district to consider positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), which have a lower threshold than a formal BIP.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No tutoring, behavior intervention plan, test retake program, summer school, or private school placement was ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

Refusing to sign an IEP has serious consequences. When a parent declines every IEP the district offers, the last agreed-upon IEP stays in effect — even if it is years old and from a different school. The ALJ found that Student's program was hampered in part because no current IEP had ever been agreed to. Parents should engage with the IEP process, propose changes in writing, and consider accepting parts of an IEP while formally disagreeing with others rather than rejecting the entire document.
Blocking assessments can hurt your case. The district in this case wanted to assess Student's mental health and behavior to develop a support plan, but Parent refused. The ALJ noted the district could not build a behavior plan without Parent's cooperation — and then held that no plan was required anyway. When a parent blocks an evaluation, it makes it much harder to later argue the district should have done more.
Available-but-unused supports are hard to win on. The ALJ found that tutoring, test retakes, and homework make-up opportunities were all genuinely available to Student — she simply did not use them. If your child is not accessing accommodations, document why: is there a barrier? Does the child need prompting written into the IEP? Simply having an accommodation listed is not enough if the student isn't actually using it.
A behavior intervention plan (BIP) has a specific legal trigger. Under California law, a formal BIP is only required when a student has a "serious behavior problem" — meaning behavior that is self-injurious, assaultive, causes serious property damage, or is so pervasive it cannot be controlled by the existing IEP. Inattention, occasional outbursts, and poor class behavior may not meet that threshold. If you believe your child needs behavioral support, ask the district to consider positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), which have a lower threshold than a formal BIP.