Irvine USD Denied FAPE by Excluding Student's Teacher and Therapist from IEP Development

What Happened

Student was a seven-year-old boy with autism who had been enrolled by his mother at Eastside Christian Academy, a private school, for the 2016-2017 school year after she declined to consent to Irvine Unified's proposed IEP. Student received extensive support from CARD (Center for Autism and Related Disorders), including a one-to-one ABA-trained aide for 33 hours per week at school. Student was thriving academically — reading at a third to fourth grade level — and making meaningful social and behavioral gains throughout the school year.

In April 2017, Irvine Unified convened an IEP team meeting to develop Student's annual IEP. However, the district built that IEP almost entirely on outdated records: a 2015 preschool assessment, a proposed 2016 IEP that Parent had never signed, and a January 2017 report card. District did not contact Student's actual first-grade teacher (Ms. Buttrey) or his CARD behavior supervisor (Ms. Nguyen) before or during the IEP meeting, even though both had detailed, current knowledge of Student's needs, accommodations, and progress. Parent filed for due process two days after the April 10, 2017 IEP meeting, challenging the IEP's adequacy and the process by which it was developed.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district committed procedural violations that rose to the level of a FAPE denial on multiple fronts. First, the district failed to gather current information about Student's present levels of performance before writing the IEP. Instead, it recycled information from an IEP that was more than a year old and had never been implemented — leaving the IEP's starting point disconnected from Student's actual abilities at the time. Second, the district never reached out to Student's teacher or his ABA behavior supervisor before the IEP meeting. Both had direct, up-to-date knowledge of how Student functioned, what accommodations helped him, and what behavioral strategies were being used. By leaving them out, the district denied Parent the opportunity to consider that information — which is a violation of her right to meaningfully participate in the IEP process.

Third, because the present levels were inaccurate, the annual goals built on top of them were also flawed. Without a reliable baseline, the IEP team could not write goals that were appropriately ambitious or achievable. Fourth, the district failed to provide extended school year (ESY) services in the summer of 2017 consistent with the last agreed-upon IEP from 2015. Under the IDEA's "stay put" rule, the district was required to maintain Student's prior services — including speech, occupational therapy, and adapted physical education — while the due process dispute was pending. It did not.

The district did prevail on one issue: the ALJ found that its assessment process during the 2016-2017 school year was timely and appropriate. The district used alternative means to assess cognitive functioning instead of an IQ test, and Student failed to prove that decision harmed him or blocked Parent's participation. As a result, Parent's request for independent educational evaluations at district expense was denied.

What Was Ordered

1. District must reimburse Parent $6,716.23 for tuition, fees, and uniforms at Eastside Christian and AmeriMont Academy from April 13, 2017 through the date of the decision.
2. District must continue reimbursing AmeriMont tuition and daily transportation (at IRS mileage rates) until it holds a new IEP meeting and makes a valid FAPE offer.
3. District must reimburse $4,200 for occupational therapy services from May through September 2017, plus ongoing OT reimbursement at up to $145/hour and mileage to therapy appointments.
4. District must provide two hours of compensatory speech/language services and two hours of compensatory adapted physical education, to be delivered by a nonpublic agency of Parent's choosing, at up to $150/hour.
5. Requests for reimbursement of ABA services (covered by insurance), materials and equipment, camp and field trip fees, and compensatory OT were denied.
6. Parent's request for publicly funded independent educational evaluations was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Your child's current teachers and therapists must have a seat at the IEP table — or at least provide input. This case shows that a district cannot write an annual IEP using only old records. If your child is placed in a private school or receiving outside services, the district has an obligation to contact those providers and gather current information before developing goals and services.

2. Outdated present levels lead to invalid goals — and that is a FAPE violation. IEP goals must be grounded in where your child actually is right now, not where they were a year ago. If you believe your child's IEP goals are based on stale or incomplete information, document your concerns in writing and request that current data be gathered before goals are finalized.

3. The "stay put" rule protects your child's services during a dispute. While a due process case is pending, the district must continue providing services consistent with the last agreed-upon IEP — including summer ESY services. If the district stops or reduces services during litigation, that itself can be a FAPE violation with consequences.

4. Meaningful participation means having the right information at the right time. The law does not just require that parents be invited to IEP meetings. It requires that parents have access to current, relevant information so they can make informed decisions. When a district withholds or fails to gather that information, it can undermine the entire IEP — even if the meeting itself followed proper procedures.