Bellflower Cuts Speech Therapy Without Justification, But Parent Loses Most Claims

What Happened

Student was a student at Jefferson Elementary School in Bellflower Unified School District, initially found eligible for special education in 2012 under a speech-language impairment. Throughout elementary school, Student received speech therapy, resource specialist pullout services, and general education class placement. Student struggled with receptive and expressive language, reading, and writing, but math was a relative strength. Parent, who attended every IEP meeting with a Spanish interpreter, raised persistent concerns that Student was falling behind academically, being bullied at school, and experiencing anxiety and depression at home. School staff consistently reported that Student was well-behaved, had friends, and was not being bullied — though they did observe that Student was reluctant to participate in the larger general education classroom.

Parent filed a due process complaint in February 2018, raising over a dozen separate claims spanning multiple IEP years. These included allegations that the district failed to assess Student in social-emotional, speech-language, and assistive technology areas; failed to offer appropriate placement in a special day class or nonpublic school; failed to provide a behavior intervention plan and aide support; predetermined its placement offer; impeded Parent's participation; and improperly reduced speech therapy services. The hearing was held over four days in September 2018.

What the ALJ Found

Student prevailed on only five of the more than twenty issues raised. The most significant wins were:

The district secretly cut speech therapy without any justification. The November 2015 triennial IEP had established two 30-minute speech therapy sessions per week. When the November 2016 annual IEP was drafted, the document simply stated Student would "continue with" one 30-minute session — cutting the service in half. No assessment was done, no speech pathologist recommended the reduction, and no explanation appeared anywhere in the IEP. The ALJ found this was an improper, unexplained reduction that violated Student's right to a FAPE. This error carried forward into the May 2017 amendment IEP and the October 2017 annual IEP, none of which corrected the problem.

The district predetermined placement at the October 2017 IEP. By that school year, both the general education teacher and the resource specialist had separately observed — and discussed with each other — that Student was not participating, not completing work, and not performing in the general education classroom, while thriving in small group settings. Yet at the October 2017 IEP, the team offered the same general education placement without any meaningful analysis or discussion of whether a more restrictive setting was appropriate. The ALJ found this was predetermination — the district had made up its mind before the meeting and did not genuinely consider alternatives. The appropriate placement would have been a special day class, or at minimum an assessment to determine the right setting.

Parent did not prevail on the remaining claims. The ALJ found no evidence that Student's behaviors — including not doing homework, not participating in class, or being inattentive — rose to the level requiring a behavior intervention plan or a full-time aide. A behavior analyst later conducted a functional behavior assessment and confirmed no such interventions were warranted. Claims about social-emotional assessment, assistive technology assessment, math instruction, present levels of performance, and Parent's participation were also denied, as Student either failed to present sufficient evidence or the district's actions were supported by the record.

Notably, even though the district's predetermination at the October 2017 IEP was a FAPE violation, Student did not receive compensatory education for the delayed special day class placement — because Parent had initially refused to allow the placement change mid-year, wanting Student to begin the special day class the following school year instead. The ALJ found that any compensatory award for the placement delay would be speculative given this choice.

What Was Ordered

1. Bellflower Unified School District shall fund 26 hours of speech and language services from a nonpublic agency of Student's choice, to compensate for one missed 30-minute session per week from November 2016 through April 2018.
2. Student's family may select any qualified nonpublic agency — it does not need to have an existing contract with the district.
3. The district shall pay the nonpublic agency directly, at a rate not to exceed $120 per hour.
4. Student has up to 24 months from the date of the decision to use these compensatory speech services.
5. All other requests for relief — including compensatory education for delayed special day class placement, reimbursement, and behavior supports — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A reduction in services requires a documented reason. If your child's IEP reduces a service — like cutting speech therapy from two sessions to one — the district must be able to explain why. A new assessment, a recommendation from the service provider, or a knowing agreement from Parent are all legitimate reasons. Simply writing a lower number in the IEP document is not. If you see a service reduction with no explanation, challenge it immediately.

2. Predetermination means the district's mind was made up before the meeting. When a district ignores clear evidence that a placement isn't working — like teacher reports that a student won't participate or complete work — and offers the same placement anyway without analysis, that is a procedural violation. The key signal is whether the team genuinely discussed alternatives, not just whether they let Parent speak.

3. A parent's decision during the dispute can affect what remedy is available. Even when a district commits a FAPE violation, the remedy must be realistic. In this case, the ALJ could not award compensatory education for the late special day class offer because Parent had chosen not to allow the placement change mid-year. Parents should be aware that their decisions during an IEP dispute can limit what an ALJ can order later.

4. Behavior concerns at home don't automatically require a behavior plan at school. The ALJ carefully distinguished between Parent's reports of anxiety, defiance, and homework refusal at home and what school staff actually observed. Because Student was well-behaved at school and a later behavior assessment confirmed no formal intervention was needed, the district was not required to create a behavior support plan. Evidence of school-based behavior — not just home behavior — is needed to support these claims.