District Must Hold Manifestation Determination Before Transferring Truant Special Ed Student

What Happened

The student was a 16-year-old eligible for special education under the categories of Other Health Impairment (ADHD) and Specific Learning Disability. He lived with his grandmother as legal guardian, along with a sibling, and the family had been homeless for many years. He enrolled at Rialto Unified's Kolb Middle School in January 2012, but quickly developed a pattern of extreme absenteeism — missing 35 of his first 42 enrolled days. His grandmother told the school he became anxious and refused to get in or out of the car, and that transportation as a homeless family was a serious challenge. Despite these explanations, the district sent escalating truancy notices and ultimately referred the student to the district's Student Attendance Review Board (SARB).

At the April 2012 SARB hearing, the grandmother told the panel that her grandson had an IEP and that the district was not following it. The board nonetheless directed that if he continued missing school, he would be transferred to Bob Murphy Community Day School — a county placement also used for expelled students. When absences continued, the district disenrolled the student from Kolb and referred him to Bob Murphy, effective April 19, 2012 — a placement change of approximately eight months. Critically, the district never held a manifestation determination meeting, and the SARB referral paperwork incorrectly identified the student as not being a special education student, meaning his IEP was not transferred with him and no special education funding was arranged at the receiving school.

What the ALJ Found

The district violated IDEA by skipping the manifestation determination (Student prevailed on Issue 1).

1. Attendance is part of the code of student conduct. The ALJ found that regular school attendance is explicitly part of Rialto Unified's student code of conduct. When a special education student violates a code of conduct and the consequence is a placement change of more than 10 school days, IDEA section 1415(k) requires a manifestation determination meeting — period. The eight-month transfer to Bob Murphy far exceeded that threshold.

2. The SARB process is not exempt from IDEA discipline protections. The district argued that SARB proceedings are designed to keep kids in school, not discipline them, so IDEA's manifestation rules don't apply. The ALJ rejected this. Even if the SARB's intent is remedial, it has the power to disenroll students, refer them to court, and transfer them to placements also used for expelled students. These are punitive consequences that trigger IDEA protections. The State SARB's own model handbook for California districts explicitly states that a manifestation determination is required before a SARB-recommended placement change can be implemented for a student with a disability.

3. The grandmother was denied her right to participate in the decision-making process. By never convening a manifestation determination meeting, the district cut the guardian out of a procedural process she was legally entitled to participate in. This is an independent IDEA violation regardless of what the outcome of that meeting might have been.

4. The district's error was systemic, not a one-time mistake. The district's former special education administrator testified that district policy was simply not to hold manifestation determinations for SARB referrals because SARB proceedings were not considered disciplinary. This meant all special education students referred through SARB were being denied this protection.

The student's truancy was not proven to be a manifestation of his disability (District prevailed on Issue 2).

5. Insufficient evidence to prove the connection. While the grandmother testified that the student was anxious and refused to go to school, the student himself did not testify. No teachers, mental health professionals, or school administrators testified about the connection between his disability and his behavior. The student's IEP from Claremont USD (his last signed IEP, from 2008) was never entered into evidence. Without this documentation, the ALJ could not find that the chronic absenteeism was directly and substantially related to his disability or caused by the district's failure to implement his IEP.

What Was Ordered

1. Staff training required within 90 days. The district was ordered to train all personnel involved in SARB proceedings on the procedural safeguards required by IDEA section 1415(k), specifically to ensure that a manifestation determination meeting is convened whenever the SARB seeks to change a special education student's placement for more than 10 school days due to absenteeism or truancy.

2. Compensatory education denied (in this proceeding). The student requested substantial compensatory education for the time lost. The ALJ declined to award it in the expedited hearing, noting the statutory remedy of returning the student to his prior placement was no longer viable given the passage of two years.

3. FAPE and LRE claims reserved. All questions about whether the student received an appropriate education after his transfer to Bob Murphy — including whether proper special education services were in place — were explicitly reserved for a separate, non-expedited hearing in the same case. Those issues were not decided here.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. SARB proceedings are not a special education-free zone. If your child has an IEP or 504 plan and the school district is considering transferring your child through a truancy or attendance board process, IDEA's full discipline protections apply. You are entitled to a manifestation determination meeting before any placement change of more than 10 school days takes effect. Demand it in writing.

2. Always bring your child's IEP records to any school meeting — including attendance hearings. In this case, the grandmother told the SARB panel that her son had an IEP, but she didn't have a copy with her and the district's paperwork didn't reflect it. District staff then incorrectly sent the child to a community school with no special education services arranged. Carry copies of your child's IEP to every meeting and confirm in writing that the receiving school knows your child's status.

3. Document your child's disability-related barriers to school attendance. If your child's absences are connected to anxiety, disability-related fears, or behaviors stemming from an unmet IEP — get it documented. Ask your child's doctor, therapist, or mental health provider to put it in writing. In this case, the student lost Issue 2 almost entirely because his guardian's testimony, though credible, was unsupported by any professional records or the IEP itself.

4. A manifestation determination is your right even if the district ultimately finds the behavior is not a manifestation. Even when a district wins on Issue 2 (the behavior is not a manifestation), the student still has the right to continue receiving special education services in the new setting. The district cannot simply stop providing IDEA services because your child was truant. If your child is moved to a new school for any disciplinary or attendance reason, confirm immediately that special education services are being funded and provided there.

5. Systemic policy violations can be remedied through staff training orders. When a district's violation is not just a single mistake but a policy that affects all students, hearing officers can order district-wide training as a remedy. If you suspect your district has a blanket policy of skipping manifestation determinations in SARB cases, document the pattern and raise it in your due process complaint — it strengthens the case for broader relief.