District Wins Most Claims, But Loses for Canceling IEP Meeting Without Rescheduling

A five-year-old boy with speech-language impairment and significant behavioral challenges attended a Tehachapi Unified preschool special day class until his grandparents removed him following a disputed bus-area incident in May 2014. The grandparents filed for due process alleging FAPE denials across multiple IEPs, inadequate assessments, and inappropriate behavioral interventions. The ALJ ruled largely in the district's favor but found the district violated FAPE by canceling a June 2015 IEP meeting and never rescheduling it, leaving the student with no IEP for the 2015-2016 school year.

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old boy eligible for special education under the category of speech-language impairment. He had experienced developmental delays since infancy, including significant expressive and receptive language delays, very short attention span, non-compliance, and behavioral challenges. His grandparents held educational rights and were deeply involved in his schooling. Student attended a preschool special day class at Tompkins Elementary School in Tehachapi Unified School District during the 2013-2014 school year, where his behavior improved markedly over the course of the year.

In May 2014, an incident occurred at the school bus waiting area in which Student became non-compliant and hit an aide with a small stick. Grandparents, who had seen a social media post from another parent describing what sounded like verbal abuse, observed bruising on Student's ear afterward and removed him from school the very next day. They never returned him to the classroom. Over the following year and a half, District repeatedly attempted to convene IEP meetings to address Student's return to school, but Grandparents were often unavailable or unwilling to meet, in part because they objected to Student being placed back in his previous teacher's classroom. Grandparents eventually participated in a January 2015 IEP meeting and agreed to an assessment plan. A June 2015 IEP meeting was scheduled but District canceled it when an unfamiliar advocate appeared on Grandparents' behalf, claiming it needed legal representation present. The meeting was never rescheduled before Student filed for due process in December 2015.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the district's favor on nearly every issue. The May 2014 and January 2015 IEPs were found to offer an appropriate placement, adequate behavioral supports, and reasonable goals tailored to Student's needs. The preschool special day class provided the low student-to-adult ratio, embedded behavioral supports, and structured environment that Student required, while also offering limited mainstreaming opportunities. District's occupational therapy screening in 2014 and formal OT assessment in 2015 were found legally sufficient, and the district's psychoeducational assessments were found comprehensive and appropriate. The ALJ also found no credible evidence that District staff had mistreated Student during the May 2014 bus incident, noting that investigations by the Office for Civil Rights and the school's principal found District personnel had acted appropriately.

However, the district lost on Issue 5. The ALJ found that District violated FAPE by canceling the June 1, 2015 IEP meeting without a valid legal basis and then failing to promptly reschedule it. There is no rule allowing a school district to cancel an IEP meeting simply because a parent brings an unfamiliar advocate. District did not propose rescheduling until after Grandmother reached out in September 2015 — more than a month into the new school year — and the meeting was never held before the due process complaint was filed. Because the prior IEP expired on May 30, 2015, Student had no IEP in place for the 2015-2016 school year. The ALJ found this was a procedural FAPE violation that significantly impeded Grandparents' ability to participate in decision-making and deprived Student of educational benefits.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for compensatory education, independent educational evaluations, a behavioral aide from a non-public agency, and parent training were all denied because Student presented no credible evidence of the type or amount of services needed.
As a remedy for the June 2015 FAPE violation, District was ordered to provide at least four hours of training to its special education staff on proper IEP meeting notice, participation, and attendance — including students' rights to have representatives present at IEP meetings. The training must be delivered by the SELPA, Kern County Superintendent of Education, or another qualified outside entity, not District staff.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot cancel an IEP meeting just because a parent brings an advocate. Federal law gives parents the right to bring anyone with knowledge or expertise to an IEP meeting. A district's desire to have its own attorney present is not a valid reason to cancel or postpone the meeting.
When an IEP expires, the district must act quickly to hold a new meeting. If a district allows months to pass without a valid IEP in place at the start of a school year, that is a procedural FAPE violation — even if the district claims the delay was partly the parent's fault.
Removing your child from school can weaken your legal claims. When Student stopped attending school, District lost the ability to observe him in the classroom and conduct certain assessments like a Functional Behavioral Assessment. This significantly limited the evidence available to support the family's claims about behavioral needs.
Compensatory education claims require specific evidence. Even when a district commits a FAPE violation, a parent must present concrete evidence of what services are needed and for how long. Without that evidence, an ALJ cannot order meaningful compensation — as happened here, where the only remedy was staff training rather than direct services for Student.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for compensatory education, independent educational evaluations, a behavioral aide from a non-public agency, and parent training were all denied because Student presented no credible evidence of the type or amount of services needed.
As a remedy for the June 2015 FAPE violation, District was ordered to provide at least four hours of training to its special education staff on proper IEP meeting notice, participation, and attendance — including students' rights to have representatives present at IEP meetings. The training must be delivered by the SELPA, Kern County Superintendent of Education, or another qualified outside entity, not District staff.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot cancel an IEP meeting just because a parent brings an advocate. Federal law gives parents the right to bring anyone with knowledge or expertise to an IEP meeting. A district's desire to have its own attorney present is not a valid reason to cancel or postpone the meeting.
When an IEP expires, the district must act quickly to hold a new meeting. If a district allows months to pass without a valid IEP in place at the start of a school year, that is a procedural FAPE violation — even if the district claims the delay was partly the parent's fault.
Removing your child from school can weaken your legal claims. When Student stopped attending school, District lost the ability to observe him in the classroom and conduct certain assessments like a Functional Behavioral Assessment. This significantly limited the evidence available to support the family's claims about behavioral needs.
Compensatory education claims require specific evidence. Even when a district commits a FAPE violation, a parent must present concrete evidence of what services are needed and for how long. Without that evidence, an ALJ cannot order meaningful compensation — as happened here, where the only remedy was staff training rather than direct services for Student.