District Denied FAPE by Failing to Address Student's Escalating Classroom Behavior

A Sacramento City Unified School District student with specific learning disability and speech-language impairment was denied a free appropriate public education because the district failed to develop and implement a behavior support plan despite the student's escalating classroom behaviors. The district's inaction caused the student to miss significant specialized academic instruction time. The ALJ ordered Sacramento City to fund an independent functional behavior assessment by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst of the parent's choosing.

What Happened

Student is a teenager who qualifies for special education services under specific learning disability and speech-language impairment. He attended a learning disabled special day class at a Sacramento City Unified middle school, where he received 360 minutes of specialized academic instruction per day. During sixth grade, Student had no significant behavioral issues, but after returning from Thanksgiving break in seventh grade, his behavior escalated dramatically. He refused to follow directions, used profanity, left class without permission, argued with staff and other students, and received 21 behavioral referrals over the course of the school year. His behaviors were largely task-avoidance — a way of hiding academic struggles caused by his processing and cognitive deficits. When Student was disruptive, staff typically sent him out of the classroom, causing him to miss significant amounts of specialized academic instruction.

Parent raised numerous concerns, including whether the district was giving Student access to the general education curriculum, whether behavior support was in place, whether independent evaluations were timely, whether the district interfered with those evaluations, and whether the district should have moved Student to a different type of special day class sooner. Parent also objected to the district using computer programs (iLearn and System 44) that were not named in Student's IEP. The case was further complicated by a significant procedural irregularity: the district's Special Education Director sent a prohibited ex parte communication to the presiding ALJ during the first day of hearing, which caused the original ALJ to disqualify herself, required the hearing to restart from scratch, and resulted in hearing costs being shifted to the district.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in Student's favor on two issues. First, Sacramento City denied Student a FAPE beginning in late November of seventh grade by failing to develop and implement a behavior support plan. The district knew Student's behavior was impeding his learning but waited over five months before even proposing a behavior assessment. The ALJ was clear: nothing prevented the district from convening an IEP meeting and putting interim behavioral supports in place immediately, with or without a formal functional behavior assessment. When Parent later withdrew consent to the behavioral assessment, the district could have filed its own due process complaint to seek permission to assess — it did not. This failure continued into the 2015-2016 school year through January 4, 2016. Second, the failure to provide behavioral supports caused Student to miss significant specialized academic instruction required by his IEP, which constituted a material failure to implement the IEP.

Parent did not prevail on the remaining issues. The ALJ found no FAPE denial based on the delay in completing the independent psychoeducational and speech-language evaluations, because the delay was caused by Student's chosen assessor being unavailable during summer — not by district inaction. The district did not interfere with the independence of the evaluations merely because the speech-language results aligned with existing services. The learning disabled special day class was an appropriate placement; districts are not required to place students in a parent-preferred program when the current placement provides educational benefit. The use of iLearn and System 44 computer programs was within the district's discretion — the law does not require specific instructional methodologies to be listed in an IEP. The hostile environment claim failed because detailed behavioral documentation serves a legitimate educational purpose.

What Was Ordered

Sacramento City shall fund an independent functional behavior assessment by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst selected by Parent who meets the district's guidelines (but Parent is not limited to the district's pre-approved list).
Within five days of the order, the district must provide Parent with its assessment guidelines and a list of qualified independent Board Certified Behavior Analysts.
Within 10 days of receiving those guidelines, Parent must provide the name of the chosen assessor; the district must contract with that assessor without undue delay.
The assessment must include observations of Student both in the classroom and at home, and must determine whether a behavior support plan or behavior intervention plan is currently needed; if so, the assessor must draft one.
If the assessor is located within 50 miles of Sacramento, the district must provide transportation or reimburse Parent for mileage at the IRS rate.
The district must hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of the assessment's completion, and must pay the assessor to attend. The IEP team must consider the assessment and draft plan, but is not required to adopt it.
The student's requests for compensatory education services were denied because Parent failed to present evidence of the type, amount, or frequency of services needed — and the California Department of Education had already ordered 100 hours of academic tutoring for the same underlying violations.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot wait for a perfect assessment before acting on behavior. When a student's behavior is clearly impeding their learning, the district must convene an IEP meeting and put interim behavioral supports in place right away. A district cannot use the absence of a completed functional behavior assessment as an excuse to do nothing for months.
Withholding consent to an assessment does not automatically let the district off the hook. The ALJ found that if the district truly believed it could not create a behavior plan without parental consent to assess, it could have filed its own due process case to seek permission. Inaction is not a valid legal defense.
If you claim compensatory education, you must present specific evidence of what is needed. Parent won on the FAPE denial but received no compensatory education award because no evidence was presented on the type, amount, or frequency of services owed. Before and during the hearing, be prepared to show exactly what services should be awarded and why.
Districts have discretion over instructional methods — they do not have to name specific programs in an IEP. The ALJ upheld the district's use of iLearn and System 44 even though they were not listed in the IEP. Courts and ALJs generally defer to districts on how to teach, as long as the overall program is appropriate.
Ex parte communications with the hearing officer are strictly prohibited and can result in serious consequences. The district's Special Education Director contacted the ALJ outside of normal hearing procedures, which caused the case to restart, shifted hearing costs to the district, and severely damaged the district's credibility throughout the proceeding.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Sacramento City shall fund an independent functional behavior assessment by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst selected by Parent who meets the district's guidelines (but Parent is not limited to the district's pre-approved list).
Within five days of the order, the district must provide Parent with its assessment guidelines and a list of qualified independent Board Certified Behavior Analysts.
Within 10 days of receiving those guidelines, Parent must provide the name of the chosen assessor; the district must contract with that assessor without undue delay.
The assessment must include observations of Student both in the classroom and at home, and must determine whether a behavior support plan or behavior intervention plan is currently needed; if so, the assessor must draft one.
If the assessor is located within 50 miles of Sacramento, the district must provide transportation or reimburse Parent for mileage at the IRS rate.
The district must hold an IEP team meeting within 30 days of the assessment's completion, and must pay the assessor to attend. The IEP team must consider the assessment and draft plan, but is not required to adopt it.
The student's requests for compensatory education services were denied because Parent failed to present evidence of the type, amount, or frequency of services needed — and the California Department of Education had already ordered 100 hours of academic tutoring for the same underlying violations.
All other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot wait for a perfect assessment before acting on behavior. When a student's behavior is clearly impeding their learning, the district must convene an IEP meeting and put interim behavioral supports in place right away. A district cannot use the absence of a completed functional behavior assessment as an excuse to do nothing for months.
Withholding consent to an assessment does not automatically let the district off the hook. The ALJ found that if the district truly believed it could not create a behavior plan without parental consent to assess, it could have filed its own due process case to seek permission. Inaction is not a valid legal defense.
If you claim compensatory education, you must present specific evidence of what is needed. Parent won on the FAPE denial but received no compensatory education award because no evidence was presented on the type, amount, or frequency of services owed. Before and during the hearing, be prepared to show exactly what services should be awarded and why.
Districts have discretion over instructional methods — they do not have to name specific programs in an IEP. The ALJ upheld the district's use of iLearn and System 44 even though they were not listed in the IEP. Courts and ALJs generally defer to districts on how to teach, as long as the overall program is appropriate.
Ex parte communications with the hearing officer are strictly prohibited and can result in serious consequences. The district's Special Education Director contacted the ALJ outside of normal hearing procedures, which caused the case to restart, shifted hearing costs to the district, and severely damaged the district's credibility throughout the proceeding.