Parlier USD Denied FAPE by Failing to Write Measurable Behavior and Social Skills Goals

A parent filed for due process against Parlier Unified School District after her son — a student with specific learning disability, ADHD, and significant behavioral challenges — spent two school years without measurable IEP goals to address his off-task behavior and social skills deficits. The ALJ found that the district denied the student a FAPE for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years by relying on vague, immeasurable goals and embedding ill-defined targets inside behavior intervention plans rather than the IEP itself. The district was ordered to train its special education staff on how to write measurable goals in these areas using an outside trainer.

What Happened

The student, an 11-year-old boy enrolled in Parlier Unified School District, was found eligible for special education in September 2013 under the categories of specific learning disability (SLD) and other health impairment (OHI) related to his ADHD diagnosis. From the beginning, his IEP team documented serious concerns: he was frequently off-task, refused work, used profanity, and was physically aggressive with peers and adults. Despite this, the goals written into his IEPs to address these behaviors were vague and unmeasurable — the on-task goal never defined what a "prompt" or a "period" meant, and the social skills goal had no baseline. The district reported he had "met" these goals by the end of third grade, yet the same behaviors continued and worsened into fourth and fifth grade.

The mother did not consent to IEPs offered in May 2014 or May 2015, meaning the student continued operating under his original September 2013 IEP for years. When a new IEP was finally developed at a February 2016 meeting that Mother attended, the on-task goal was still not measurable, and there was still no standalone social skills goal — just vague language embedded in a behavior intervention plan. The student's behavior escalated significantly during the 2015-2016 school year, culminating in a physical altercation with his teacher in May 2016 and a suspension that ended his attendance at his home school. The parent filed for due process in August 2016 raising behavioral, placement, and procedural concerns.

What the District Did Wrong

Unmeasurable on-task behavior goals across multiple IEPs. The September 2013 IEP goal required the student to stay on task for "one period with only one prompt" — but never defined what a "prompt" was or how long a "period" lasted. The February 2016 IEP repeated this same error. A goal that cannot be consistently measured cannot meaningfully track a child's progress.
No social skills goal for two full school years. The IEPs drafted for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years contained no standalone, measurable social skills goal, even though the student was documented as struggling with peer relationships and physical aggression throughout both years. The district argued that goals "embedded" in the behavior intervention plan were sufficient — the ALJ disagreed.
Behavior intervention plan goals were not adequate substitutes for IEP goals. The district's practice of burying behavioral targets inside a BIP rather than spelling them out as clear annual IEP goals did not meet the legal standard. BIP goals must be explicit and measurable to count as IEP goals, and the language used here was too vague to qualify.
Failure to hold timely, parent-inclusive IEP meetings. The district held a May 2015 IEP meeting without the mother and without following the proper legal procedures required to do so. It then took until February 2016 — over a year into the 2015-2016 school year — before an IEP meeting was held that included the mother.
Reporting goal mastery that was not real. At the end of third grade, the district reported the student had "met" his on-task behavior and social skills goals. Yet at the very next IEP meeting, staff documented that the same behaviors were ongoing and significant. This created a false record and allowed the student to enter two subsequent school years without the behavioral supports he needed.

