Fresno USD Predetermined Adult Placement for 20-Year-Old With Intellectual Disability

What Happened

Student was a 20-year-old woman with an intellectual disability caused by life-threatening seizures she experienced as a toddler. She also has an ongoing seizure disorder. For years she attended Duncan Polytechnical High School, where she participated in general education Regional Occupational Program (ROP) classes in agriculture, made academic progress, had friends, and socialized with non-disabled peers. In June 2010 she received a certificate of attendance rather than a diploma, but continued at Duncan for transition services. Parent believed the dual-attendance arrangement — mornings at Fresno City College's adult transition program (FCC-ATP) and afternoons in an ROP class at Duncan — was working well for her daughter and wanted it to continue through the end of the school year.

The District had other plans. Without a signed IEP, it disenrolled Student from Duncan at the start of fall 2011, insisting she belonged in a full-time adult transition program. After pressure from Parent and her attorneys, the District offered a temporary dual-attendance arrangement through December 23, 2011. At the December 12, 2011 IEP meeting, the District's administrator flatly refused to let the team discuss continuing that arrangement into spring 2012, declared "Duncan is not an offering," and told Parent that if she didn't register Student for the full FCC-ATP program — including a class designed for students with IQs under 50 — the only other option was a functional skills program at a separate site. Parent filed for due process on January 24, 2012. A stay-put order required the District to maintain the dual-attendance arrangement while the case proceeded.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found the District committed multiple procedural violations that denied Student a FAPE by stripping Parent of her right to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

Predetermination of placement. The District decided Student would be placed full-time in the FCC-ATP program before the December 2011 IEP meeting and refused to genuinely consider any alternative. The administrator cut off every attempt by Parent and her advocate to discuss continuing at Duncan, called the offer a "spring schedule 100%" package, and threatened that failure to accept it would result in placement at a program that hadn't even been discussed at the meeting. Presenting one option on a take-it-or-leave-it basis — without considering Student's individual needs — is predetermination under the law.

Failure to develop a real IEP before choosing a placement. The District had not conducted a comprehensive assessment of Student since 2002. Academic testing was last done in 2008. At IEP meetings, District staff could not describe Student's reading level in grade-level terms. Rather than first identifying Student's current needs and writing goals, the District chose a placement and said goals would be developed afterward — the exact reverse of what the law requires. The ALJ was clear: placement must follow from the IEP, not the other way around.

Failure to develop meaningful annual goals. The District recycled goals from the 2010-2011 school year with updated dates — including one goal Student had already met. It refused to write new goals unless Parent consented to District assessments, and told Parent that placement had to be decided before goals could be written. This is not how the IDEA works, and the District could not blame Parent's refusal to consent to assessment for its own failure to develop goals using the information it already had.

Blocking parental participation. Parent attended every IEP meeting, brought advocates and attorneys, submitted written concerns, and repeatedly asked for discussion of her daughter's academic progress and placement options. The District dismissed her concerns by email, misrepresented what occurred at meetings, changed Student's transportation schedule to prevent her from eating lunch with friends, and replaced her aide under disputed circumstances. The ALJ specifically found the District's key administrator, Ms. Kalpakoff, to be not credible due to inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and exaggeration — including misrepresenting what was said on an audio recording of the December meeting.

What Was Ordered

1. Within 60 days, the District must arrange, fund, and complete a comprehensive independent educational evaluation (IEE) of Student in all areas listed on the October 25, 2011 assessment plan. The evaluator must not be a full-time District employee and must be selected from the District's or SELPA's approved IEE provider lists.
2. Parent must make Student reasonably available for the assessment.
3. Within 60 days, the District must convene an IEP team meeting to present and discuss the independent assessment results.
4. At that IEP meeting, the independent assessor(s) must attend at District expense, and all of Student's current teachers who are District employees must be present. The District must use its best efforts to also bring any non-District teachers.

Student prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot decide placement first and write goals second. The law requires the IEP — including current performance levels, measurable annual goals, and needed services — to be developed before a placement is chosen. If a district tells you goals will be written "after enrollment," that is a red flag and a legal violation.

2. Parent refusal to consent to a district assessment does not excuse the district from its obligations. The ALJ was emphatic: the District had an affirmative duty to assess Student and develop a proper IEP regardless of whether Parent consented. If a parent won't consent, the district's legal remedy is to file for due process to override that refusal — not to stop developing an IEP or to blame the parent.

3. Cutting off discussion at an IEP meeting is predetermination. If a district representative refuses to let the team discuss placement alternatives you raise, states that a particular setting "is not an offering," or presents a package deal with consequences for non-acceptance, document it. Courts and ALJs treat this as a serious procedural violation.

4. A district cannot unilaterally remove a student from a placement without a signed IEP. The District disenrolled Student from Duncan without Parent's agreement. Parent's stay-put rights protected Student's last agreed-upon placement while the case was pending — a powerful tool parents should know about and exercise promptly.

5. Credibility matters. The ALJ gave significant weight to the fact that the District's administrator made statements inconsistent with an audio recording of the IEP meeting. If your district audio-records IEP meetings — or if you do — those recordings can be decisive evidence.