LAUSD Must Fund Private Autism School After Bridgeport Placement Fails Student

What Happened

Student is a teenager with autism who has a long history of severe aggressive and self-injurious behaviors, including biting, kicking, head-banging, hitting, and scratching staff and peers. She attended Bridgeport School, a nonpublic school operated by the Help Group, beginning in 2006. Her program included a special day class with a functional skills curriculum, a 1:1 aide, speech and language services, occupational therapy, and a behavior support plan. For several years, Student made some academic progress — meeting goals in reading, writing, and language — even though her behavior and social skills goals remained unmet.

Parents filed for due process in January 2014, arguing that Bridgeport had become unsafe and ineffective for Student, and requesting that LAUSD fund her placement at the Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism (Academy), a smaller nonpublic school specializing in intensive behavioral programming. The case covered two time periods: January 2012 through October 2013, and October 2013 through the 2014-2015 school year.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that LAUSD's placement at Bridgeport was appropriate through October 14, 2013. During the earlier period, Student made measurable academic progress and there was insufficient evidence that her behaviors had risen to a level denying her educational benefit — despite a period with no permanent teacher in 2012-2013, Parents did not produce communication logs or incident reports to support their claims for that period.

However, beginning in August 2013, Student's behaviors intensified dramatically. She shattered a bus window by banging her head into it, bit a staff member repeatedly during a community outing, was removed from Math class so frequently that the Math teacher effectively banned her from the room, and was also pulled from Language Arts on multiple occasions. By the time of the October 14, 2013 and January 8, 2014 IEP meetings, Student had regressed in language and writing, had not met her behavior or social skills goals since 2011, and was no longer making adequate academic progress.

Despite all of this, the district's IEP team continued to offer placement at Bridgeport without modifying Student's behavior support plan. The assistant principal confirmed at hearing that the behavior support plan was discussed at the January 2014 IEP but was never actually revised. The ALJ found that Student's own classroom teacher — who had daily contact with Student — agreed that Student likely needed a more structured, smaller environment. The ALJ credited the teacher's testimony over that of the clinical director and assistant principal, who continued to defend Bridgeport as appropriate. The ALJ concluded that it was not objectively reasonable for the district to keep offering the same placement when the evidence clearly showed it was no longer working.

What Was Ordered

1. LAUSD is ordered to fund Student's placement at the Academy for the Advancement of Children with Autism for the 2014 extended school year (summer 2014) and the full 2014-2015 regular school year.
2. All other requests for relief were denied. Student did not prevail on the earlier time period (January 2012 through October 14, 2013).

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A placement that once worked can stop being appropriate — and the district must respond. This case shows that even a nonpublic school placement that provided educational benefit in the past can become a denial of FAPE if the student's needs change significantly and the program fails to keep up. Don't let the district point to past progress as proof that a placement is still working.

2. Failing to update a behavior support plan is a concrete, documentable failure. The ALJ specifically found it significant that Bridgeport discussed revising the behavior support plan at the January 2014 IEP but never actually did it. Keep records of what the IEP team promises and follow up in writing to confirm whether those changes were implemented.

3. Communication logs and incident reports are critical evidence. Parents lost the earlier time period in part because they could not produce communication logs or incident reports showing escalating behavior during the 2012-2013 school year. Request and save all daily communication logs, incident reports, and behavioral data — they can make or break a due process case.

4. Your child's classroom teacher may be your most credible witness. The ALJ gave the most weight to the testimony of Student's day-to-day teacher, who acknowledged the placement was failing, over administrators who defended the school. If the teacher is being honest with you about your child's struggles, that matters legally — and it may be worth preserving those statements.

5. When a district fails to offer an appropriate placement before an extended school year begins, parents may be entitled to prospective placement at a preferred school. The ALJ ordered Academy not just as compensation for the past denial, but also going forward because LAUSD had no appropriate alternative ready. If your district cannot offer a proper program before summer ESY or the next school year starts, that gap matters.