District Wins: Special Day Class Placement Upheld for Autistic Student in Whittier

What Happened

Student is an eight-year-old girl with autism and a speech or language disorder, and borderline intellectual functioning. After spending kindergarten in a general education class at a Whittier public school — with an aide, resource specialist support, speech therapy, and occupational therapy — Student made no meaningful academic progress. Her academic level at the end of kindergarten was comparable to that of children entering preschool. The IEP team, including both Parents, agreed during her kindergarten year that Student was not receiving educational or social benefit from the general education setting. At the May 2014 IEP meeting, the team offered Student placement in a mild-to-moderate special day class for first grade. Parents initially agreed in the meeting but, after visiting the proposed class, changed their minds and requested a general education placement with supports instead. When the district declined, Parents unilaterally enrolled Student in Broadoaks Children's School, a private school.

After enrolling Student privately, Parents requested that the district provide related services — including occupational therapy, speech therapy, behavioral services from a board certified behavior analyst (BCBA), and a one-to-one aide — at the private school. They also requested a new behavior assessment and a formal behavior support plan. The district declined all of these requests. Parents filed for due process, challenging the May 2014 IEP's placement offer, the district's refusal to provide services at the private school, and the refusal to conduct a new behavior assessment.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue. On the question of predetermination, the ALJ found that both Parents attended and meaningfully participated in the May 2014 IEP meeting, that the team considered a full continuum of placement options, and that team members having opinions before the meeting does not constitute predetermination — they must simply arrive with open minds, not blank ones.

On placement, the ALJ found that the mild-to-moderate special day class was the least restrictive environment where Student could actually receive educational benefit. The evidence showed Student could not access the general education curriculum even with an aide, a modified curriculum, and daily resource support. Student's performance after spending first grade in a general education class at the private school — where she ended the year at the beginning kindergarten level — further confirmed that general education was not appropriate for her. The district's offer also included mainstreaming during non-academic times like lunch and recess, which the ALJ found was the maximum appropriate inclusion.

On behavioral services, the ALJ found that Student's behaviors were mild and manageable through IEP behavior goals. A formal behavior support plan supervised by a BCBA is not required by law unless a student's behaviors are extreme — such as self-injury, elopement, or destruction of property. Student's behaviors did not rise to that level. Similarly, the ALJ found that once Parents made a unilateral private school placement after the district had offered a valid FAPE, the district had no legal obligation to deliver related services at the private school. Finally, because the district had just completed a comprehensive behavior assessment using 18 instruments and found Student's behaviors manageable, it was not required to conduct another one just months later.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. Whittier City School District and WACSEP were declared the prevailing parties on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Visiting a proposed placement after an IEP meeting and then rejecting it does not give the district a FAPE problem — but it may cost you your rights. In this case, Parents visited the special day class, changed their minds, and chose a private school. Because the district's IEP offer was found appropriate, Parents lost their claim for tuition reimbursement and for district-funded services at the private school.

2. If you place your child in a private school without the district's agreement, the district generally has no duty to send services there. Federal and California law are clear: when a district offers a valid FAPE and a parent chooses a private school instead, the district is not required to pay for or deliver the services it would have provided in its own program.

3. A behavior support plan or BCBA services are not automatic rights — they depend on the severity of your child's behaviors. The law gives IEP teams discretion to use behavior goals for mild behaviors, reserving formal behavior plans and specialist oversight for children with more serious or dangerous conduct. If you believe your child needs more intensive behavioral support, you need evidence — ideally from an independent expert — showing why goals alone are insufficient.

4. Parental participation means a meaningful seat at the table, not a veto. Courts have consistently held that a district satisfies its obligation when it genuinely considers parental input. If the rest of the IEP team disagrees with a parent's preferred placement, that disagreement alone does not prove predetermination or a FAPE denial. Document your participation and your concerns in writing at every meeting.