District's Two-Hour Physical Therapy Offer Upheld for Preschooler With Multiple Disabilities

What Happened

Student is a four-year-old girl with a chromosome 17 deletion, developmental delay, orthopedic impairment, and a history of epileptic seizures and organ failure as an infant. She had been receiving three hours per week of physical therapy through the Westside Regional Center (WRC), a state agency that supports people with developmental disabilities, in a home-based setting. Her seizures had been under medication control since mid-2007, and she was beginning to make progress toward independent walking using leg braces, a walker, and walking sticks.

At Student's June 2008 IEP meeting, the Los Angeles Unified School District offered placement in a special education preschool class for students with multiple disabilities, along with two hours per week of school-based physical therapy. Parent disagreed only with the amount of physical therapy, arguing that Student needed the same three hours per week she had been receiving from the regional center. The parties had already resolved disputes over speech-language and occupational therapy services before the hearing. The sole issue before the ALJ was whether two hours of weekly physical therapy in the school setting constituted a FAPE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district and denied all of the parent's requests. Several key findings explain why.

First, the district's physical therapist, who had ten years of experience in special education, explained that school-based physical therapy has a different purpose than regional center services. The district's job is to help Student access and benefit from her educational environment — things like moving around the classroom, using adapted seating, and walking on campus. The regional center's mission is broader, covering life skills and community functioning. These are legally distinct obligations, and the district is not required to replicate what a regional center provides.

Second, the independent physical therapist hired by Parent (Hicklin) actually recommended physical therapy twice per week — and the IEP minutes reflected that Hicklin recommended two hours total per week. This was consistent with the district's offer. The WRC therapist (Silver) recommended three hours, but the ALJ noted this was based on what Student had already been receiving from WRC, not on what was educationally necessary. The district's therapist testified credibly that two hours per week, combined with classroom staff also working on Student's ambulation goals, was sufficient to allow Student to make educational progress.

Third, Parent did not present evidence that the IEP goals themselves were inappropriate or that Student could not make progress toward those goals with two hours of therapy. The ALJ emphasized that the law does not require the best possible education or maximum potential — it requires a "basic floor of opportunity" with some meaningful educational benefit.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied in full.
2. The district was named the prevailing party on all issues presented.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. School districts and regional centers have different legal responsibilities. A district only has to provide physical therapy (or other related services) to the extent needed for your child to access and benefit from their education. If your child needs more intensive services for life skills, mobility in the community, or medical reasons, those needs may need to be addressed through a regional center or private services — not the school IEP.

2. Your own experts' recommendations can be used against you. In this case, the independent therapist hired by the parent recommended two hours per week — which matched the district's offer. Before an IEP meeting, make sure you understand exactly what your independent evaluator is recommending and ensure their report clearly states the amount of service time they believe is necessary.

3. The legal standard is "some educational benefit," not the maximum benefit. Districts are not required to provide the best program or replicate what a child receives in intensive home-based services. If you believe your child needs more than the district is offering, focus your evidence on showing why the district's offer will not allow your child to make meaningful educational progress — not just that more would be better.

4. Document what prior service levels were and why they were set. The WRC's three-hour recommendation was based on what Student had historically received, not on a specific school-based educational analysis. When advocating for a specific service level, connect the recommended hours directly to the child's educational goals and what it will take to achieve them in the school setting.