District Wins: Transition Program Placement and Assessments Upheld for Student with Down Syndrome

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District filed for due process after Parents refused to consent to a new IEP and demanded independent educational evaluations. The ALJ found that the District's 2009 assessments in occupational therapy, psychoeducation, speech and language, and transition were all appropriate, and that the March 2009 IEP offered the Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Parents' requests for IEEs at public expense and for placement at Wilson High School or home instruction were denied.

What Happened

Student is a 19-year-old young man with Down syndrome, eligible for special education under the categories of Mental Retardation and Speech and Language Impairment. His primary language is Spanish. He had been enrolled in a special day class (SDC) at Wilson High School, receiving related services including adaptive physical education, transportation, and speech and language therapy. The District attempted to conduct Student's triennial reassessment beginning in fall 2008, but Parents delayed the process for months before allowing assessments to proceed in January 2009. In March 2009, the IEP team — which included Parents, Student, teachers, specialists, and a Spanish language interpreter — met twice to review the assessment results and develop a new IEP.

The District's IEP team recommended that Student, who was then 19 years old with low cognitive ability and limited adaptive skills, transition from Wilson High School to a specialized adult transition program focused on functional living skills, vocational training, and community participation. Parents disagreed with both the assessments and the proposed placement. They requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense in the areas of occupational therapy, psychoeducation, speech and language, and transition. They also wanted Student either returned to the Wilson High School SDC or placed on home instruction. When Parents refused to consent to the IEP, the District filed for due process to defend its assessments and IEP offer.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District on all issues. Regarding the assessments, the ALJ found that each evaluation was conducted by a qualified and credentialed professional familiar with Down syndrome. The speech and language pathologist administered multiple standardized assessments using a Spanish interpreter, the school psychologists used validated tools including the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and the Leiter nonverbal intelligence test, the occupational therapist conducted her evaluation in Spanish, and the transition SDC teacher used an appropriate vocational and functional skills tool. All assessors followed their respective test manuals and used a variety of measures — not just a single intelligence score — to capture Student's functional abilities across different settings. Because the assessments were found appropriate, Student was not entitled to IEEs at public expense.

Regarding the IEP, the ALJ found that the March 2009 IEP offered Student a meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive environment. The IEP included measurable goals across academics, communication, motor skills, behavior, and vocational readiness, along with a behavior support plan and a transition plan. The speech and language pathologist's uncontested testimony established that Student had reached the limits of his verbal abilities due to physical oral motor limitations combined with his cognitive profile, making consultative speech therapy — rather than direct therapy — appropriate. The transition program was found to be the correct placement because it offered age-appropriate peers, vocational training, community outings, and functional skills development that could not be replicated in the Wilson High School SDC or through home instruction. The ALJ emphasized that a district is not required to place a student in the program preferred by Parents, only one that is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

What Was Ordered

The January 2009 assessments in occupational therapy, psychoeducation, speech and language, and transition were found appropriate. Student is not entitled to IEEs at public expense in those areas.
The March 13 and March 17, 2009 IEP was found to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Student's requests for relief — including IEEs and return to Wilson High School SDC or home instruction — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

When a district files for due process to defend its assessments, it carries the burden of proof. In this case, the District had to show its evaluations were appropriate — not the Parents. Understanding who bears the burden matters, because it shapes what evidence each side must present.
Delaying or refusing to make your child available for assessments can seriously hurt your case. Here, Parents consented to the assessment plan but then refused to make Student available for months. This contributed to a factual record that favored the District. If you have concerns about an assessment plan, raise them in writing — don't simply withhold access.
A district only has to show its IEP provides "some" educational benefit, not the best possible program. The law does not require districts to maximize a student's potential or place them in the program Parents prefer. If you believe another placement would be better, gather independent expert evidence early and participate actively at IEP meetings.
For older students, the IEP must include a meaningful transition plan focused on post-school life. Once a student turns 16, the IEP must address transition to adult living, employment, and community participation. In this case, the transition program was upheld precisely because it addressed those real-world skills. Parents who want a different transition placement should document why the district's offer fails to meet their child's specific transition goals.
If you disagree with a district assessment, you have the right to request an IEE — but the district can challenge that request at a hearing. If the ALJ finds the district's assessment was appropriate, the district does not have to pay for an independent evaluation. Consider consulting with an independent specialist before or during the IEP process so you have your own evidence ready.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The January 2009 assessments in occupational therapy, psychoeducation, speech and language, and transition were found appropriate. Student is not entitled to IEEs at public expense in those areas.
The March 13 and March 17, 2009 IEP was found to offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Student's requests for relief — including IEEs and return to Wilson High School SDC or home instruction — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

When a district files for due process to defend its assessments, it carries the burden of proof. In this case, the District had to show its evaluations were appropriate — not the Parents. Understanding who bears the burden matters, because it shapes what evidence each side must present.
Delaying or refusing to make your child available for assessments can seriously hurt your case. Here, Parents consented to the assessment plan but then refused to make Student available for months. This contributed to a factual record that favored the District. If you have concerns about an assessment plan, raise them in writing — don't simply withhold access.
A district only has to show its IEP provides "some" educational benefit, not the best possible program. The law does not require districts to maximize a student's potential or place them in the program Parents prefer. If you believe another placement would be better, gather independent expert evidence early and participate actively at IEP meetings.
For older students, the IEP must include a meaningful transition plan focused on post-school life. Once a student turns 16, the IEP must address transition to adult living, employment, and community participation. In this case, the transition program was upheld precisely because it addressed those real-world skills. Parents who want a different transition placement should document why the district's offer fails to meet their child's specific transition goals.
If you disagree with a district assessment, you have the right to request an IEE — but the district can challenge that request at a hearing. If the ALJ finds the district's assessment was appropriate, the district does not have to pay for an independent evaluation. Consider consulting with an independent specialist before or during the IEP process so you have your own evidence ready.