District Wins: No Promise Was Made to Place Student at Private School

What Happened

Student is an eleven-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of speech or language impairment. In the fall of 2006, the district invited Big Springs School — a certified non-public school in Riverside — to assess Student and participate in his IEP process. Big Springs concluded that Student was not yet ready for their program and recommended intensive one-on-one tutoring first, with a reevaluation at the end of the school year. Student's parents believed that through these discussions, the district had promised to place Student at Big Springs once he demonstrated readiness. When the district's formal IEP offer came on November 2, 2006, it was for a special day class at a district elementary school — not Big Springs. Parents rejected the offer.

By May 29, 2007, the Big Springs director attended the IEP meeting and stated that Student was now ready for the Big Springs program. Despite this, the district again offered a district school placement, this time adding a small general education component. Parents filed for due process, arguing the district had broken a promise made on October 24, 2006, and had predetermined the May 2007 placement without genuinely considering Big Springs.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on both issues.

On the question of whether the district had promised a Big Springs placement, the ALJ found that no formal written offer of placement at Big Springs was ever made. Under special education law, a district must make a clear, written offer of placement in the IEP document itself. The conversations at the October 24, 2006 IEP meeting — which included the Big Springs director — were discussions, not offers. Critically, even Student's own witnesses (the Big Springs director and Student's advocate) admitted under testimony that no placement offer was made that day. The IEP was not finalized until November 2, 2006, when the district's formal offer was for a district elementary school. The ALJ also noted that an IEP is not a contract — even if the district's behavior led parents to reasonably expect a Big Springs offer, that expectation does not create a legal obligation.

On predetermination, the ALJ found that the evidence did not support the claim. The May 29, 2007 IEP meeting lasted approximately three hours, with significant time spent discussing the Big Springs program's merits and how it might benefit Student. The Big Springs director participated fully and gave detailed input. One district coordinator had spoken with staff members beforehand, but only because those staff could not attend the meeting — not as part of a scheme to lock in a decision. The ALJ found no evidence of a district-wide policy against private placements, no pressure from district leadership to avoid Big Springs, and no attempt to silence the parents' advocate or the Big Springs director during the meeting.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied. The district prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Verbal discussions are not placement offers — get it in writing. Under the law, a district's placement offer only counts if it is formally written into the IEP document. No matter how many conversations happen at IEP meetings about a particular school or program, those discussions do not create a legal obligation unless a written offer appears in the IEP itself. If you believe the district is agreeing to a specific placement, ask for it to be written into the IEP before you leave the meeting.

2. An IEP is not a contract. Even if a parent reasonably expects the district to follow through on what was discussed, the district is not legally bound by expectations or informal understandings. Courts and ALJs will look only at what was formally offered in writing.

3. Predetermination requires more than just disagreeing with the district's choice. The fact that the district chose its own school over a private school is not, by itself, evidence of predetermination. To win a predetermination claim, parents generally need to show that the district refused to genuinely consider other options, stifled discussion, or had a policy against private placements. A long IEP meeting with real discussion can defeat a predetermination claim even if the district's final offer is not what parents wanted.

4. Parents do not have the right to choose the specific placement — only to participate meaningfully in the decision. The law gives parents the right to be part of the conversation, to ask questions, raise concerns, and have those concerns genuinely considered. It does not guarantee that the district will ultimately agree with the parent's preferred placement, even if outside experts strongly recommend it.