PE Teacher Didn't Know Student's IEP — District Ordered Staff Training

A parent filed a due process complaint against Parlier Unified School District alleging that the district failed to implement her son's IEP across multiple settings and denied her the right to participate in IEP meetings. The ALJ found that the district violated FAPE during the 2014-2015 school year because the physical education teacher had never seen Student's IEP and therefore could not implement the behavior support plan during PE class. The district prevailed on all other issues, and the sole remedy ordered was a two-hour special education procedural safeguards training for all Benavidez Elementary staff.

What Happened

Student was an 11-year-old sixth grader at Benavidez Elementary School eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. He also had a diagnosis of ADHD. Student had a history of off-task behavior — wandering, avoiding non-preferred tasks like reading aloud or writing — and occasional physical aggression toward peers when provoked. To address these behaviors, the district developed a behavior support plan that incorporated a school-wide positive behavior program called PBIS (Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports), including a daily "check in-check out" system where Student tracked his behavior goals throughout the day and could earn rewards for meeting them.

Parent filed for due process in October 2015, raising concerns spanning both the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. She argued that the behavior plan was punitive and caused anxiety, that the principal mistreated Student, that she was unlawfully blocked from attending an IEP meeting after being issued a campus stay-away notice, and that the district failed to provide promised services including an instructional aide and staff monitoring during recess. Parent also alleged that after she finally consented to the November 2015 IEP, the district failed to implement key components such as break accommodations and specialized academic instruction.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district did violate FAPE during the 2014-2015 school year, but only in one specific area: Student's physical education teacher had never seen Student's IEP, did not know about his behavior support plan, and was unaware of Student's significant written language difficulties. As a result, when Student acted out in PE, the teacher required him to complete written reflection questions — a strategy directly at odds with Student's known needs and IEP accommodations. California law (Ed. Code § 56347) requires that all teachers who work with a student have access to that student's IEP, understand its contents, and know their specific responsibilities for implementing it. The PE teacher's complete ignorance of Student's IEP was a material failure, not a minor one.

However, the ALJ rejected all of Parent's other claims. The behavior plan itself was found appropriate — it was positive, not punitive, and Student generally made progress. The ALJ gave less weight to Parent's account of school-wide mistreatment, noting that contemporaneous behavior charts (offered into evidence by Student's own side) showed mostly positive interactions, and that Student appeared to be telling his mother what she wanted to hear rather than accurately reporting school events. On the campus stay-away notice issue, the ALJ found that while Parlier could have handled the situation better — such as offering a phone-based IEP meeting or moving the meeting off campus — no IEP decisions were actually made during the period Parent was barred from campus, and the annual IEP meeting was held on time. On aide services and staff monitoring, the district had offered these services during the prior year but Parent had refused to consent; the district was not required to implement services a parent had rejected.

What Was Ordered

Within 30 days of the decision, Parlier Unified must conduct a two-hour training for all teachers, administrators, and service providers at Benavidez Elementary on special education procedural safeguards.
The training must specifically cover the requirement under Education Code § 56347 that teachers have access to their students' IEPs, understand their content, and know their implementation responsibilities.
The training must be conducted by a person with expertise in special education law who is not employed by Parlier.
All other requested relief — including compensatory education, placement at an alternative school, and additional services — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Every teacher who works with your child must know their IEP — not just the special education teacher. This case established that a PE teacher, elective teacher, or any general education teacher who interacts with your child is legally required to have access to the IEP and understand their responsibilities. If your child receives services or accommodations in any setting, ask the district in writing to confirm that all staff in those settings have received and reviewed the IEP.
A stay-away notice doesn't automatically excuse a district from holding IEP meetings — but it also doesn't guarantee a FAPE violation. The ALJ acknowledged the district could have offered alternatives (a phone call, an off-campus location) but found no actual harm because no decisions were made and the annual meeting happened on time. If you are ever issued a campus restriction, immediately request in writing that the IEP meeting be held via phone, video, or at a neutral location.
If you refuse to consent to services, the district generally cannot be held responsible for not providing them. When Parent declined to sign the IEP offering aide support and recess monitoring, the district was legally blocked from providing those services. Withholding consent is sometimes strategically necessary, but it can limit your ability to later claim the district denied those services.
Compensatory education requires evidence. Parent prevailed on the PE implementation issue but received no compensatory education because she presented no evidence of what specific services Student lost or what would make him whole. If you believe your child missed out on services, document the impact and come to hearing prepared to explain what remedy would address the educational gap.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Within 30 days of the decision, Parlier Unified must conduct a two-hour training for all teachers, administrators, and service providers at Benavidez Elementary on special education procedural safeguards.
The training must specifically cover the requirement under Education Code § 56347 that teachers have access to their students' IEPs, understand their content, and know their implementation responsibilities.
The training must be conducted by a person with expertise in special education law who is not employed by Parlier.
All other requested relief — including compensatory education, placement at an alternative school, and additional services — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Every teacher who works with your child must know their IEP — not just the special education teacher. This case established that a PE teacher, elective teacher, or any general education teacher who interacts with your child is legally required to have access to the IEP and understand their responsibilities. If your child receives services or accommodations in any setting, ask the district in writing to confirm that all staff in those settings have received and reviewed the IEP.
A stay-away notice doesn't automatically excuse a district from holding IEP meetings — but it also doesn't guarantee a FAPE violation. The ALJ acknowledged the district could have offered alternatives (a phone call, an off-campus location) but found no actual harm because no decisions were made and the annual meeting happened on time. If you are ever issued a campus restriction, immediately request in writing that the IEP meeting be held via phone, video, or at a neutral location.
If you refuse to consent to services, the district generally cannot be held responsible for not providing them. When Parent declined to sign the IEP offering aide support and recess monitoring, the district was legally blocked from providing those services. Withholding consent is sometimes strategically necessary, but it can limit your ability to later claim the district denied those services.
Compensatory education requires evidence. Parent prevailed on the PE implementation issue but received no compensatory education because she presented no evidence of what specific services Student lost or what would make him whole. If you believe your child missed out on services, document the impact and come to hearing prepared to explain what remedy would address the educational gap.