District's IEP Denied as FAPE for Student with Cerebral Palsy — No Accommodations Written In

San Jacinto Unified School District sought to transition a 10th-grade student with cerebral palsy from home-hospital instruction to two periods a day at a regular high school. Although the ALJ agreed that a general education campus was the least restrictive environment for the student, the District's December 3, 2007 IEP was found not to offer a Free Appropriate Public Education because it failed to include any written accommodations addressing the student's mobility, fatigue, handwriting difficulties, and auditory processing deficits. The District's request that the IEP be validated as a FAPE offer was denied, and the student prevailed.

What Happened

Student is a 10th-grade student with cerebral palsy who is eligible for special education under the categories of "other health impaired" and "orthopedically impaired." Student has limited mobility on his left side, walks with a limp, has very limited use of his left arm and hand, and has a history of seizures (controlled by medication for over two years at the time of the hearing). Since March 2005, Student had been receiving all of his education through home-hospital instruction — a one-on-one teacher coming to the home for about five hours a week. Student was making adequate academic progress under this arrangement.

The District believed it was time for Student to begin transitioning back to a regular high school campus. After conducting psychoeducational, occupational therapy, and speech-language assessments, the District held an IEP meeting on December 3, 2007. The District proposed that Student attend San Jacinto High School for two class periods per day while continuing home instruction, with the goal of full-time attendance the following school year. The District also offered weekly counseling to address Student's anxiety about returning to school. Parents refused to consent to the placement, citing serious safety concerns: Student's impaired mobility, small stature, and risk of being knocked over in a crowded hallway, along with fears about campus safety generally. The District filed for due process to have its IEP declared a valid FAPE offer.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the District was right that a general education campus is the least restrictive environment for Student — home-hospital instruction, while effective, isolates Student from peers and limits academic exposure. However, the ALJ ruled that the December 3, 2007 IEP itself was not a valid FAPE offer for three significant reasons.

No accommodations were written into the IEP. The District's own assessors and teachers identified clear, documented needs: Student needed extra time between classes, shorter writing assignments, additional breaks due to fatigue, and strategies to address his auditory processing deficits. The occupational therapy assessment recommended specific accommodations, and Student's home instructors had already been providing them informally. Despite discussing these accommodations at length during the IEP meeting, the District wrote none of them into the actual IEP document. An IEP that discusses supports but doesn't commit to them in writing doesn't give parents anything concrete to evaluate or accept.

The IEP didn't address Student's campus safety needs. The occupational therapy assessment only looked at Student's needs inside a classroom and said nothing about his ability to navigate a large, crowded high school campus. The teacher who knew Student best (and was familiar with the campus) was not even present during the portion of the IEP meeting where safety was discussed. The ALJ found that the District was required to address safety concerns tied to Student's qualifying disabilities — his cerebral palsy and orthopedic impairment — in the IEP itself.

The IEP didn't specify what type of classes Student would attend. The District's own psychoeducational assessor recommended that Student attend smaller classes to address his auditory processing weaknesses. The IEP team discussed this recommendation but the written IEP offer simply said Student would attend "two periods a day" without specifying whether those would be general education, resource, or special day classes. Without that information, Parents could not meaningfully evaluate whether the placement was appropriate for their child.

What Was Ordered

The District's request that the December 3, 2007 IEP be declared a valid offer of FAPE was denied.
Student was determined to be the prevailing party.
No specific compensatory services or monetary remedies were ordered — the ruling was limited to the question of whether the IEP was a legally sufficient offer.

Why This Matters for Parents

Talk is not enough — accommodations must be written into the IEP. Districts sometimes discuss supports at an IEP meeting without putting them in the document. This case makes clear that verbal discussions don't count. If an accommodation isn't written in the IEP, the district has not legally committed to providing it, and the IEP offer can be found insufficient.
Safety concerns tied to a student's disability must be addressed in writing. Parents raised legitimate concerns about how Student would physically navigate a busy campus. The ALJ confirmed that a school district must address safety issues connected to a student's qualifying disabilities — not just mention them in conversation, but actually plan for them in the IEP.
Districts must follow through on their own assessors' recommendations — or explain why they aren't. The District's psychologist recommended smaller classes; the occupational therapist recommended specific accommodations. The IEP addressed neither. When a district's own evaluator makes a recommendation and the IEP ignores it without explanation, that is a red flag parents can and should raise.
An IEP offer must be specific enough for parents to make a real decision. The law requires that IEPs be detailed enough for parents to understand what is actually being offered and decide whether to accept it. If the IEP leaves out key information — like what type of class a student will attend — it fails that standard, even if the district had good intentions.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District's request that the December 3, 2007 IEP be declared a valid offer of FAPE was denied.
Student was determined to be the prevailing party.
No specific compensatory services or monetary remedies were ordered — the ruling was limited to the question of whether the IEP was a legally sufficient offer.

Why This Matters for Parents

Talk is not enough — accommodations must be written into the IEP. Districts sometimes discuss supports at an IEP meeting without putting them in the document. This case makes clear that verbal discussions don't count. If an accommodation isn't written in the IEP, the district has not legally committed to providing it, and the IEP offer can be found insufficient.
Safety concerns tied to a student's disability must be addressed in writing. Parents raised legitimate concerns about how Student would physically navigate a busy campus. The ALJ confirmed that a school district must address safety issues connected to a student's qualifying disabilities — not just mention them in conversation, but actually plan for them in the IEP.
Districts must follow through on their own assessors' recommendations — or explain why they aren't. The District's psychologist recommended smaller classes; the occupational therapist recommended specific accommodations. The IEP addressed neither. When a district's own evaluator makes a recommendation and the IEP ignores it without explanation, that is a red flag parents can and should raise.
An IEP offer must be specific enough for parents to make a real decision. The law requires that IEPs be detailed enough for parents to understand what is actually being offered and decide whether to accept it. If the IEP leaves out key information — like what type of class a student will attend — it fails that standard, even if the district had good intentions.