What Was Ordered

Staff training on measurable goal-writing. Parlier's special education staff must receive training on how to write measurable IEP goals addressing off-task behavior and social skills deficits. The trainer must be someone who is neither a Parlier employee nor the district's legal representative — ensuring independence and accountability.
IEP team meeting on request. If the mother believes her son currently needs goals in the areas of off-task behavior or social skills, she must notify the district within 10 days of the decision. The district must then convene an IEP team meeting within 15 days to draft measurable goals in those areas.
No compensatory education awarded. Although the ALJ found a FAPE denial, no compensatory education was ordered. The student presented no evidence about what type, frequency, or duration of compensatory services he needed, and witnesses from his new school reported he was doing well. The ALJ declined to order services without a factual basis for tailoring them.
District prevailed on behavior intervention plan and FBA report issues. The ALJ found the February 2016 BIP was appropriate when developed and was properly implemented after the mother consented in April 2016. The district also prevailed on the claim that it withheld the functional behavior assessment report — no evidence showed the mother requested it before it was given to her at the August 2016 IEP meeting.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Vague" is not the same as "measurable." A goal that uses undefined terms like "one prompt" or "one session" is not legally measurable. Parents should ask their IEP team to define every term in a goal: What counts as a prompt? How long is a session? How will progress be measured and by whom? If you can't picture exactly what success looks like, the goal may not be measurable enough.
Your child's documented needs must be matched by goals — every year. If your child's IEP notes off-task behavior or social struggles in the "present levels" section but there is no corresponding annual goal to address it, that is a red flag. The IEP must show a direct connection between documented needs and the goals written to address them.
Goals cannot be hidden inside a behavior plan. A behavioral intervention plan and an IEP goal are not the same thing. If your child has behavioral needs, the IEP itself should contain clear, measurable goals — not just a BIP that vaguely references expected improvements.
Reported goal mastery should be questioned when behavior continues. If the district says your child "met" a behavioral goal but you are still seeing the same behaviors at home and hearing about them at school, ask for evidence of how mastery was measured. A goal that was never truly measurable cannot have been truly met.
Not consenting to an IEP does not excuse the district from offering a FAPE. When a parent withholds consent, California law requires the district to either obtain consent or file for due process — it cannot simply let an outdated IEP run indefinitely. If your child's IEP is old and the district is not taking steps to resolve the impasse, you have the right to demand a current, legally compliant IEP be offered.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Unmeasurable on-task behavior goals across multiple IEPs. The September 2013 IEP goal required the student to stay on task for "one period with only one prompt" — but never defined what a "prompt" was or how long a "period" lasted. The February 2016 IEP repeated this same error. A goal that cannot be consistently measured cannot meaningfully track a child's progress.
No social skills goal for two full school years. The IEPs drafted for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years contained no standalone, measurable social skills goal, even though the student was documented as struggling with peer relationships and physical aggression throughout both years. The district argued that goals "embedded" in the behavior intervention plan were sufficient — the ALJ disagreed.
Behavior intervention plan goals were not adequate substitutes for IEP goals. The district's practice of burying behavioral targets inside a BIP rather than spelling them out as clear annual IEP goals did not meet the legal standard. BIP goals must be explicit and measurable to count as IEP goals, and the language used here was too vague to qualify.
Failure to hold timely, parent-inclusive IEP meetings. The district held a May 2015 IEP meeting without the mother and without following the proper legal procedures required to do so. It then took until February 2016 — over a year into the 2015-2016 school year — before an IEP meeting was held that included the mother.
Reporting goal mastery that was not real. At the end of third grade, the district reported the student had "met" his on-task behavior and social skills goals. Yet at the very next IEP meeting, staff documented that the same behaviors were ongoing and significant. This created a false record and allowed the student to enter two subsequent school years without the behavioral supports he needed.

What Was Ordered

Staff training on measurable goal-writing. Parlier's special education staff must receive training on how to write measurable IEP goals addressing off-task behavior and social skills deficits. The trainer must be someone who is neither a Parlier employee nor the district's legal representative — ensuring independence and accountability.
IEP team meeting on request. If the mother believes her son currently needs goals in the areas of off-task behavior or social skills, she must notify the district within 10 days of the decision. The district must then convene an IEP team meeting within 15 days to draft measurable goals in those areas.
No compensatory education awarded. Although the ALJ found a FAPE denial, no compensatory education was ordered. The student presented no evidence about what type, frequency, or duration of compensatory services he needed, and witnesses from his new school reported he was doing well. The ALJ declined to order services without a factual basis for tailoring them.
District prevailed on behavior intervention plan and FBA report issues. The ALJ found the February 2016 BIP was appropriate when developed and was properly implemented after the mother consented in April 2016. The district also prevailed on the claim that it withheld the functional behavior assessment report — no evidence showed the mother requested it before it was given to her at the August 2016 IEP meeting.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Vague" is not the same as "measurable." A goal that uses undefined terms like "one prompt" or "one session" is not legally measurable. Parents should ask their IEP team to define every term in a goal: What counts as a prompt? How long is a session? How will progress be measured and by whom? If you can't picture exactly what success looks like, the goal may not be measurable enough.
Your child's documented needs must be matched by goals — every year. If your child's IEP notes off-task behavior or social struggles in the "present levels" section but there is no corresponding annual goal to address it, that is a red flag. The IEP must show a direct connection between documented needs and the goals written to address them.
Goals cannot be hidden inside a behavior plan. A behavioral intervention plan and an IEP goal are not the same thing. If your child has behavioral needs, the IEP itself should contain clear, measurable goals — not just a BIP that vaguely references expected improvements.
Reported goal mastery should be questioned when behavior continues. If the district says your child "met" a behavioral goal but you are still seeing the same behaviors at home and hearing about them at school, ask for evidence of how mastery was measured. A goal that was never truly measurable cannot have been truly met.
Not consenting to an IEP does not excuse the district from offering a FAPE. When a parent withholds consent, California law requires the district to either obtain consent or file for due process — it cannot simply let an outdated IEP run indefinitely. If your child's IEP is old and the district is not taking steps to resolve the impasse, you have the right to demand a current, legally compliant IEP be offered.