District Must Hold Manifestation Determination Before Truancy Board Transfers Special Ed Student

Rialto Unified School District transferred a homeless 14-year-old with emotional disturbance from his middle school to a county community day school through an attendance review board proceeding — without ever holding a manifestation determination meeting. The ALJ found the District was required to hold a manifestation determination before changing the student's placement, and that the student's chronic absenteeism was directly caused by his disability. The District was ordered to train its attendance review board staff on IDEA procedural safeguards and to purge the improper referral from the student's records.

What Happened

At the time of hearing, the student was a 14-year-old eighth grader who had been eligible for special education since 2005, with a primary disability of emotional disturbance and a secondary eligibility of other health impaired due to ADHD. He and his family were experiencing homelessness. His grandmother and legal guardian enrolled him at Rialto Unified's Kolb Middle School in January 2012, immediately telling the school that he had an IEP, experienced severe anxiety, and would often refuse to enter or leave class. From day one, the student exhibited extreme school avoidance: he refused to attend class, roamed the campus, required physical restraint, threatened staff, and frequently left campus entirely. The District documented this behavior and even drafted a behavior goal in his February 2012 IEP specifically to address his chronic class avoidance — yet when his absences continued, it referred him to the District's Student Attendance Review Board rather than treating his behavior as disability-related.

In April 2012, the District's attendance review board held a hearing and, because the student continued to miss school, disenrolled him from Kolb and sent him to Bob Murphy Community Day School — a county facility that did not support students with emotional disturbance — for what was described as an eight-month "placement." The District never conducted a manifestation determination meeting before making this change. Critically, the District failed to even identify the student as a special education student on the referral paperwork sent to Bob Murphy, so no one confirmed that his special education services would follow him. The student's guardian was homeless, had no reliable transportation, and had repeatedly told the District that her son needed intensive psychological services — but the board treated the absences as a simple discipline and compliance matter rather than a disability issue.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to hold a mandatory manifestation determination meeting. The IDEA requires that before a district changes a special education student's placement for more than 10 school days as a result of a code of conduct violation, it must convene a meeting to determine whether the behavior was a manifestation of the student's disability. The District's attendance review board changed the student's placement for eight months without ever holding this meeting — denying the guardian her right to participate in the decision.
Treated the attendance review board process as non-disciplinary when it functioned as discipline. The District argued that attendance review boards are designed to keep students in school, not punish them, and therefore no manifestation determination was needed. The ALJ rejected this, finding that the review board's power to disenroll a student and send him to a different school for months is a punitive change of placement that triggers IDEA protections regardless of what the process is called.
Ignored its own IEP documentation showing the behavior was disability-related. Just weeks before the review board hearing, District staff had drafted a behavioral goal specifically targeting the student's chronic elopement and class avoidance, and had proposed an emotional disturbance special day class placement — demonstrating that the District already recognized his absences were caused by his disability. Despite this, no one connected the dots at the review board proceeding.
Referred the student to an inappropriate placement without special education services. Bob Murphy Community Day School did not offer programs for students with emotional disturbance — directly contradicting the District's own IEP offer of an emotional disturbance special day class. Additionally, the District's referral paperwork failed to identify the student as a special education student, so Bob Murphy received no IEP and no funding was arranged to provide the services he was legally entitled to.
Excluded the guardian from meaningful decision-making. By not holding a manifestation determination meeting, the District denied the guardian any formal opportunity to participate in the placement decision. The guardian's statements to the review board about her son's IEP, his mental health needs, and her transportation challenges were noted but not acted on within the required IDEA framework.

What Was Ordered

Staff training (within 90 days): The District must train all personnel involved in attendance review board proceedings on the IDEA's procedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k), specifically requiring that a manifestation determination meeting be held whenever the attendance review board seeks to change a special education student's placement for more than 10 school days due to truancy or absenteeism.
Record expungement: The District must purge all references to the April 2012 attendance review board referral to Bob Murphy from the student's educational records.
FAPE and compensatory education issues reserved: All issues regarding the extent of the FAPE denial after the improper placement change — and what compensatory education the student is owed — were reserved for the separate non-expedited portion of the due process proceeding.

