Autism Student Wins on Behavior Plan and Larry P. Violations, But Not Full Reimbursement

A 13-year-old student with autism and ADHD attending Brentwood Union School District won a partial victory after his parents filed for due process. The district was found to have violated the Larry P. injunction by administering a prohibited IQ test to an African American student, failed to complete a promised functional behavior assessment, failed to draft a behavior intervention plan, and withheld key records including a "hit list" that led to Student's suspension. The ALJ ordered independent evaluations at public expense, 20 hours of compensatory services, removal of illegal IQ scores from Student's records, and mandatory staff training on student records obligations.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old boy with autism and ADHD who attended Brentwood Union School District schools from kindergarten through sixth grade. For most of elementary school, Student's needs were managed through a 504 plan, and Brentwood twice found him ineligible for special education — once in 2011 and again after a 2013 assessment. By sixth grade at Edna Hill Middle School, Student's behavior significantly worsened: he was off-task up to 50 percent of the time, struggled with peer interactions, and began showing signs of more serious emotional disturbance. In December 2014, Parents requested a special education evaluation that included a functional behavior assessment. In February 2015, Student was finally found eligible for special education under the autism category.

Parents filed for due process in May 2015, raising six issues: whether the district failed to conduct required behavior and mental health assessments; whether it failed to provide a behavior intervention plan; whether it wrongly withheld counseling services; whether it violated the Larry P. injunction by giving Student an IQ test; whether it failed to produce Student's records; and whether it held an IEP meeting without Parents present. Student also sought reimbursement for private placements, including a residential treatment center. The ALJ issued a mixed ruling — finding several significant violations by the district, but denying reimbursement for private placements and most other monetary claims.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to complete the functional behavior assessment and behavior plan. Brentwood promised in its December 2014 assessment plan to conduct a "functional behavioral analysis," but the school psychologist ran out of time before the IEP meeting and never completed it. The district also never drafted a behavior intervention plan, even though its own assessor acknowledged one was needed. Beginning February 19, 2015 — the date Student was found eligible — this failure constituted a denial of FAPE.

Violated Larry P. by administering a prohibited IQ test. When Student was in fifth grade, the district's school psychologist administered the Wechsler-IV IQ test without realizing Student's enrollment form identified him as African American. Under the long-standing Larry P. v. Riles court order, California schools are prohibited from administering IQ tests to African American students for special education purposes. Making matters worse, the 2015 school psychologist then included those prohibited scores in his updated report "for historical purposes" — continuing the violation even though he personally did not rely on them.

Withheld critical student records. Brentwood failed to provide Parents with the test protocols from the 2015 psychoeducational assessment despite a formal records request. Even more seriously, the district failed to turn over a copy of the "hit list" that formed the basis for Student's suspension — a document that did not surface until nearly the end of a 10-day hearing, despite multiple records requests and a subpoena. The ALJ found this constituted a denial of FAPE because Parents could not meaningfully participate in IEP decisions without this key document.

Failed to offer a mental health assessment after a clear turning point. By the end of March 2015 — after Student was found with the hit list, switched a teacher's tablet, expressed fear of not returning to school, and was placed on an involuntary psychiatric hold — Brentwood was on notice that Student may have had mental health needs affecting his education. The district's delay in offering a mental health assessment after that point was a denial of FAPE.

What Was Ordered

Brentwood must provide Parents with its criteria for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) within 15 days, and fund an independent functional behavior assessment at public expense.
Brentwood must fund an independent educationally related mental health assessment at public expense, with the assessor attending an IEP team meeting to discuss findings.
Brentwood must pay for 20 hours of compensatory services with a licensed mental health professional or certified behaviorist of Parents' choosing, focused on Student's behavior needs in a school setting.
Within 15 days, Brentwood must remove all references to the 2013 Wechsler-IV IQ scores from Student's records, seal the protocols in a confidential envelope, and amend both the 2013 and 2015 psychoeducational reports to delete the prohibited scores.
Within 15 days, Brentwood must provide Parents with all assessment protocols from the 2015 psychoeducational evaluation.
Brentwood must conduct at least one hour of training for all Edna Hill administrators on what constitutes student records and when records — including documents underlying disciplinary action — must be disclosed to parents.
Requests for reimbursement for private placements (including Provo Canyon residential treatment center), therapy, camps, medication management, and ambulance costs were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IQ testing of African American students is prohibited in California — period. Under the Larry P. v. Riles court order, California districts cannot administer IQ tests to African American students for special education purposes, regardless of the student's adoptive family's ethnicity or other circumstances. If your child is African American and was given an IQ test, you may have grounds to challenge the assessment and have those scores removed from school records.
If a district promises an assessment in writing, it must actually complete it. When Brentwood put "functional behavioral analysis" in the assessment plan and Parents signed consent, that created a legal obligation. Running out of time is not an excuse. If your district's assessment plan lists specific evaluations, follow up in writing to confirm each one was completed before any IEP meeting.
Documents used to discipline your child are student records you have the right to see. The "hit list" that led to Student's suspension was a student record that should have been produced immediately upon Parents' request. If your child is disciplined, you have the right to request and receive copies of all documents the school used to make that decision.
Reimbursement for private placements requires proving the placement was appropriate — and your own expert said it wasn't. Parents here sought reimbursement for a residential treatment center, but their own expert testified it was not an appropriate placement. Before pursuing private placement reimbursement, ensure you have independent evidence that the placement was educationally appropriate for your child.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Brentwood must provide Parents with its criteria for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) within 15 days, and fund an independent functional behavior assessment at public expense.
Brentwood must fund an independent educationally related mental health assessment at public expense, with the assessor attending an IEP team meeting to discuss findings.
Brentwood must pay for 20 hours of compensatory services with a licensed mental health professional or certified behaviorist of Parents' choosing, focused on Student's behavior needs in a school setting.
Within 15 days, Brentwood must remove all references to the 2013 Wechsler-IV IQ scores from Student's records, seal the protocols in a confidential envelope, and amend both the 2013 and 2015 psychoeducational reports to delete the prohibited scores.
Within 15 days, Brentwood must provide Parents with all assessment protocols from the 2015 psychoeducational evaluation.
Brentwood must conduct at least one hour of training for all Edna Hill administrators on what constitutes student records and when records — including documents underlying disciplinary action — must be disclosed to parents.
Requests for reimbursement for private placements (including Provo Canyon residential treatment center), therapy, camps, medication management, and ambulance costs were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

IQ testing of African American students is prohibited in California — period. Under the Larry P. v. Riles court order, California districts cannot administer IQ tests to African American students for special education purposes, regardless of the student's adoptive family's ethnicity or other circumstances. If your child is African American and was given an IQ test, you may have grounds to challenge the assessment and have those scores removed from school records.
If a district promises an assessment in writing, it must actually complete it. When Brentwood put "functional behavioral analysis" in the assessment plan and Parents signed consent, that created a legal obligation. Running out of time is not an excuse. If your district's assessment plan lists specific evaluations, follow up in writing to confirm each one was completed before any IEP meeting.
Documents used to discipline your child are student records you have the right to see. The "hit list" that led to Student's suspension was a student record that should have been produced immediately upon Parents' request. If your child is disciplined, you have the right to request and receive copies of all documents the school used to make that decision.
Reimbursement for private placements requires proving the placement was appropriate — and your own expert said it wasn't. Parents here sought reimbursement for a residential treatment center, but their own expert testified it was not an appropriate placement. Before pursuing private placement reimbursement, ensure you have independent evidence that the placement was educationally appropriate for your child.