Teen with Emotional Disturbance Gets Comp Ed for Unmeasurable IEP Goals and Flawed BSP

A Santa Cruz high school student with Emotional Disturbance and Asperger's Disorder challenged his IEP from 2009 through 2011, arguing that the District, County Office of Education, and County Mental Health Services failed to provide an appropriate education. The ALJ found that three annual goals were unmeasurable and that the student's Behavior Support Plan failed to address chronic absenteeism and tardiness. The District and County were ordered to provide 80 hours of academic instruction and 160 hours of behavioral intervention as compensatory education, while the student's request for placement in a residential treatment center was denied.

What Happened

Student was a teenager eligible for special education under the category of Emotional Disturbance, with diagnoses including ADHD, Asperger's Disorder, anxiety, and depressive disorder. He had a long history of school absenteeism, tardiness, and behavioral difficulties that dated back to middle school. Beginning in August 2009, Student transitioned to high school and was placed in a County-operated Emotional Disturbance (ED) program on the campus of Harbor High School, with mental health services provided by County Mental Health Services (CMH) under a state program called AB 3632.

Parent filed a due process complaint in June 2011, arguing that the District, County Office of Education, and CMH had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) over a two-year period. Parent contended that Student's IEP goals were inadequate, his Behavior Support Plan was ineffective, his mental health services were mishandled, and — most significantly — that Student should have been placed in a residential treatment center (RTC) rather than the day-program ED class. The District filed its own complaint seeking the right to assess Student without parental consent. The cases were consolidated and heard over multiple days in the summer and fall of 2011.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the District and County violated Student's right to a FAPE in two specific areas. First, three annual IEP goals were unmeasurable and inappropriate from December 2009 through May 2011. The written expression goal had no meaningful baseline — it simply noted that Student had "difficulty" completing written assignments — making it impossible to track whether he was making progress. Two additional goals addressing tardiness and school attendance also lacked measurable baselines and set an unrealistic 95% performance target from day one, without building in supports or gradual steps to help Student get there. These goals remained unchanged for a year and a half despite no evidence of progress, which the ALJ found was itself a red flag the IEP team should have acted on sooner.

Second, the Behavior Support Plan (BSP) offered in May 2010 was found to be inappropriate. It focused on serious negative behaviors Student had not displayed since middle school and ignored his continued pattern of chronic absences and late arrivals. Critically, the BSP included a point-reward system that was not motivating Student, and it contained no strategies for addressing the home-based factors — like staying up all night — that directly caused him to miss school. The ALJ found the BSP failed to support the very attendance and tardiness goals it was supposed to reinforce.

However, the ALJ rejected Parent's primary request: placement in a residential treatment center. Every professional who worked with Student — teachers, therapists, a psychiatrist, and a school psychologist — agreed he did not need residential care to receive educational benefit. Student actually made meaningful progress when he attended school, improved his behavior in the classroom, and performed well in an off-campus work program. The ALJ found that the behaviors driving the residential placement request were primarily happening at home, not at school, and that Parents had also declined multiple alternative service offers before the agencies escalated their support. A residential placement, the ALJ held, is a placement of last resort — and it was not warranted here.

The ALJ also ruled that the District had the right to conduct a psychological and behavioral assessment of Student even without Parent's consent.

