LAUSD's Autism Placement at Leichman Upheld, But Door-to-Door Transport Required

What Happened

The Student is a 15-year-old with multiple disabilities resulting from congenital rubella syndrome. He has profound hearing loss in one ear and severe loss in the other, significant vision impairment, cognitive delays, ADHD, and autism-like behaviors — including spitting, throwing objects, self-injury, and stripping off his clothing. He was placed in a mild-to-moderate special day class (SDC) at his neighborhood middle school, accompanied by two full-time one-to-one aides: a sign language interpreter and a behaviorist. Despite this intensive support, Student was off-task 60 to 70 percent of the school day because his behavioral needs exceeded what the school's staff could manage. Sign language was his primary — and essentially only — means of communication; he had never intentionally spoken a word in years of school observation.

The District proposed moving Student to Leichman Special Day Center, a school serving approximately 200 students with disabilities, many with extreme behavioral needs, for the 2008-2009 school year. The Parent objected, arguing the 70-minute bus ride was unsafe given Student's unpredictable and frequent toileting needs, that the academic level at Leichman was too low, and that Student would be better served at Grant High School where he could be around non-disabled peers. The Parent also asked for direct speech therapy, communication software to help vocalization, a classroom FM system, a different itinerant teacher of the deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH), sensory integration occupational therapy (OT), and a functional behavioral assessment (FBA).

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled largely in favor of the District. The placement at Leichman was found appropriate: its highly structured program, experienced behavioral staff, classroom-adjacent restroom, and outdoor access were all well-matched to Student's unique needs. The ALJ found that Student was at a similar academic and behavioral level as other Leichman students — contrary to the Parent's belief that he was too high-functioning for the school.

However, the ALJ sided with the Parent on transportation. The proposed 70-minute bus ride with only two aides for eight students — and no reliable plan to escort Student to a restroom during the trip — was found to be inadequate. Requiring Student to wear an adult diaper on the bus was also rejected as inappropriate given that he is largely toilet-trained and had not worn diapers in years. The District was ordered to provide door-to-door transportation instead.

On the remaining services, the ALJ denied all of the Parent's requests. Speech therapy was rejected because Student had never produced intentional speech despite years of therapy using multiple methods, including custom computer software and vibro-tactile devices. The FM system and vocalization software were unnecessary because Student does not wear hearing aids and does not communicate vocally. The DHH itinerant teacher was found redundant given Student's full-time signing aide. Sensory integration OT was denied based on the conclusions of four separate occupational therapists — including two District assessors and one independent evaluator — who all found that Student's behaviors were not sensory-based. The FBA was ordered because the Parent requested it, no FBA had been done within the past year, and the current behavioral interventions were clearly not working.

What Was Ordered

1. Student shall be placed in the special day class for students with autism at Leichman for the 2008-2009 school year.
2. The District shall provide door-to-door transportation to and from Leichman. If the Parent chooses to drive Student herself, the District must reimburse her monthly for actual mileage at the IRS rate.
3. The District shall conduct a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) of Student no later than September 30, 2008.
4. All other requests — direct speech therapy, communication software, FM system, DHH teacher change, and sensory integration OT — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Transportation is part of FAPE, and a one-size-fits-all bus plan can violate it. The District's placement was legally sound, but its transportation plan was not. If your child has toileting, medical, or behavioral needs that make a long group bus ride unsafe or inappropriate, you can challenge the transportation plan separately from the placement itself. Door-to-door transport is a recognized remedy.

2. Outside evaluations carry less weight if they don't include school observation. The Parent submitted letters and evaluations from a physician and outside evaluators recommending speech therapy and sensory integration OT. The ALJ gave these little weight because the outside evaluators never observed Student in school and relied primarily on the Parent's own reports — which differed significantly from what school staff observed every day. When seeking outside evaluations, always have the evaluator visit the school and speak with school staff.

3. A district can discontinue a service if the student has not benefited from it after years of attempts. Student received speech therapy for years without any evidence of progress toward vocal communication. The ALJ found this was sufficient reason to end the service. If you believe your child still needs a service, document any signs of progress — however small — because the absence of measurable benefit will weigh heavily against continuing it.

4. Parents can request a functional behavioral assessment at any time, and the district must comply. When a parent formally requests an FBA, the district is legally required to conduct one unless an FBA was already done within the past year. If your child's behavioral supports are not working — as was clearly the case here — an FBA is a concrete, enforceable tool to demand a fresh look at what's driving the behavior and how to address it.