Compton USD Failed to Assess Student with ADHD and Bipolar Disorder, But Placement at Private School Denied

What Happened

Student is a boy who was eligible for special education under the category of "other health impairment" due to ADHD. He had been receiving instruction in a special day class, but at the May 2013 IEP team meeting — which Parent attended and signed — the district recommended transitioning him to a general education classroom with resource specialist support. During the 2013-2014 school year, Student's grades quickly declined across nearly all subjects, and his teacher repeatedly noted that incomplete work and behaviors were getting in the way of his learning. The district attributed the poor grades to motivational and behavioral issues rather than lack of ability, but it never provided Parent with any progress reports on Student's IEP goals and had no documentation to back up its claims of progress.

By early 2014, Parent called an IEP meeting and disclosed for the first time that Student had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was receiving outside counseling. She and her attorney requested a comprehensive mental health assessment. The district offered a functional behavioral assessment instead, but Parent did not consent to it. The district sent an assessment plan covering only the functional behavioral assessment — it did not include psycho-educational, academic, or mental health assessments as discussed at the meeting. At the annual IEP in May 2014, the meeting ended early when the district declined to offer the specific type of mental health assessment the parent was requesting. At the October 2014 IEP meeting, Parent and her advocate insisted that Student be placed at a private school called Kayne Eras Center, where Student's sibling attended. The meeting ended without a completed IEP.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district committed several significant violations. First, the district failed to assess Student in the areas of psycho-educational functioning, functional behavior, and mental health when it was clear he was not making progress. By the end of the second quarter of the 2013-2014 school year — January 2014 — the district had enough information from report cards, teacher observations, and behavioral reports to know that something more was needed. The district should have offered a comprehensive assessment plan at that point, not simply waited for the triennial evaluation date.

Second, the district's April 2014 assessment plan was incomplete. Even though district staff had discussed conducting academic and social-emotional assessments at the April 2014 IEP meeting, those were left off the written plan sent to Parent. When Parent revealed Student's bipolar diagnosis, the district had an obligation to initiate a mental health assessment — and failing to do so was a procedural violation that denied Parent the information she needed to participate meaningfully in IEP decisions.

Third, the draft IEP goals at the October 2014 meeting were inappropriate. The goals were nearly identical to those from 2013, and the district had no reliable data on Student's actual progress because teachers had not been tracking it. Without accurate baseline data, the district could not develop goals that were genuinely tied to Student's current needs.

Fourth, the district failed to provide adequate behavioral supports from January 2014 through October 2014. Even though Student's behaviors were clearly interfering with his learning, the district's only response was redirection and preferential seating — neither of which was sufficient. The district argued that Parent's refusal to consent to a functional behavioral assessment absolved it of responsibility, but the ALJ rejected that argument: the district cannot blame parents when it has an independent obligation to provide a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

1. The district must fund an independent psycho-educational assessment of Student by an assessor of Parent's choosing.
2. The district must conduct a functional behavioral assessment and either conduct or refer Student for a mental health assessment to determine whether mental health services are needed.
3. Following the assessments, the district must convene an IEP team meeting to determine appropriate placement, goals, and services.
4. The district must contract with a non-public agency of Parent's choosing to provide 72 hours of one-on-one academic tutoring from a credentialed teacher experienced with ADHD and/or language processing difficulties.
5. All compensatory education hours must be used by December 31, 2016, or they are forfeited.
6. All other relief — including placement at Kayne Eras Center — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts cannot wait for the triennial evaluation deadline if a student is clearly struggling. The law requires reassessment whenever a student's educational needs make it necessary — not just on a three-year schedule. If your child's grades are declining and behaviors are escalating, you can formally request assessment in writing at any time.

2. A district's assessment plan must cover all areas of a student's suspected disabilities — not just the ones the district finds convenient. If the district discusses assessing multiple areas at an IEP meeting but then only sends a plan covering one area, that is a procedural violation. Review every assessment plan carefully and compare it to what was discussed in the meeting.

3. A parent's refusal to consent to one assessment does not excuse the district from addressing the student's needs in other ways. The ALJ made clear that even after Parent declined to sign the functional behavioral assessment consent form, the district still had an obligation to provide behavioral supports. Parental non-cooperation can be a factor, but it does not eliminate the district's duty to offer a FAPE.

4. IEP goals must be based on current, accurate data — not copied from last year's IEP. If a district cannot show how it measured a student's progress throughout the year, it cannot develop meaningful goals for the next year. Ask your district how and how often it is tracking your child's progress on each goal, and request those records regularly.

5. Wanting a private school placement is not enough — parents must present evidence that the private school is the appropriate least restrictive environment. The ALJ denied placement at Kayne in part because neither the parent's experts nor the parent herself provided specific evidence about why Kayne's program was appropriate for Student beyond personal preference and the fact that a sibling attended there.