District Wins Right to Move Aggressive Student to Alternative School for 45 Days

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old (now 16) with a diagnosis of emotional disturbance who attended a self-contained program called the "Plus Program" at his home high school. The Plus Program offered smaller class sizes, behavioral supports, a point-based self-regulation system, and a full-time counselor, while also allowing Student to attend two general education classes on the main campus. Despite these supports, Student's behavior had been escalating significantly over the three months leading up to the hearing, resulting in multiple suspensions, incidents of harassment, defiance of staff, and a near-physical altercation with a peer.

The District filed for an expedited due process hearing in February 2011, asking the ALJ to authorize moving Student to Chaparral High School — a smaller, more structured campus — as an interim alternative educational setting (IAES) for up to 45 school days. Parent and Student opposed the move, arguing the Plus Program was not being implemented correctly and that Chaparral was inappropriate. Student testified that he wanted to stay at his current school to play varsity basketball and take honors classes.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the District on both issues presented.

On the question of injury risk: The evidence showed a clear pattern of escalating and dangerous behavior over three months. Specific incidents included Student sexually harassing a staff aide, posturing aggressively toward a teacher as if to strike him, being involved in a near-physical fight with a peer, throwing objects at a classmate, climbing on a building roof and throwing rocks, refusing to leave campus after suspension (requiring a security officer), and returning to school with drug paraphernalia including a container with marijuana residue. Staff could not consistently locate Student on campus, which the ALJ identified as a safety issue in itself. Although Student disputed many of these incidents during his testimony, the ALJ credited the accounts provided by District staff. The ALJ concluded that Student's increasing aggression and defiance created conditions that were "substantially likely to result in injury to Student or others" — the legal standard required to authorize a placement change.

On the appropriateness of Chaparral: The ALJ found that Chaparral High School was an appropriate interim alternative placement. Chaparral is a small campus of approximately 300 students, with higher staff-to-student ratios, smaller class sizes, and more structured supervision than a comprehensive high school. Importantly, Student would not need to be in a separate program like the Plus Program at Chaparral — he could attend general education classes alongside his peers, which addressed one of Student's main complaints about his current placement. Chaparral also offered a contract-based learning system allowing Student to progress at his own pace, as well as student leadership opportunities. The ALJ found that Chaparral would allow Student to continue participating in the general education curriculum and work toward his IEP goals.

What Was Ordered

1. The District is authorized to change Student's placement to Chaparral High School for a period not to exceed 45 school days.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can move students with disabilities to an alternative placement without parent consent — but only under strict legal conditions. Federal law allows a school district to request this type of emergency placement change when it can show that keeping a student in their current placement is "substantially likely" to result in injury. This is a high bar, but repeated serious incidents over a short period — especially those involving aggression, defiance of staff, and near-physical altercations — can meet it.

2. The 45-day limit on an interim alternative placement is a real protection. The law caps these emergency placements at 45 school days. This is not a permanent change of placement. After the period ends, the IEP team must reconvene to determine the appropriate next steps, giving parents a structured opportunity to weigh in.

3. A student's genuine strengths and positive qualities do not automatically override safety concerns. Student and Parent presented compelling testimony about Student's intelligence, leadership qualities, church involvement, and community contributions. The ALJ acknowledged all of this — but still ruled that the safety risk was too significant to leave the current placement unchanged. Parents should understand that character evidence alone is unlikely to defeat a well-documented safety argument.

4. If you believe the current placement is failing your child, raise those concerns proactively through the IEP process — before a crisis occurs. Parent argued that the Plus Program was not properly implementing Student's behavior support plan. That may well have been true, but by the time the hearing occurred, the behavioral incidents had become severe enough to tip the balance toward the District. Requesting an IEP meeting, filing a compliance complaint, or requesting an independent evaluation earlier may create a stronger record in your favor.