District Failed to Track Student Progress for Autistic Boy, But Dog Denied as FAPE Service

A 13-year-old student with autism and Asperger's diagnosis attended Bakersfield City School District. The district was found to have denied FAPE for multiple school years by failing to track Student's behavioral progress as required by his IEPs, and by operating without measurable goals for much of 2007-2008. However, the district prevailed on its refusal to allow Student's trained dog, Thor, on campus, and the ALJ found home-based independent study was the parents' choice, not a district-imposed placement. The district was ordered to revise Student's BIP and provide 12 months of compensatory social skills training.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old boy diagnosed with Autistic Disorder (originally diagnosed as Asperger's Syndrome) and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from two incidents of sexual molestation. His primary educational needs throughout his school career were in behavior, pragmatic speech, and social skills. He struggled with refusing to complete work, making disruptive noises, and inappropriately touching peers. He had IEPs and a Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) in place throughout the years in question, and the district provided services including speech therapy, social skills training, and a one-to-one aide.

The conflict escalated in April 2007 when Student's parents purchased a trained German Shepherd named Thor from the DogWish Foundation, believing the dog would calm Student and help him focus. After three days attending school with Thor, district administrators banned the dog from campus over safety concerns. Student's parents refused to send Student to school without Thor, and Student spent the entire 2007-2008 school year at home on independent study. Parents filed for due process in July 2008, arguing the district had failed to address Student's behavioral needs across three school years and that Thor was a necessary support for Student to receive an appropriate education.

What the District Did Wrong

Failure to track progress (2006-2007): Although Student's IEPs contained specific, measurable goals — for example, that Student would respond appropriately to abstract comments 75% of the time — district staff never actually tracked whether Student met those benchmarks. Staff observed that Student made "some progress," but no one kept data on how often Student used replacement behaviors versus problem behaviors. One staff member unilaterally decided to skip an entire IEP goal (the "power card" goal) without documentation, data, or requesting an IEP team meeting. The ALJ found this was a material failure to implement the IEP, denying Student FAPE.

No measurable goals for most of 2007-2008: Student's IEP goal from January 2007 had a target date of October 2007. When that date passed, the district's subsequent IEPs for 2007-2008 contained no new goals at all — even though Student still had the same behavioral needs. The district admitted that independent study was a "stop-gap" measure not designed to deliver substantive FAPE. Student also received no services whatsoever from August 20 through September 19, 2007. The ALJ found Student received nothing more than de minimis educational benefit during this period.

Inadequate IEP offer for 2008-2009: Two of the five social skills goals in the proposed 2008-2009 IEP lacked any benchmarks or objectives. One goal targeted a skill Student had already mastered years earlier. Without measurable objectives, neither parents nor service providers had any basis to determine whether Student was making progress.

What Was Ordered

Within 45 days, the district must revise Student's BIP to address his current behavioral needs.
Within 45 days, the district must begin providing Student with one hour per week of additional social skills training, continuing for 12 months (compensatory education).

The district prevailed on the question of Thor — Student was not entitled to bring his dog to school as part of his FAPE. The district also prevailed on the LRE claim, because it was the parents' decision to keep Student home, not the district's.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's IEP must include measurable goals — and the district must actually measure them. It is not enough for staff to say they observed progress. If the IEP specifies percentages or frequency benchmarks, the district is legally required to collect data and report on those numbers. If they don't, that failure can rise to the level of a FAPE denial.
An IEP goal that staff quietly abandon is still a violation. In this case, a staff member decided on her own that a goal was unnecessary and simply stopped working on it. The ALJ found this was a denial of FAPE. If you suspect a goal is being ignored, ask for written documentation of why — or request an IEP team meeting to address it officially.
Your child must have active, goal-directed services at all times. When Student's goal expired in October 2007, the district kept providing services but never wrote new goals. The ALJ found those goalless services were essentially meaningless. Push back immediately if your child's IEP lapses without a new annual plan, or if services continue without a written goal to drive them.
If you keep your child home due to a disagreement with the district, courts and ALJs may hold that against you on the LRE claim. Here, the district continued to offer a general education classroom. Because the parents chose to keep Student home over the Thor dispute, the ALJ ruled that the restrictive home environment was not the district's doing. Disagreements about services should be challenged through the IEP process or due process, not by withdrawing your child from school.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Within 45 days, the district must revise Student's BIP to address his current behavioral needs.
Within 45 days, the district must begin providing Student with one hour per week of additional social skills training, continuing for 12 months (compensatory education).

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child's IEP must include measurable goals — and the district must actually measure them. It is not enough for staff to say they observed progress. If the IEP specifies percentages or frequency benchmarks, the district is legally required to collect data and report on those numbers. If they don't, that failure can rise to the level of a FAPE denial.
An IEP goal that staff quietly abandon is still a violation. In this case, a staff member decided on her own that a goal was unnecessary and simply stopped working on it. The ALJ found this was a denial of FAPE. If you suspect a goal is being ignored, ask for written documentation of why — or request an IEP team meeting to address it officially.
Your child must have active, goal-directed services at all times. When Student's goal expired in October 2007, the district kept providing services but never wrote new goals. The ALJ found those goalless services were essentially meaningless. Push back immediately if your child's IEP lapses without a new annual plan, or if services continue without a written goal to drive them.
If you keep your child home due to a disagreement with the district, courts and ALJs may hold that against you on the LRE claim. Here, the district continued to offer a general education classroom. Because the parents chose to keep Student home over the Thor dispute, the ALJ ruled that the restrictive home environment was not the district's doing. Disagreements about services should be challenged through the IEP process or due process, not by withdrawing your child from school.