District Wins on Behavior Plan but Loses on IEP Goals and Transition Services

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old boy with a specific learning disability who returned to Capistrano Unified School District in eighth grade after attending private school for sixth and seventh grade. His primary academic deficit was in mathematics, and as the school year progressed, his teachers noticed increasing behavioral problems: not completing assignments, performing below his ability level, and seeking attention in disruptive ways. The District conducted a full triennial reassessment, developed a behavior support plan in March 2007, and held an IEP meeting in May 2007 to plan for his transition to San Juan Hills High School.

The District filed for due process to confirm that its behavior support plan and May 2007 IEP offered Student a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Parent's attorney made an opening statement and then left the hearing with Parent, presenting no witnesses or evidence. Despite this, the ALJ carefully reviewed the District's case on the merits. The two questions before the ALJ were: (1) Did the March 2007 behavior support plan appropriately address Student's behavioral needs? And (2) Did the May 2007 IEP offer Student a FAPE?

What the ALJ Found

On the behavior support plan — District prevailed. The school psychologist conducted a thorough assessment using multiple standardized tools, interviewed Parent, observed Student across settings, and gathered data from teachers. The plan correctly identified three behaviors that interfered with learning — inappropriately seeking attention, not completing schoolwork, and not turning in quality work — and proposed specific strategies to address each. The ALJ found this plan met Student's needs in the area of behavior.

On the May 2007 IEP — Student prevailed. The ALJ identified several significant problems with the IEP:

1. Unmeasurable behavior goals. The goal requiring Student to complete and turn in assignments 90% of the time lacked a clear baseline and did not specify which classes it applied to. The goal addressing how Student gets peers' attention also lacked a clear measurement standard. Without objective criteria, there is no way to know whether Student is making progress or whether staff are implementing the goal consistently.

2. Missing goal for quality work. The behavior support plan identified "performing quality work" as a key behavioral need, but the IEP included no goal addressing this area at all. Worse, the IEP did not even require that the behavior support plan be implemented — meaning the plan existed on paper but had no binding force.

3. Outdated and inadequate transition goals. The District included transition goals even though Student was not yet 16 (when they become legally required). Having chosen to include them, the District was then obligated to make them adequate. One goal — identifying a high school to attend — was already unnecessary because Student and Parent had already selected San Juan Hills. The self-advocacy and problem-solving goals were not based on accurate present levels of performance and were not objectively measurable.

The ALJ concluded that the May 2007 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit to Student in the areas of behavior and transition.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's March 26, 2007 behavior support plan was found appropriate — this claim was decided in the District's favor.
2. The District did not offer Student a FAPE in the May 30, 2007 IEP — this claim was decided in Student's favor.
3. No specific remedies (such as compensatory services) were ordered in this decision, as the District was the party that filed the complaint seeking confirmation of its program.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A behavior support plan that exists outside the IEP has no teeth. The ALJ found that even though the District had a solid behavior plan, the fact that it was not written into the IEP and not required to be implemented was a critical flaw. Parents should insist that any behavior support plan be explicitly incorporated into the IEP document itself.

2. IEP goals must say exactly how and where progress will be measured. Goals that say a student will do something "90% of the time" without specifying which classes or circumstances are considered unmeasurable. Parents can ask at every IEP meeting: "How will we know if this goal is being met, and who will track it?"

3. Every area of behavioral need identified in an assessment must have a corresponding IEP goal. The District's own assessment identified three behavioral needs, but the IEP only addressed two of them. If an evaluation finds a need, the IEP must address it — gaps between what assessments find and what the IEP targets are legally significant.

4. Once a district voluntarily includes transition goals in an IEP, those goals must meet legal standards. The District was not required to include transition planning for this student yet, but once it did, the ALJ held it to the same measurability and accuracy standards as any other IEP goal. Outdated or vague transition goals can be grounds for finding that an IEP denies FAPE.