Soledad USD Denied FAPE by Misleading Parents About Placement at Salinas High School

A 15-year-old nonverbal student with autism and intellectual disability was denied a FAPE after Soledad Unified School District's special education director misled parents into believing their son would be placed at Salinas High School, then failed to convene a follow-up IEP meeting when that placement fell through. The district never made a clear, written offer of placement and services that parents could meaningfully evaluate or consent to. The ALJ ordered the district to identify appropriate placements, hold a properly facilitated IEP meeting with the independent evaluators present, and provide staff training on legally compliant IEP development.

What Happened

The student is a 15-year-old nonverbal young man with autism and intellectual disability whose skills, in many areas, were described by his father as those of "a 15-year-old toddler." He communicates using an iPod-based communication device, some American Sign Language signs, and gestures. He had been placed in a moderate/severe special day classroom at Soledad High School taught by general education teacher Vance Lang. The last IEP parents had actually consented to dated back to January 2015. A 2016 settlement agreement between the family and the district resolved prior disputes and required the district to fund three independent educational evaluations — in speech-language, behavior, and psychoeducation — and to hold an IEP team meeting no later than February 15, 2017, to review those evaluations. Parents waived all claims prior to that date as part of the settlement.

At the February 13, 2017 IEP meeting, all three independent evaluators presented their findings. The evaluations painted a consistent and troubling picture: the student spent his school days coloring alone at the back of the classroom with headphones on, rarely used his communication device in class, had no visual schedule, and was making only 15–20% progress on his teacher-developed goals. Before any discussion of goals, accommodations, or a formal placement offer could occur, the district's Special Education Director steered the conversation toward a possible placement at Salinas High School in the neighboring Salinas Unified School District. The IEP meeting ended without a completed annual IEP, without any discussion of goals or present levels, and without a clear offer of placement. When the mother visited Salinas in March 2017 and agreed the program was appropriate, the director delayed action, told parents by email that "things look positive," and ultimately had the Salinas director — not himself — deliver the bad news that Salinas would not accept the student. The district's superintendent then directed parents through an inter-district transfer process that also failed, with parents receiving final rejection on May 23, 2017. By then, nearly four months had passed without a completed IEP, and the district had never convened another IEP team meeting.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to make a clear offer of placement and services. Although the February 13, 2017 IEP document contained pages of goals and a placement page, none of these were discussed at the actual IEP meeting. Under the Union School District v. Smith standard, districts must make a clear, written offer of placement that parents can understand and act on. The district never did this.
Misled parents about the Salinas placement. The Special Education Director told parents — in writing — that placement at Salinas looked "positive," when he had not secured any inter-district agreement. This misinformation caused parents to wait months believing placement was imminent, preventing them from meaningfully participating in the IEP process.
Failed to reconvene the IEP team. After the February 13 meeting ended without a completed IEP, the district made no attempt to schedule a follow-up meeting in March, April, or May 2017 — even after learning Salinas would not accept the student. This left the student without a current, consented-to IEP for the entire period at issue.
Denied parents meaningful participation in IEP development. By dangling a potential out-of-district placement and then failing to follow through or call a new meeting, the district effectively froze the IEP process. Parents had no real opportunity to weigh in on goals, accommodations, or services.
Inadequate classroom programming prior to February 2017 (informing the remedy). Independent evaluators observed the student coloring alone for hours each day with headphones on, using his communication device only during therapy sessions, and being subjected to the teacher's stated belief that the student "is unlikely to learn more." While claims before February 15, 2017 were waived, these findings shaped the ALJ's remedial orders.

What Was Ordered

Identify appropriate placements within 10 days. Soledad must determine within 10 calendar days whether any moderate-to-severe autism-focused special day classrooms exist for high school students where the student could be placed, and arrange for parents to observe them. If parents want an advocate present for observations, the district must pay the advocate's normal rate.
Convene a properly facilitated IEP meeting within 20 days. If the student does not already have a current, consented-to IEP, the district must hold an IEP team meeting within 20 calendar days. The meeting must be facilitated by a neutral party — not a district employee or attorney (for example, a private mediator or SELPA representative). The meeting must address present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, identify needs, create meaningful measurable goals, determine accommodations and modifications, and if possible, determine placement.
Fund attendance of independent evaluators at the IEP meeting. Soledad must pay Ms. Pratt (speech-language), Ms. Keslin (behavior), and Dr. Schilling (psychoeducation) their normal rates to attend the IEP meeting in person or by phone, including travel time. If a second meeting is needed, the same conditions apply.
Reimburse parents for advocate or attorney fees at the IEP meeting. If parents wish to have an advocate or attorney present at the IEP meeting (or any required follow-up meeting), the district must reimburse those fees at normal rates.
Mandatory staff training by March 15, 2018. All Soledad personnel responsible for convening IEP meetings, and all special education administrators, must receive three hours of training on timely IEP meetings and legally compliant IEP development. The trainer must be an outside professional — not a district employee or district attorney — such as an outside special education attorney or a university instructor.
Extended school year / compensatory education denied. Parents' request for the student to remain in special education two additional years as compensatory education was denied. Parents waived claims before February 15, 2017, and presented no specific evidence about the type, frequency, or duration of compensatory services needed after that date.

