District Failed to Document Behavior Services for Student with Autism, But Goals and Placement Were Appropriate

A 12-year-old student with autism in Torrance Unified School District prevailed on several issues, including the district's failure to document and implement behavior and social skills services, an erroneous finding that Student was no longer eligible for special education in 2015, and an insufficient social skills services offer in the November 2016 IEP. However, the district prevailed on issues related to academic and behavior goals and general service delivery. The ALJ ordered the district to provide one hour per week of social skills services from a nonpublic agency and to formally increase Student's social skills group to one hour per week.

What Happened

Student is a 12-year-old boy with autism who attended Torrance Unified School District in full-time general education classes throughout his school career. His autism primarily affected his social skills — he had difficulty initiating conversations, maintaining social interactions, and developing friendships — but he consistently earned good grades, had no disciplinary record, and was well-liked by his teachers. Student's IEP provided behavior and social skills services through the district's Autism Services Team, including a weekly "Lunch Club" group for social skills practice and monthly consultation by a behavior analyst.

In September 2014, the district eliminated Student's Autism Services Team services from his IEP. Parents did not consent, so the district continued the services as "stay put." In September 2015, the district went further and determined that Student was no longer eligible for special education at all — a finding Parents also rejected. Student remained in stay-put services while Parents disputed that decision. In November 2016, the district reinstated Student's autism eligibility and some services, but cut the social skills group services in half. Parents filed for due process in December 2016, raising issues about the adequacy of goals, whether services were actually being delivered, the 2015 eligibility decision, and whether the 2016 IEP offered enough support.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a mixed decision. Student prevailed on four key issues, and the district prevailed on four others.

Where Student won: First, the district materially failed to implement Student's behavior and social skills services — specifically Lunch Club and monthly behavior consultation — from as early as December 2014 through November 2016. While the district's behavior analyst testified that services were provided, there were no service logs, data sheets, or other documentation to back that up. Because Student's goals required measurement through observation and data collection, the absence of documentation was itself evidence of a failure to implement. Second, the district wrongly found Student ineligible for special education in September 2015. The district's own assessment report was contradictory — one sentence said Student's results were consistent with an autism classification, another said they were not — and no evidence showed that Student's condition had actually improved enough to exit special education. The district's own staff later admitted at hearing that Student needed and benefited from the services offered in the November 2016 IEP, yet could point to nothing that changed between 2015 and 2016. Third, the November 2016 IEP offered insufficient social skills services by cutting the social skills group from 30 minutes per week to 60 minutes per month (twice per month), with no adequate justification for the reduction. The district's own expert admitted at hearing that 30 minutes per week was appropriate and he was planning to request an IEP meeting to increase the service.

Where the district won: The ALJ found that Student's academic and behavior goals in both the 2014 and 2016 IEPs were appropriate given his actual performance levels. Student's teachers consistently reported he was performing well academically, and no credible evidence showed his goals were inadequate. The district also successfully delivered its academic consultation services (Learning Center) during the relevant periods, supported by teacher testimony and — for the 2016-2017 year — actual service logs.

What Was Ordered

The district must provide Student with one hour per week of social skills services from a nonpublic agency, beginning within 15 days of the decision, through the end of the 2016-2017 school year and continuing through the end of the 2017-2018 school year.
The district must formally increase the social skills service in Student's November 2016 IEP to one hour per week, effective immediately and continuing until Student's next annual IEP meeting. This service counts as stay put.
All other relief requested by Student — including a full-time one-to-one behavioral aide, 24 hours per month of supervision by a nonpublic agency, and enrollment in a UCLA social skills program — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

If a service is supposed to be measured by data, the district must actually collect and keep that data. When Student's behavior goals required measurement through observation and data collection, and the district produced almost no documentation, the ALJ treated that absence as evidence the services weren't really being delivered. Parents should request copies of data sheets and service logs at every IEP meeting, and if the district cannot produce them, that is a significant red flag.
A district cannot exit a student from special education without clear, documented evidence that the student no longer meets eligibility criteria. Here, the district's own triennial assessment was internally contradictory, and the district reinstated eligibility just 14 months later with no evidence that anything had changed. If your district moves to exit your child from special education, you have the right to an IEP meeting, the right to review all assessment data, and the right to disagree and trigger stay-put protections.
Stay-put services are not a substitute for a properly written IEP offer. The district argued that Student was receiving adequate services because stay-put kept him in Lunch Club even after the 2016 IEP cut services. The ALJ rejected this: the district must make a formal, written offer of appropriate services in the IEP itself, because if Student moves or the team changes, only what is written in the IEP travels with him.
Compensatory education is tailored to what the student actually needed, not what the parent requests. Student's expert recommended a full-time aide and intensive therapy program. The ALJ awarded something more modest — increased social skills group time and nonpublic agency services — because the evidence showed Student was functioning well academically and socially at school, even if imperfectly. The remedy must match the actual harm, not the maximum possible intervention.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a mixed decision. Student prevailed on four key issues, and the district prevailed on four others.

What Was Ordered

The district must provide Student with one hour per week of social skills services from a nonpublic agency, beginning within 15 days of the decision, through the end of the 2016-2017 school year and continuing through the end of the 2017-2018 school year.
The district must formally increase the social skills service in Student's November 2016 IEP to one hour per week, effective immediately and continuing until Student's next annual IEP meeting. This service counts as stay put.
All other relief requested by Student — including a full-time one-to-one behavioral aide, 24 hours per month of supervision by a nonpublic agency, and enrollment in a UCLA social skills program — was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

If a service is supposed to be measured by data, the district must actually collect and keep that data. When Student's behavior goals required measurement through observation and data collection, and the district produced almost no documentation, the ALJ treated that absence as evidence the services weren't really being delivered. Parents should request copies of data sheets and service logs at every IEP meeting, and if the district cannot produce them, that is a significant red flag.
A district cannot exit a student from special education without clear, documented evidence that the student no longer meets eligibility criteria. Here, the district's own triennial assessment was internally contradictory, and the district reinstated eligibility just 14 months later with no evidence that anything had changed. If your district moves to exit your child from special education, you have the right to an IEP meeting, the right to review all assessment data, and the right to disagree and trigger stay-put protections.
Stay-put services are not a substitute for a properly written IEP offer. The district argued that Student was receiving adequate services because stay-put kept him in Lunch Club even after the 2016 IEP cut services. The ALJ rejected this: the district must make a formal, written offer of appropriate services in the IEP itself, because if Student moves or the team changes, only what is written in the IEP travels with him.
Compensatory education is tailored to what the student actually needed, not what the parent requests. Student's expert recommended a full-time aide and intensive therapy program. The ALJ awarded something more modest — increased social skills group time and nonpublic agency services — because the evidence showed Student was functioning well academically and socially at school, even if imperfectly. The remedy must match the actual harm, not the maximum possible intervention.