Charter School Failed Student with Asperger's and Severe Anxiety: $25K in Reimbursement Ordered

What Happened

A 19-year-old student with Asperger's Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, selective mutism, Major Depressive Disorder, and a specific learning disability attended High Tech High (HTH), a project-based learning charter high school in San Diego. Though she had average to above-average intelligence and had done well academically in earlier grades, her anxiety worsened significantly during high school. By her junior year she was missing more than a third of school days, receiving failing grades for the first time, and eventually became unable to leave her mother's car when driven to school. Her communication deteriorated to the point that she could not initiate conversations with family members, teachers, or peers. Despite clear warning signs at an IEP meeting in February 2010 — where staff openly acknowledged that the project-based learning model may have been making her anxiety worse — the district took no meaningful action to assess or address her mental health or communication needs.

The district had been providing speech-language (S/L) services since at least December 2008 without ever conducting a speech-language assessment. At an October 2010 IEP meeting, the district's only offer was a homebound instruction program consisting primarily of an online math course taught by a college-student tutor — a placement multiple experts testified would reinforce the student's school avoidance rather than treat it. Parents rejected the IEP and, beginning in February 2011, enrolled their daughter at The Balboa School, a certified nonpublic school with a therapeutic, structured environment. At Balboa, the student received on-campus counseling, made the honor roll, and graduated with a high school diploma. Parents filed for due process in February 2012.

What the District Did Wrong

1. Failed to assess or refer Student for a mental health evaluation despite knowing about her severe anxiety. By February 2010, district staff openly acknowledged that the student's panic attacks, absences, and failing grades were caused by an anxiety disorder. Staff members knew how to make mental health referrals and had done so for other students. Yet no one referred the student for a mental health assessment or offered any counseling or therapeutic services through the IEP. This failure denied the student both procedurally and substantively a FAPE.

2. Provided speech-language services for years without ever conducting a speech-language assessment. Beginning with the December 2008 IEP, the district included S/L goals and services in the student's IEP — but never assessed her in this area. The 2007 initial assessment contained no speech-language component. The district's own SLP admitted she had never assessed the student. California law requires that a student be assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability before related services are provided. Because the S/L services were not based on any individual assessment, they were arbitrarily formulated and failed to address the student's actual communication needs, which worsened over time.

3. Provided S/L services with goals that were never updated and were not measurable. The district repeated the same S/L goal across three consecutive IEPs even though the student showed no progress. The district's own SLP testified that repeating identical goals year after year generally signals that a student is not progressing — yet no one investigated why or adjusted the goals. The IEP also failed to include the SLP at the October 2010 meeting, depriving parents of information they needed to participate meaningfully in developing their daughter's program.

4. Offered an inappropriate homebound placement at the October 2010 IEP. The district's only offer was an online math course with a college-student tutor, accessible from home. Multiple experts — including the student's treating psychologist — testified that homebound placement would reinforce the student's school phobia rather than address it. The placement also violated California regulations requiring a physician's or psychologist's written statement certifying the need for home instruction and a projected return date, neither of which the district obtained. The IEP simultaneously listed the student as receiving 100% of her education in general education, which was impossible under the homebound arrangement. The IEP offer was vague, internally inconsistent, and impossible to enforce.

5. Failed to address anxiety, social-emotional needs, or school avoidance in the October 2010 IEP. Despite knowing the student had severe anxiety, depression, and school avoidance, the October 2010 IEP contained no goal, service, or support of any kind to address these areas. The district offered no counseling, therapy, or structured therapeutic environment.

6. Failed to send parents a promised speech-language assessment plan. At the October 2010 IEP meeting, the district acknowledged its assessment plan did not include S/L and promised to send parents a separate S/L assessment plan. It never did.

What Was Ordered

1. The district must reimburse parents $23,537 for one and one-half years of tuition at The Balboa School (a certified nonpublic school), which appropriately addressed the student's needs and allowed her to graduate with a diploma.

2. The district must reimburse parents $1,750 for the cost of an independent speech-language evaluation conducted by evaluator Geri Brown.

3. All other claims were denied, including:

   • Reimbursement for transportation costs (student failed to show transportation was needed as a related service, given Balboa's proximity to HTH)
   • Reimbursement for a second independent evaluation (Dr. Weckerly's psychoeducational assessment)
   • Compensatory mental health and counseling services
   • Claims related to the 2011-2012 school year (district had no ongoing IEP duty once the student was privately placed and before due process was filed)
   • Claims regarding the adequacy of the transition plan
   • Claims that the district failed to hold timely annual or triennial IEP meetings

Why This Matters for Parents

1. If your child is receiving a related service like speech-language therapy, the district must assess your child first. California law is explicit: a student must be assessed in every area related to a suspected disability before services are provided in that area. If the district has never given your child a speech-language evaluation but is providing speech therapy, ask in writing for a complete S/L assessment. Services built on no assessment are legally vulnerable.

2. Homebound placement is legally one of the most restrictive options — and the district must follow strict procedures to offer it. Before placing a student on home instruction, the district must have a written report from a physician or psychologist stating the diagnosis and certifying the condition prevents attendance in a less restrictive setting, plus a projected return-to-school date. If your child's IEP offers homebound instruction without these documents, the placement likely violates California regulations.

3. Anxiety and mental health disorders that interfere with school attendance can and must be addressed in the IEP. Counseling, school-based therapy, and mental health services can be included as designated instruction and services in an IEP when they are necessary for the student to benefit from special education. If your child's anxiety is causing absences, failing grades, or inability to participate in school, demand that the IEP team discuss and offer mental health-related services — not just academic accommodations.

4. Repeating the same IEP goals year after year without progress is a red flag — and a legal problem. Goals that never change signal that the IEP is not working. Districts are required to investigate why a student is not progressing and adjust goals and services accordingly. If you see the same goal carried over without progress or explanation, request a meeting to review and revise the IEP immediately.

5. When you reject an IEP and privately place your child, document everything carefully — and file for due process promptly. In this case, parents recovered tuition reimbursement because the private school (Balboa) was appropriate and addressed needs the district failed to meet. However, several other claims were lost because of timing issues, delayed consent to assessment plans, and failure to follow up on scheduling. Keep detailed records, respond promptly to district communications, and consult a special education advocate or attorney before unilateral placement if at all possible.