SF Unified Failed to Assess Student for 7 Months, Denied FAPE — Ordered to Fund Private Placement

A San Francisco Unified School District student with ADHD, anxiety, and learning disabilities was denied a free appropriate public education after the District refused to assess him following a written parent request in August 2009, instead redirecting the family to the private school's host district. The District's eventual March 2010 IEP offer was also found to be fatally flawed — too vague to constitute a proper offer and based on inaccurate present levels of performance. The ALJ ordered the District to reimburse the family over $54,000 in private school tuition and to prospectively fund the student's placement at a private school for students with disabilities, including speech-language and occupational therapy services.

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old boy with multiple disabilities, including ADHD, anxiety, and learning disabilities. He had previously received preschool special education services from San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD or District) before his parents enrolled him in a series of private schools at their own expense. By the time Student was in fourth grade, he was attending the Charles Armstrong School — a private school specializing in language-based learning disabilities — at a cost of over $25,000 per year. Despite the specialized setting, Student continued to struggle academically and emotionally. His parents hired an independent neuropsychologist, Dr. Krantz, to evaluate him.

In August 2009, the Parents sent the District a written letter requesting a special education assessment and IEP. Instead of assessing Student, the District told the Parents to contact the Belmont-Redwood Shores School District — the district where Armstrong was physically located — because under federal "child find" rules, that district was responsible for identifying students in private schools within its boundaries. The Parents followed this direction, Belmont assessed Student and found him eligible, and the Parents then brought those results back to SFUSD in December 2009 and again requested an IEP. The District finally held an IEP meeting in March 2010 — seven months after the original request. The resulting IEP, however, was so vague and confusing that it failed to constitute a proper written offer of FAPE. After the IEP meeting, the District mailed a written document but never held another IEP meeting or corrected the problems. The Parents ultimately enrolled Student at Star Academy, another private school for students with disabilities, for the 2010-2011 school year.

What the District Did Wrong

Failure to assess after written parent request. When the Parents sent a written letter requesting a special education assessment in August 2009, the District was legally required under California law to prepare an assessment plan within 15 calendar days. Instead, it redirected the family to a different school district. The ALJ found this was a serious legal error: the "child find" rule the District relied on applies to children whose disabilities haven't yet been identified — not to children whose parents are actively knocking on the district's door asking for an IEP. The District of residence always retains the duty to assess when a parent makes a written request.

Defective IEP offer. The March 2010 IEP — which came seven months late — was found to be legally inadequate on its own terms. It was confusing about whether Student would attend general education classes, unclear about whether speech-language services would be individual or group, silent on whether services would begin immediately or only during summer ESY, and based on inaccurate present levels of performance. The District itself admitted its present levels were inaccurate. California and federal law require a "formal, specific" written offer of placement and services so that parents can make informed decisions. This IEP did not meet that standard.

Procedural roadblocks. Even after the Parents returned with the Belmont eligibility finding in December 2009, the District required them to formally enroll Student and provide two proofs of residence before it would schedule an IEP meeting — a requirement the District's own supervisor admitted was not legally permissible. The District had already received proof of residency twice. These bureaucratic delays compounded the denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse the Parents $54,847.68 within 60 days — covering Armstrong tuition ($22,720) for the second half of the 2009-2010 school year and Star Academy tuition already paid ($32,127.68) for the 2010-2011 school year.
The District must prospectively fund Student's placement at Star Academy, including full tuition for the regular school year and ESY, two individual and one group speech-language sessions per week, and one individual and one group occupational therapy session per week.
The District must provide or reimburse transportation to Star Academy at the District's standard reimbursement rate.
The prospective funding continues until: a new IEP is agreed to by the Parents; Student stops attending Star Academy; the family moves out of the District; or a new IEP is found appropriate after a hearing.
The District's reimbursement for the Krantz independent assessment was denied, because the Parents hired Dr. Krantz before even approaching the District — not in response to a District assessment they disagreed with.

Why This Matters for Parents

A written request for assessment triggers the District's legal duty — period. If you live in a district and send a written letter requesting a special education assessment, your district of residence must respond with an assessment plan within 15 days. It does not matter where your child attends school. The "child find" rules that apply to private schools in other districts are for finding children whose disabilities are unknown — they do not override your right to ask your home district to assess your child directly.
An IEP that is vague or confusing is not a legal offer of FAPE. The law requires the District to make a "formal, specific" written offer that clearly identifies placement, services, frequency, duration, location, and start date. If an IEP document is so unclear that parents cannot tell what is actually being offered, it may be legally invalid — even if the District held a meeting and signed a document.
Districts cannot require enrollment before holding an IEP meeting. As this case confirmed, a district cannot condition the scheduling of an IEP meeting on a parent first enrolling their child in the district's schools. If a district tells you this, it is not accurate.
Keep records of everything you send the District. In this case, the Parents provided the District with copies of independent assessments — but the District staff claimed never to have seen them before the IEP meeting. Deliver important documents in person, get a stamped receipt, and follow up in writing to confirm receipt.
Reimbursement for an independent evaluation requires the right timing. The ALJ denied reimbursement for the Krantz neuropsychological assessment because the Parents hired the evaluator before asking the District for help — not because the District refused or performed an inadequate assessment. If you want to seek reimbursement for a private evaluation, it matters whether you pursued it as a response to the District's failure or independently.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The District must reimburse the Parents $54,847.68 within 60 days — covering Armstrong tuition ($22,720) for the second half of the 2009-2010 school year and Star Academy tuition already paid ($32,127.68) for the 2010-2011 school year.
The District must prospectively fund Student's placement at Star Academy, including full tuition for the regular school year and ESY, two individual and one group speech-language sessions per week, and one individual and one group occupational therapy session per week.
The District must provide or reimburse transportation to Star Academy at the District's standard reimbursement rate.
The prospective funding continues until: a new IEP is agreed to by the Parents; Student stops attending Star Academy; the family moves out of the District; or a new IEP is found appropriate after a hearing.
The District's reimbursement for the Krantz independent assessment was denied, because the Parents hired Dr. Krantz before even approaching the District — not in response to a District assessment they disagreed with.

Why This Matters for Parents

A written request for assessment triggers the District's legal duty — period. If you live in a district and send a written letter requesting a special education assessment, your district of residence must respond with an assessment plan within 15 days. It does not matter where your child attends school. The "child find" rules that apply to private schools in other districts are for finding children whose disabilities are unknown — they do not override your right to ask your home district to assess your child directly.
An IEP that is vague or confusing is not a legal offer of FAPE. The law requires the District to make a "formal, specific" written offer that clearly identifies placement, services, frequency, duration, location, and start date. If an IEP document is so unclear that parents cannot tell what is actually being offered, it may be legally invalid — even if the District held a meeting and signed a document.
Districts cannot require enrollment before holding an IEP meeting. As this case confirmed, a district cannot condition the scheduling of an IEP meeting on a parent first enrolling their child in the district's schools. If a district tells you this, it is not accurate.
Keep records of everything you send the District. In this case, the Parents provided the District with copies of independent assessments — but the District staff claimed never to have seen them before the IEP meeting. Deliver important documents in person, get a stamped receipt, and follow up in writing to confirm receipt.
Reimbursement for an independent evaluation requires the right timing. The ALJ denied reimbursement for the Krantz neuropsychological assessment because the Parents hired the evaluator before asking the District for help — not because the District refused or performed an inadequate assessment. If you want to seek reimbursement for a private evaluation, it matters whether you pursued it as a response to the District's failure or independently.