District Escapes Compensatory Ed After Student Declined Offered Services

A 16-year-old student with a learning disability was suspended for 22 school days in 2005 and received virtually no special education services during that time, which the ALJ found was a procedural violation of the IDEA. However, on remand from federal court, the ALJ denied the student's request for compensatory education because the District had already provided a make-up program through an Interim Agreement and because the student had repeatedly declined similar services offered later. The District prevailed on the sole remanded issue.

What Happened

A 16-year-old student with a learning disability attended tenth grade at Mayfair High School in the Bellflower Unified School District. Her IEP placed her in a special day class for all academic subjects, general education for electives, and small group speech and language therapy once a week. In March 2005, the student was found with a knife and matches on campus and had started a small fire in a restroom. The District suspended her for five days, then extended the suspension while pursuing expulsion — a total of 22 school days away from school. During most of that period, the student received no organized special education instruction and only two of her four required speech and language sessions, both delivered in the final week of the suspension.

This case came before ALJ Pasewark a second time after a federal district court remanded it on a single question: was the student entitled to compensatory education for what happened during those 22 days? By the time of the remand hearing in 2009, the student was 21 years old, living in Wisconsin, and had completed a vocational training program. She had also repeatedly declined reading remediation, math support, and speech and language services offered to her by her Wisconsin school district and a vocational rehabilitation program.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ made the following key findings:

The District committed a procedural IDEA violation. Leaving the student with no organized special education instruction for 22 days — and providing speech and language services only in the last week and only partially — was a procedural violation that denied the student a FAPE. The principal's claimed practice of offering independent study was not actually followed in this case, and the informational packet for parents was never delivered.
The Interim Agreement already remediated the academic harm. Shortly after the suspension ended, the parties entered into an Interim Agreement that allowed the student to return to school under her existing IEP and make up all missed work with direct assistance from special education staff. The ALJ found this satisfied the District's obligation to provide the student with a "basic floor of opportunity" under the IDEA's FAPE standard.
Missing two speech sessions was a de minimis violation. Two missed group speech and language sessions, viewed in the context of the entire school year's services, did not rise to the level of a "material failure" to implement the IEP under the Ninth Circuit's standard in Van Duyn v. Baker School District.
The student's own choices broke the causal link. The student had been offered intensive reading programs, speech and language therapy, and math support by her Wisconsin school and a vocational rehabilitation program — and declined all of them. The ALJ found it would be inequitable to order Bellflower to now fund those same services.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for compensatory education and services resulting from her 22-day suspension in 2005 was denied in its entirety.
The District was declared the prevailing party on the sole remanded issue.

Why This Matters for Parents

A suspension over 10 days triggers strong IDEA protections — enforce them immediately. When a special education student is suspended for more than 10 consecutive school days, the district must continue providing educational services consistent with the student's IEP. If the district fails to do this, document the gap in writing right away and demand an IEP meeting.
Interim agreements and make-up work plans count as remedies. Courts and ALJs may treat a district's offer to let a student make up missed work with special education support as satisfying its FAPE obligation. If you sign such an agreement, make sure it fully addresses all missed services — not just coursework — including related services like speech and language therapy.
A student's refusal of later-offered services can reduce or eliminate compensatory awards. If a student turns down comparable services offered after a FAPE denial — even from a different provider — a hearing officer may treat that refusal as an equitable reason to reduce what the district owes. Encourage your child to participate in offered services, and document any legitimate reasons why they cannot.
Procedural violations don't automatically mean compensatory education. Even when a district clearly breaks the rules, compensatory education is an equitable remedy — not an automatic one. The relief awarded must be tailored to the actual educational harm suffered. Track your child's progress data before, during, and after any service gap so you can show concrete harm if you need to.
Act quickly — delays can hurt your case. This case took more than five years to fully resolve, during which time memories faded, the student aged out of eligibility, and her own choices became part of the legal calculus. Filing promptly, keeping detailed records, and pushing for interim relief early gives families the best chance of a meaningful remedy.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ made the following key findings:

The District committed a procedural IDEA violation. Leaving the student with no organized special education instruction for 22 days — and providing speech and language services only in the last week and only partially — was a procedural violation that denied the student a FAPE. The principal's claimed practice of offering independent study was not actually followed in this case, and the informational packet for parents was never delivered.
The Interim Agreement already remediated the academic harm. Shortly after the suspension ended, the parties entered into an Interim Agreement that allowed the student to return to school under her existing IEP and make up all missed work with direct assistance from special education staff. The ALJ found this satisfied the District's obligation to provide the student with a "basic floor of opportunity" under the IDEA's FAPE standard.
Missing two speech sessions was a de minimis violation. Two missed group speech and language sessions, viewed in the context of the entire school year's services, did not rise to the level of a "material failure" to implement the IEP under the Ninth Circuit's standard in Van Duyn v. Baker School District.
The student's own choices broke the causal link. The student had been offered intensive reading programs, speech and language therapy, and math support by her Wisconsin school and a vocational rehabilitation program — and declined all of them. The ALJ found it would be inequitable to order Bellflower to now fund those same services.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for compensatory education and services resulting from her 22-day suspension in 2005 was denied in its entirety.
The District was declared the prevailing party on the sole remanded issue.

Why This Matters for Parents

A suspension over 10 days triggers strong IDEA protections — enforce them immediately. When a special education student is suspended for more than 10 consecutive school days, the district must continue providing educational services consistent with the student's IEP. If the district fails to do this, document the gap in writing right away and demand an IEP meeting.
Interim agreements and make-up work plans count as remedies. Courts and ALJs may treat a district's offer to let a student make up missed work with special education support as satisfying its FAPE obligation. If you sign such an agreement, make sure it fully addresses all missed services — not just coursework — including related services like speech and language therapy.
A student's refusal of later-offered services can reduce or eliminate compensatory awards. If a student turns down comparable services offered after a FAPE denial — even from a different provider — a hearing officer may treat that refusal as an equitable reason to reduce what the district owes. Encourage your child to participate in offered services, and document any legitimate reasons why they cannot.
Procedural violations don't automatically mean compensatory education. Even when a district clearly breaks the rules, compensatory education is an equitable remedy — not an automatic one. The relief awarded must be tailored to the actual educational harm suffered. Track your child's progress data before, during, and after any service gap so you can show concrete harm if you need to.
Act quickly — delays can hurt your case. This case took more than five years to fully resolve, during which time memories faded, the student aged out of eligibility, and her own choices became part of the legal calculus. Filing promptly, keeping detailed records, and pushing for interim relief early gives families the best chance of a meaningful remedy.