Downey USD Must Reimburse $50,797 for NPS Tuition After Failing Autistic Student

A 13-year-old student with Asperger's Syndrome and autistic-like behaviors was denied a free appropriate public education by Downey Unified School District over multiple school years. The district failed to offer an appropriate placement, conduct timely assessments, provide a behavior assessment, or include adequate behavioral supports in the student's IEPs. The ALJ ordered the district to reimburse parents $50,797.12 in private school tuition for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years at Village Glen School.

What Happened

Student is a boy with Asperger's Syndrome and autistic-like behaviors who attended Downey Unified School District from kindergarten through fifth grade. Throughout his elementary years, Student struggled significantly — his grades declined, he was unable to complete assignments, he had no friends at school other than his twin brother, and he was repeatedly involved in physical altercations with other students. Despite multiple IEP meetings, UCLA evaluations recommending more intensive services, and a brief hospitalization in a UCLA partial hospitalization program that produced marked improvement, Student regressed each time he returned to the district's general education classroom. By fifth grade, Student was being suspended repeatedly and reportedly experienced suicidal ideations. Parents grew increasingly concerned that the district could not meet Student's needs. After the district's May 2008 IEP offered placement at a large middle school (East Middle School, with 1,400 students) that had no autism-specific classes or structured social skills program, Parents gave the district written notice and unilaterally enrolled Student in Village Glen School, a certified non-public school specializing in students with autism and social-communication deficits. Parents then filed for due process seeking tuition reimbursement and other relief.

The district argued its placements were appropriate and that any delays in assessment were caused by Parents' failure to cooperate. The ALJ disagreed on nearly every substantive issue, finding that the district had denied Student a FAPE across multiple school years through a combination of inadequate placements, missing behavioral supports, stale IEP goals, and a failure to conduct legally required assessments on time.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ identified multiple serious failures across the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years:

Inappropriate placement offer. The district's offer to place Student at East Middle School — a campus of 1,400 students with no autism-specific classes, no structured social skills program, and inconsistent RSP coverage — was not appropriate. Student had already been struggling and regressing in a much smaller elementary school. The district's own staff acknowledged there was no appropriate self-contained classroom option within the district, yet the district continued to offer a general education placement with RSP support that could not meet Student's severe social, emotional, and pragmatic language needs.
Failure to include behavioral supports. The district had previously assigned a one-to-one shadow aide to Student during unstructured times like recess and lunch because of his escalating aggression. However, the May 2008 and October 2008 IEPs did not offer to continue that aide as part of Student's transition to middle school. This omission was a procedural violation that denied Student a FAPE.
Inadequate IEP goals and present levels. Student's IEP goals had remained essentially unchanged for two consecutive years even though Student had not met any of them. The goals were disconnected from Student's actual present levels of performance, and the district failed to investigate or address the reasons for Student's persistent lack of progress.
Untimely triennial assessment. The district's triennial reassessment was due by February 2, 2009. It was not completed until approximately 11 months later, and the report was not issued until February 2010. The district made no reasonable effort to follow up after Parents did not return the June 2009 assessment plan.
Failure to conduct behavior assessment. The district proposed a behavior assessment through Vista Behavior Consultants in the May 2008 IEP but took almost no steps to make it happen. After Parents consented in September 2009, the district did not follow up with either Parents or Vista until January 2010 — and even then took no further action.
Failure to hold IEP within 60 days. After Parents signed the assessment plan in September 2009, the district was required to complete assessments and hold an IEP meeting within 60 days. The IEP was not held until June 2010 — nine months later.

What Was Ordered

The district is ordered to reimburse Parents $50,797.12 in tuition expenses incurred at Village Glen School for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
Parents' requests for mileage reimbursement were denied because sufficient documentation was not entered into evidence at hearing (transportation data was submitted only in closing argument).
Parents' request for $25,000 in counseling fees was denied because no documentary evidence was presented to support the amount.

