District Wins: NPS Placement Upheld for Student with Emotional Disturbance at LA High School

A parent challenged Los Angeles Unified School District's recommendation to place her 17-year-old son, who has emotional disturbance, at a therapeutic nonpublic school (NPS) instead of allowing him to remain at his neighborhood comprehensive high school. The ALJ found that the district's offer of placement at Kayne Eras Center was appropriate and constituted FAPE in the least restrictive environment, given the student's escalating behavioral history and failure to benefit academically from less restrictive settings. All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old with a complex special education history. He was first found eligible for special education at age six under speech and language impairment, later also qualified as having a specific learning disability, and by seventh grade was reclassified as having an emotional disturbance (ED). Over the years, his behavior became increasingly aggressive and unpredictable — he fought with peers and staff, refused to follow directions, left classrooms without permission, and accumulated a significant record of suspensions, tardies, and absences. Despite average cognitive abilities, his grades reflected mostly D's and F's, and he had not passed the California High School Exit Exam. Multiple interventions were tried, including one-to-one aides, behavior support plans, SDC placements, counseling (which Student refused to engage in), and a stint at a Community Day School — where his behavior deteriorated so severely within four weeks that the school said it could not meet his needs.

By May 2009, the IEP team recommended placement at Kayne Eras Center, a therapeutic nonpublic school (NPS). Mother disagreed, wanting Student to remain at Hamilton High School so he could graduate with his friends, potentially play football, and stay close to home. Student filed for due process, arguing that the SDC class at Hamilton was the least restrictive environment (LRE) for him and that the district's NPS recommendation denied him FAPE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding that the May 13, 2009 IEP offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. The central legal question was not whether a general education classroom was appropriate — both sides agreed it was not — but rather where on the continuum of placement options Student could actually receive educational benefit.

The ALJ applied the framework from Sacramento City Unified School District v. Rachel H., weighing the educational and non-academic benefits of less restrictive settings, the effect of Student's behavior on others, and the costs of maintaining him in those settings. The evidence showed that Hamilton, despite years of effort, had exhausted every available tool: counseling, BSPs, aides, a CDS placement, and repeated IEP revisions. Student continued to miss classes, escalate behaviorally, fail academically, and refuse available mental health services. Multiple credible staff witnesses — the school psychologist, counselors, special education teachers, and the dean of students — all testified that Hamilton lacked the intensive, embedded therapeutic supports Student needed throughout his school day.

The ALJ found that any social benefit Student might gain from staying at Hamilton — remaining with friends or pursuing football — was "vastly outweighed by the seriousness of his behaviors and the lack of academic progress." The NPS at Kayne Eras, with its smaller campus, embedded behavioral supports, and therapeutic curriculum, was found to be the LRE for this particular student at this particular point in time.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No compensatory education, placement changes, or other remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's placement recommendation carries more weight when it has documented a history of trying less restrictive options first. LAUSD was able to show a detailed record of placements, supports, and interventions that had all been attempted before recommending an NPS. If a district jumps to restrictive placement without trying supports first, the legal outcome may be very different.
Refusing mental health or counseling services can undermine your child's case. Student was offered DMH counseling multiple times and refused to participate. The ALJ noted this as a factor in finding that the district had offered appropriate services that the student simply did not access.
Social benefits like staying with friends or participating in sports are real but legally limited. The ALJ acknowledged Student's desire to graduate with neighbors and potentially play football. However, under IDEA, these non-academic benefits must be weighed against a student's ability to actually access and benefit from their education — and here the behavioral evidence was overwhelming.
Parents have the burden of proof in due process hearings. Under Schaffer v. Weast, the party who files for due process must prove their case. Here, that was the student and parent. This means if you file for due process, you need evidence — not just a preference — to show the district's offer was inappropriate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The district prevailed on all issues.
No compensatory education, placement changes, or other remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's placement recommendation carries more weight when it has documented a history of trying less restrictive options first. LAUSD was able to show a detailed record of placements, supports, and interventions that had all been attempted before recommending an NPS. If a district jumps to restrictive placement without trying supports first, the legal outcome may be very different.
Refusing mental health or counseling services can undermine your child's case. Student was offered DMH counseling multiple times and refused to participate. The ALJ noted this as a factor in finding that the district had offered appropriate services that the student simply did not access.
Social benefits like staying with friends or participating in sports are real but legally limited. The ALJ acknowledged Student's desire to graduate with neighbors and potentially play football. However, under IDEA, these non-academic benefits must be weighed against a student's ability to actually access and benefit from their education — and here the behavioral evidence was overwhelming.
Parents have the burden of proof in due process hearings. Under Schaffer v. Weast, the party who files for due process must prove their case. Here, that was the student and parent. This means if you file for due process, you need evidence — not just a preference — to show the district's offer was inappropriate.