Why This Matters for Parents

Attendance proceedings are not a loophole around IDEA rights. If your school district tries to change your child's placement through an attendance review board, a truancy process, or any other proceeding — not just a formal expulsion or suspension — and the change lasts more than 10 school days, the District must first hold a manifestation determination meeting. The label on the process does not matter; the change of placement triggers your child's rights.
Your child's IEP is evidence in any behavioral proceeding. In this case, the District had already documented in the IEP that the student's school avoidance was a target behavior requiring a special education goal. If your child's IEP addresses the very behavior that is getting them into trouble, that documentation is powerful evidence that the behavior may be a manifestation of their disability.
You have the right to participate before any placement change. The District must notify you, give you a copy of your procedural safeguards, and schedule the manifestation determination meeting at a mutually agreed time and place. If you are not invited to participate in a meeting before your child is transferred to a different school, that is a serious procedural violation.
Special education services must follow your child even if they are transferred. Regardless of whether a behavior is found to be a manifestation of a disability, a special education student who is removed from their placement must continue receiving the services in their IEP. If your child is sent to a new school, contact the new school immediately to confirm that the IEP and appropriate services transfer with them.
Policy-level failures can be remedied for all students, not just yours. Because the District's failure here was a matter of institutional policy — not just one oversight — the ALJ ordered district-wide staff training. If you discover that your district has a practice of skipping manifestation determinations in attendance proceedings, raise it in your due process complaint: the remedy may protect other families in your district as well.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to hold a mandatory manifestation determination meeting. The IDEA requires that before a district changes a special education student's placement for more than 10 school days as a result of a code of conduct violation, it must convene a meeting to determine whether the behavior was a manifestation of the student's disability. The District's attendance review board changed the student's placement for eight months without ever holding this meeting — denying the guardian her right to participate in the decision.
Treated the attendance review board process as non-disciplinary when it functioned as discipline. The District argued that attendance review boards are designed to keep students in school, not punish them, and therefore no manifestation determination was needed. The ALJ rejected this, finding that the review board's power to disenroll a student and send him to a different school for months is a punitive change of placement that triggers IDEA protections regardless of what the process is called.
Ignored its own IEP documentation showing the behavior was disability-related. Just weeks before the review board hearing, District staff had drafted a behavioral goal specifically targeting the student's chronic elopement and class avoidance, and had proposed an emotional disturbance special day class placement — demonstrating that the District already recognized his absences were caused by his disability. Despite this, no one connected the dots at the review board proceeding.
Referred the student to an inappropriate placement without special education services. Bob Murphy Community Day School did not offer programs for students with emotional disturbance — directly contradicting the District's own IEP offer of an emotional disturbance special day class. Additionally, the District's referral paperwork failed to identify the student as a special education student, so Bob Murphy received no IEP and no funding was arranged to provide the services he was legally entitled to.
Excluded the guardian from meaningful decision-making. By not holding a manifestation determination meeting, the District denied the guardian any formal opportunity to participate in the placement decision. The guardian's statements to the review board about her son's IEP, his mental health needs, and her transportation challenges were noted but not acted on within the required IDEA framework.

What Was Ordered

Staff training (within 90 days): The District must train all personnel involved in attendance review board proceedings on the IDEA's procedural safeguards under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k), specifically requiring that a manifestation determination meeting be held whenever the attendance review board seeks to change a special education student's placement for more than 10 school days due to truancy or absenteeism.
Record expungement: The District must purge all references to the April 2012 attendance review board referral to Bob Murphy from the student's educational records.
FAPE and compensatory education issues reserved: All issues regarding the extent of the FAPE denial after the improper placement change — and what compensatory education the student is owed — were reserved for the separate non-expedited portion of the due process proceeding.

Why This Matters for Parents

Attendance proceedings are not a loophole around IDEA rights. If your school district tries to change your child's placement through an attendance review board, a truancy process, or any other proceeding — not just a formal expulsion or suspension — and the change lasts more than 10 school days, the District must first hold a manifestation determination meeting. The label on the process does not matter; the change of placement triggers your child's rights.
Your child's IEP is evidence in any behavioral proceeding. In this case, the District had already documented in the IEP that the student's school avoidance was a target behavior requiring a special education goal. If your child's IEP addresses the very behavior that is getting them into trouble, that documentation is powerful evidence that the behavior may be a manifestation of their disability.
You have the right to participate before any placement change. The District must notify you, give you a copy of your procedural safeguards, and schedule the manifestation determination meeting at a mutually agreed time and place. If you are not invited to participate in a meeting before your child is transferred to a different school, that is a serious procedural violation.
Special education services must follow your child even if they are transferred. Regardless of whether a behavior is found to be a manifestation of a disability, a special education student who is removed from their placement must continue receiving the services in their IEP. If your child is sent to a new school, contact the new school immediately to confirm that the IEP and appropriate services transfer with them.
Policy-level failures can be remedied for all students, not just yours. Because the District's failure here was a matter of institutional policy — not just one oversight — the ALJ ordered district-wide staff training. If you discover that your district has a practice of skipping manifestation determinations in attendance proceedings, raise it in your due process complaint: the remedy may protect other families in your district as well.