Why This Matters for Parents

Placement at a large mainstream school is not automatically appropriate for students with severe autism-related needs. The ALJ found that East Middle School's large campus, inconsistent RSP coverage, and lack of a structured social skills program made it inappropriate for this student — even though the district argued it was the least restrictive environment. If your child has severe social-communication deficits, the district must show that its proposed placement can actually deliver the supports your child needs, not just that it is a general education setting.
A district cannot drop existing supports when transitioning a student to a new school. The district had provided a shadow aide during unstructured time because Student needed it — then simply omitted that support from the transition IEP. If a support is currently in place because your child needs it, the district must either continue it or explain in the IEP why it is no longer needed.
Districts must actively follow up on assessments — they cannot blame parents for delays they did not document. The law requires districts to make "reasonable efforts" to obtain parental consent and to document those efforts with phone logs, letters, and visit records. Here, the district made almost no documented effort to ensure the triennial and behavior assessments were completed on time. If the district proposes an assessment, make sure you receive a formal written assessment plan within 15 days, and keep records of all communications.
Tuition reimbursement for a private NPS placement can be awarded even when some parent requests are reduced. Parents here recovered more than $50,000 in tuition despite losing their claims for transportation and counseling fees. To protect a reimbursement claim, submit all financial documentation — canceled checks, receipts, and mileage logs — as evidence at hearing, not just in written closing arguments. Also remember to send the district a written 10-day notice before enrolling your child in a private placement.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ identified multiple serious failures across the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years:

Inappropriate placement offer. The district's offer to place Student at East Middle School — a campus of 1,400 students with no autism-specific classes, no structured social skills program, and inconsistent RSP coverage — was not appropriate. Student had already been struggling and regressing in a much smaller elementary school. The district's own staff acknowledged there was no appropriate self-contained classroom option within the district, yet the district continued to offer a general education placement with RSP support that could not meet Student's severe social, emotional, and pragmatic language needs.
Failure to include behavioral supports. The district had previously assigned a one-to-one shadow aide to Student during unstructured times like recess and lunch because of his escalating aggression. However, the May 2008 and October 2008 IEPs did not offer to continue that aide as part of Student's transition to middle school. This omission was a procedural violation that denied Student a FAPE.
Inadequate IEP goals and present levels. Student's IEP goals had remained essentially unchanged for two consecutive years even though Student had not met any of them. The goals were disconnected from Student's actual present levels of performance, and the district failed to investigate or address the reasons for Student's persistent lack of progress.
Untimely triennial assessment. The district's triennial reassessment was due by February 2, 2009. It was not completed until approximately 11 months later, and the report was not issued until February 2010. The district made no reasonable effort to follow up after Parents did not return the June 2009 assessment plan.
Failure to conduct behavior assessment. The district proposed a behavior assessment through Vista Behavior Consultants in the May 2008 IEP but took almost no steps to make it happen. After Parents consented in September 2009, the district did not follow up with either Parents or Vista until January 2010 — and even then took no further action.
Failure to hold IEP within 60 days. After Parents signed the assessment plan in September 2009, the district was required to complete assessments and hold an IEP meeting within 60 days. The IEP was not held until June 2010 — nine months later.

What Was Ordered

The district is ordered to reimburse Parents $50,797.12 in tuition expenses incurred at Village Glen School for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years.
Parents' requests for mileage reimbursement were denied because sufficient documentation was not entered into evidence at hearing (transportation data was submitted only in closing argument).
Parents' request for $25,000 in counseling fees was denied because no documentary evidence was presented to support the amount.

Why This Matters for Parents

Placement at a large mainstream school is not automatically appropriate for students with severe autism-related needs. The ALJ found that East Middle School's large campus, inconsistent RSP coverage, and lack of a structured social skills program made it inappropriate for this student — even though the district argued it was the least restrictive environment. If your child has severe social-communication deficits, the district must show that its proposed placement can actually deliver the supports your child needs, not just that it is a general education setting.
A district cannot drop existing supports when transitioning a student to a new school. The district had provided a shadow aide during unstructured time because Student needed it — then simply omitted that support from the transition IEP. If a support is currently in place because your child needs it, the district must either continue it or explain in the IEP why it is no longer needed.
Districts must actively follow up on assessments — they cannot blame parents for delays they did not document. The law requires districts to make "reasonable efforts" to obtain parental consent and to document those efforts with phone logs, letters, and visit records. Here, the district made almost no documented effort to ensure the triennial and behavior assessments were completed on time. If the district proposes an assessment, make sure you receive a formal written assessment plan within 15 days, and keep records of all communications.
Tuition reimbursement for a private NPS placement can be awarded even when some parent requests are reduced. Parents here recovered more than $50,000 in tuition despite losing their claims for transportation and counseling fees. To protect a reimbursement claim, submit all financial documentation — canceled checks, receipts, and mileage logs — as evidence at hearing, not just in written closing arguments. Also remember to send the district a written 10-day notice before enrolling your child in a private placement.