District Wins Most Claims But Owes $7,320 for Missing Speech Co-Therapy Hours

What Happened

Student was a nearly five-year-old child with severe autism who had significant deficits in communication and social development. He used very few words inconsistently, struggled with eye contact and attention, and could not learn incidentally by watching peers. He also had food allergies and self-stimulatory behaviors common to autism. Prior to the IEP at issue, Student had been receiving 40 hours per week of home-based Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy — 20 hours funded by the district and an additional 20 hours through the Regional Center — along with in-home speech-language services and occupational therapy. The parties had previously settled an earlier dispute in November 2007, and Student's home program continued under that settlement agreement until August 31, 2008.

In May 2008, the parents wrote to the district requesting an IEP meeting. That meeting was ultimately held on July 1, 2008, where the district proposed transitioning Student from his home ABA program into a district autism focus special day class (SDC). The parents rejected this placement and believed Student was not ready for any school-based setting. They filed a due process complaint in January 2009, raising 14 separate legal challenges to the district's IEP — covering everything from whether the district properly assessed Student, to whether the IEP meeting was conducted correctly, to whether the proposed placement was appropriate.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on 13 of the 14 issues raised by the parents. Key findings included: (1) no reassessment was required before the July 2008 IEP because Student was not yet due for his three-year review, no formal request for reassessment had been made, and the district already had ample information; (2) although the IEP meeting was held about two and a half weeks late, this procedural violation caused no harm because Student's home program continued unchanged under the settlement agreement; (3) the district did not predetermine Student's placement — the IEP team genuinely listened to and considered the parents' experts even though it ultimately disagreed with them; (4) the district's autism focus SDC was an appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment for Student's needs; and (5) the parents and their experts were given adequate opportunities to observe the proposed classroom.

However, the ALJ did find one FAPE violation: the district's July 2008 IEP failed to offer a third weekly hour of speech-language services in the form of "co-therapy" — a collaborative approach where the speech-language provider works alongside the ABA provider or classroom teacher to infuse more language into Student's daily program. The parents' independent speech-language expert, who had assessed Student twice, credibly testified that this third hour was necessary. The district's own NPA speech-language provider had also recommended it in writing. After the NPA provider stopped services in October 2008, the parents privately hired a replacement speech-language therapist who provided the two individual hours and the co-therapy hour each week.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was ordered to reimburse Student's parents $7,320.00 within 60 days for the cost of the private speech-language provider (Robin Jones-Brown) they hired between September 17, 2008 and April 17, 2009.
2. All other requests for relief — including compensatory education, tuition reimbursement for the home ABA program, and placement in a home-based program — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Even one missing service can be a FAPE violation worth reimbursement. Even though the district won on 13 out of 14 issues, the parents recovered over $7,000 because the district left one specific service — co-therapy — out of the IEP. If your child's private provider or independent evaluator recommends a specific service in writing, document it carefully and make sure it appears in the IEP offer.

2. A procedural violation only matters if it caused real harm. The district held the IEP meeting late and may not have had the ideal general education teacher present — but the ALJ found no FAPE denial because neither mistake actually hurt Student or blocked the parents from participating. When raising procedural complaints, be prepared to explain what concrete harm resulted.

3. Independent evaluators carry more weight when they show up and participate. Here, the parents' independent experts attended the IEP meeting, presented their findings, and participated in goal discussions. Their testimony at hearing was more persuasive than the district's witnesses on the co-therapy issue — and that made the difference. Make sure your evaluators are willing to attend IEP meetings and testify if needed.

4. Methodology disputes are hard to win without clear evidence of harm. The parents argued strongly for a continued home ABA program versus the district's classroom placement. The ALJ noted that Student had made only slow progress in the home program despite 40 hours per week of ABA, and that the district's SDC offered a less restrictive setting with peer interaction. When challenging a district's placement, be ready to show not just that you prefer a different program, but that the district's offer cannot provide meaningful educational benefit.