What Was Ordered

The District and County must provide Student with 80 hours of individual academic instruction from a qualified, credentialed special education teacher as compensatory education for the unmeasurable written expression goal.
The District and County must provide Student with 160 hours of behavioral intervention services from a qualified behavior specialist — including direct services, supervision, consultation, and training — as compensatory education for the inadequate BSP and attendance/tardiness goals.
Both compensatory education awards must be completed by December 30, 2013, unless the parties agree in writing to extend the deadline.
The parties must exchange lists of proposed certified providers within 30 days.
The District may proceed with its April 2011 assessment plan, including a functional behavior assessment and psychological/social-emotional assessment, and Student must make himself available within 30 days.
All other requests for relief — including the residential treatment center placement and the 208 hours of individual and family therapy — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Unmeasurable goals are a real violation — not just a technicality. The law requires IEP goals to have a clear starting point (baseline) so progress can actually be tracked. If a goal just says your child has "difficulty" with something, that is not a legal baseline. Parents should ask at every IEP meeting: "How will we know if my child is making progress on this goal, and what is the starting point?"
When goals aren't working, the IEP team must revise them — not leave them unchanged for years. The ALJ specifically found that once the team saw Student making no progress, it had a legal duty to revisit and revise the goals. If your child's goals look the same year after year without results, that is a warning sign worth raising in writing.
A Behavior Support Plan must address the actual behaviors causing problems — not behaviors from years ago. The BSP here failed because it targeted old behaviors Student no longer showed and ignored the attendance and tardiness problems he actually had. A good BSP needs to be current, realistic, and connected to real supports — not just a point chart.
Residential placement is treated as a last resort, and home-based problems generally do not justify it. Courts and hearing officers consistently look at whether a student's problems are happening at school or at home. If your child functions reasonably well at school but struggles significantly at home, a school district is unlikely to be required to fund a residential treatment center. Documenting school-based educational harm — not just family stress — is critical to making that kind of claim.
Agencies that continue providing services even after funding law changes can still be held accountable. The ALJ found that CMH remained legally responsible for Student's mental health services during the period it continued to provide them and receive public funding — even when it argued that a change in state law had ended its obligations. Continuity of service matters, and public agencies cannot escape liability simply by pointing to budget shifts if they kept showing up.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ also ruled that the District had the right to conduct a psychological and behavioral assessment of Student even without Parent's consent.

What Was Ordered

The District and County must provide Student with 80 hours of individual academic instruction from a qualified, credentialed special education teacher as compensatory education for the unmeasurable written expression goal.
The District and County must provide Student with 160 hours of behavioral intervention services from a qualified behavior specialist — including direct services, supervision, consultation, and training — as compensatory education for the inadequate BSP and attendance/tardiness goals.
Both compensatory education awards must be completed by December 30, 2013, unless the parties agree in writing to extend the deadline.
The parties must exchange lists of proposed certified providers within 30 days.
The District may proceed with its April 2011 assessment plan, including a functional behavior assessment and psychological/social-emotional assessment, and Student must make himself available within 30 days.
All other requests for relief — including the residential treatment center placement and the 208 hours of individual and family therapy — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Unmeasurable goals are a real violation — not just a technicality. The law requires IEP goals to have a clear starting point (baseline) so progress can actually be tracked. If a goal just says your child has "difficulty" with something, that is not a legal baseline. Parents should ask at every IEP meeting: "How will we know if my child is making progress on this goal, and what is the starting point?"
When goals aren't working, the IEP team must revise them — not leave them unchanged for years. The ALJ specifically found that once the team saw Student making no progress, it had a legal duty to revisit and revise the goals. If your child's goals look the same year after year without results, that is a warning sign worth raising in writing.
A Behavior Support Plan must address the actual behaviors causing problems — not behaviors from years ago. The BSP here failed because it targeted old behaviors Student no longer showed and ignored the attendance and tardiness problems he actually had. A good BSP needs to be current, realistic, and connected to real supports — not just a point chart.
Residential placement is treated as a last resort, and home-based problems generally do not justify it. Courts and hearing officers consistently look at whether a student's problems are happening at school or at home. If your child functions reasonably well at school but struggles significantly at home, a school district is unlikely to be required to fund a residential treatment center. Documenting school-based educational harm — not just family stress — is critical to making that kind of claim.
Agencies that continue providing services even after funding law changes can still be held accountable. The ALJ found that CMH remained legally responsible for Student's mental health services during the period it continued to provide them and receive public funding — even when it argued that a change in state law had ended its obligations. Continuity of service matters, and public agencies cannot escape liability simply by pointing to budget shifts if they kept showing up.