District Wins: Iranian Immigrant Student with ADHD Must Remain in Special Education

Parents of an 11-year-old Iranian immigrant student with ADHD sought to exit him from special education, arguing his placement in an emotionally disturbed special day class was based on cultural misunderstandings. The ALJ found that three separate IEP teams had correctly identified the student as eligible under the Other Health Impaired category, and that his severe behavioral difficulties stemmed from his disability, not cultural differences. The student's claims for compensatory education and general education placement were denied, and the district prevailed on all issues.

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy who immigrated to the United States from Iran in 2005. Shortly after enrolling in the District, he began displaying significant behavioral difficulties at school — shouting, pushing peers, using inappropriate language, and refusing to follow adult directions. After an initial period of attempted accommodations in general education, the District assessed Student and, in June 2006, found him eligible for special education under the category of Other Health Impaired (OHI) based on a diagnosis of ADHD. He was placed in a small special day class designed for students with significant behavioral challenges (referred to as an ED/SDC). Over the following two school years, Student continued to display aggressive, impulsive, and defiant behaviors, including physical altercations, gang-related conduct, and extreme disruption in general education settings.

Parents, who are Farsi-speaking and were assisted by interpreters throughout the process, believed their son did not belong in special education. They argued that his behaviors were the result of cultural misunderstandings by school staff, that the District had promised them they could withdraw him from special education at any time, and that the District had failed to provide promised one-on-one support. Parents sought to have Student exited from special education entirely and placed in a general education classroom. They also requested compensatory education and an independent educational evaluation (IEE). Student filed for due process in August 2007, and the hearing was held over five days in early 2008.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied all of Student's claims and found that the District prevailed on every issue. Three separate IEP teams — at three different schools — had each independently determined that Student was eligible for special education as a student with OHI, and that a small, structured special day class was his appropriate placement. The ALJ found this consistent and well-documented record persuasive, particularly given testimony from Student's general education math teacher and two assistant principals who had direct experience with his behavior.

The ALJ rejected Parents' argument that Student's conduct was rooted in cultural misunderstanding. The evidence showed that Student's behaviors — including physically throwing another student to the ground, bringing a laser and pointing it at a teacher's eye, writing gang signs, and having explosive outbursts up to four times per day — were symptoms of his disability, not cultural norms. These behaviors persisted despite two years of counseling, a behavioral support plan, private therapy, and medication.

The ALJ also rejected the request for an IEE. Because Parents presented no evidence challenging the validity of the District's assessments — and no alternative assessment of their own — there was no legal basis for ordering one. The Kaiser social worker who wrote a letter recommending general education placement admitted at hearing that he had never visited Student's school, never spoken with his teachers, and had written the letter only because Parents asked him to. The ALJ found his opinion lacked the factual foundation needed to be persuasive. On the question of whether Parents could unilaterally withdraw Student from special education, the ALJ clarified that under California law at the time of the decision, parents cannot simply pull a child out of special education — that decision belongs to the IEP team, and a reassessment is required.

What Was Ordered

Student's claim for relief was denied in its entirety.
Student was not exited from special education.
No compensatory education was awarded.
No IEE was ordered (though the ALJ noted Parents remained free to request one from the District through the standard process).
The District prevailed on all issues decided in this case.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot unilaterally withdraw your child from special education. Under California law, once a child is receiving special education services, a parent's decision to revoke consent does not automatically remove the child from the program. The IEP team — not the parent alone — determines eligibility. If you believe your child no longer needs special education, the right path is to request a reassessment and make that case through the IEP process.
Verbal promises made outside of the IEP document generally cannot be enforced. Parents in this case claimed the District promised them a one-on-one aide and told them they could exit Student from special education at any time. Because none of this appeared in the written IEP, the ALJ gave it no weight. Always insist that any commitment the District makes — about aides, services, or your rights — is written into the IEP itself.
An outside professional's recommendation carries little weight without school-based knowledge. The Kaiser social worker's letter recommending general education placement was dismissed because he had never visited the school, spoken with teachers, or attended an IEP meeting. If you are bringing in a private provider to support your position, make sure they have direct knowledge of your child's school environment before offering an opinion.
To challenge your child's special education eligibility, you need evidence — not just disagreement. Parents argued strongly that Student did not belong in special education, but they presented no competing assessment, no expert with school-based knowledge, and no evidence undermining the District's evaluations. If you believe your child was incorrectly found eligible, request an IEE and bring in qualified professionals who can review the actual assessments and school records.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's claim for relief was denied in its entirety.
Student was not exited from special education.
No compensatory education was awarded.
No IEE was ordered (though the ALJ noted Parents remained free to request one from the District through the standard process).
The District prevailed on all issues decided in this case.

Why This Matters for Parents

You cannot unilaterally withdraw your child from special education. Under California law, once a child is receiving special education services, a parent's decision to revoke consent does not automatically remove the child from the program. The IEP team — not the parent alone — determines eligibility. If you believe your child no longer needs special education, the right path is to request a reassessment and make that case through the IEP process.
Verbal promises made outside of the IEP document generally cannot be enforced. Parents in this case claimed the District promised them a one-on-one aide and told them they could exit Student from special education at any time. Because none of this appeared in the written IEP, the ALJ gave it no weight. Always insist that any commitment the District makes — about aides, services, or your rights — is written into the IEP itself.
An outside professional's recommendation carries little weight without school-based knowledge. The Kaiser social worker's letter recommending general education placement was dismissed because he had never visited the school, spoken with teachers, or attended an IEP meeting. If you are bringing in a private provider to support your position, make sure they have direct knowledge of your child's school environment before offering an opinion.
To challenge your child's special education eligibility, you need evidence — not just disagreement. Parents argued strongly that Student did not belong in special education, but they presented no competing assessment, no expert with school-based knowledge, and no evidence undermining the District's evaluations. If you believe your child was incorrectly found eligible, request an IEE and bring in qualified professionals who can review the actual assessments and school records.