Why This Matters for Parents

A verbal promise of placement is not an IEP offer — get it in writing. Under California and federal law, a district must make a clear, written offer of placement and services in the IEP document itself. If a district administrator tells you a great placement "looks positive" but no IEP offer is finalized and signed, the IEP process is not complete. Do not stop pushing for a completed, written IEP while you wait for informal assurances to pan out.
Districts cannot let the IEP process stall while pursuing alternative placements. Even if a district is exploring a placement in another school district or program, it must still complete the IEP with a clear offer. If a proposed placement falls through, the district must immediately reconvene the IEP team — not leave families in limbo for months.
Document every promise and every delay. In this case, a single email from the Special Education Director saying "things look positive" was central evidence that parents had been misled. Save every email, text, and letter from the district. If a promise is made verbally, follow up in writing: "As we discussed, you said Student will be placed at Salinas. Please confirm in writing."
Independent evaluations are powerful tools — but you must present the evidence at hearing. The three independent evaluations funded by the settlement agreement were thorough and credible, and they drove the ALJ's remedial orders. However, parents lost on the goal-progress issue because they did not introduce the weekly progress reports into evidence and could not give specific testimony. If you go to hearing, bring your documents and be prepared to testify specifically about what went wrong and when.
Staff training can be a remedy, even if no money changes hands. If a district's staff have poor practices — like a teacher who believes a student "is unlikely to learn more" — an ALJ can order the district to train its staff as a form of compensatory relief. This type of remedy can benefit your child and other children in the district long-term.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to make a clear offer of placement and services. Although the February 13, 2017 IEP document contained pages of goals and a placement page, none of these were discussed at the actual IEP meeting. Under the Union School District v. Smith standard, districts must make a clear, written offer of placement that parents can understand and act on. The district never did this.
Misled parents about the Salinas placement. The Special Education Director told parents — in writing — that placement at Salinas looked "positive," when he had not secured any inter-district agreement. This misinformation caused parents to wait months believing placement was imminent, preventing them from meaningfully participating in the IEP process.
Failed to reconvene the IEP team. After the February 13 meeting ended without a completed IEP, the district made no attempt to schedule a follow-up meeting in March, April, or May 2017 — even after learning Salinas would not accept the student. This left the student without a current, consented-to IEP for the entire period at issue.
Denied parents meaningful participation in IEP development. By dangling a potential out-of-district placement and then failing to follow through or call a new meeting, the district effectively froze the IEP process. Parents had no real opportunity to weigh in on goals, accommodations, or services.
Inadequate classroom programming prior to February 2017 (informing the remedy). Independent evaluators observed the student coloring alone for hours each day with headphones on, using his communication device only during therapy sessions, and being subjected to the teacher's stated belief that the student "is unlikely to learn more." While claims before February 15, 2017 were waived, these findings shaped the ALJ's remedial orders.

What Was Ordered

Identify appropriate placements within 10 days. Soledad must determine within 10 calendar days whether any moderate-to-severe autism-focused special day classrooms exist for high school students where the student could be placed, and arrange for parents to observe them. If parents want an advocate present for observations, the district must pay the advocate's normal rate.
Convene a properly facilitated IEP meeting within 20 days. If the student does not already have a current, consented-to IEP, the district must hold an IEP team meeting within 20 calendar days. The meeting must be facilitated by a neutral party — not a district employee or attorney (for example, a private mediator or SELPA representative). The meeting must address present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, identify needs, create meaningful measurable goals, determine accommodations and modifications, and if possible, determine placement.
Fund attendance of independent evaluators at the IEP meeting. Soledad must pay Ms. Pratt (speech-language), Ms. Keslin (behavior), and Dr. Schilling (psychoeducation) their normal rates to attend the IEP meeting in person or by phone, including travel time. If a second meeting is needed, the same conditions apply.
Reimburse parents for advocate or attorney fees at the IEP meeting. If parents wish to have an advocate or attorney present at the IEP meeting (or any required follow-up meeting), the district must reimburse those fees at normal rates.
Mandatory staff training by March 15, 2018. All Soledad personnel responsible for convening IEP meetings, and all special education administrators, must receive three hours of training on timely IEP meetings and legally compliant IEP development. The trainer must be an outside professional — not a district employee or district attorney — such as an outside special education attorney or a university instructor.
Extended school year / compensatory education denied. Parents' request for the student to remain in special education two additional years as compensatory education was denied. Parents waived claims before February 15, 2017, and presented no specific evidence about the type, frequency, or duration of compensatory services needed after that date.

Why This Matters for Parents

A verbal promise of placement is not an IEP offer — get it in writing. Under California and federal law, a district must make a clear, written offer of placement and services in the IEP document itself. If a district administrator tells you a great placement "looks positive" but no IEP offer is finalized and signed, the IEP process is not complete. Do not stop pushing for a completed, written IEP while you wait for informal assurances to pan out.
Districts cannot let the IEP process stall while pursuing alternative placements. Even if a district is exploring a placement in another school district or program, it must still complete the IEP with a clear offer. If a proposed placement falls through, the district must immediately reconvene the IEP team — not leave families in limbo for months.
Document every promise and every delay. In this case, a single email from the Special Education Director saying "things look positive" was central evidence that parents had been misled. Save every email, text, and letter from the district. If a promise is made verbally, follow up in writing: "As we discussed, you said Student will be placed at Salinas. Please confirm in writing."
Independent evaluations are powerful tools — but you must present the evidence at hearing. The three independent evaluations funded by the settlement agreement were thorough and credible, and they drove the ALJ's remedial orders. However, parents lost on the goal-progress issue because they did not introduce the weekly progress reports into evidence and could not give specific testimony. If you go to hearing, bring your documents and be prepared to testify specifically about what went wrong and when.
Staff training can be a remedy, even if no money changes hands. If a district's staff have poor practices — like a teacher who believes a student "is unlikely to learn more" — an ALJ can order the district to train its staff as a form of compensatory relief. This type of remedy can benefit your child and other children in the district long-term.