Bellflower Failed Child Find for 9th Grader with Learning Disability and ADHD

A Bellflower Unified student struggled academically from third grade through eighth grade with reading, writing, math, and attention difficulties, but the district never assessed him for special education — attributing his struggles to laziness rather than disability. The ALJ found Bellflower violated its child find obligations from May 2017 through October 2018, and ordered 69 hours of compensatory education at a specialized learning center. Claims for reimbursement of the parent's private assessment costs were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old ninth grader at Bellflower High School who had attended Bellflower schools since kindergarten. He started school as a capable, eager learner but began struggling academically in third grade — particularly in reading, writing, and math. Bellflower provided him general education intervention programs in third and fifth grade, which helped temporarily but never addressed the underlying cause of his struggles. By sixth, seventh, and eighth grade, Student was failing multiple subjects, displaying disruptive classroom behaviors, and falling far behind his peers. Throughout this time, his teachers consistently attributed his difficulties to laziness or lack of motivation, rather than considering whether a disability might be involved.

Parent became increasingly concerned and reached out to school staff and administrators, but these communications were not treated as requests for special education assessment. It was not until October 2018 — after Parent's email to the superintendent mentioned Student's "disability" — that Bellflower initiated an assessment plan. When the assessment was finally completed in February 2019, Student was found eligible for special education under two categories: specific learning disability (due to processing speed deficits affecting reading, writing, and math) and other health impairment (due to ADHD-like characteristics). Parent then hired a private educational psychologist, Dr. Barbee, who confirmed these findings and recommended intensive compensatory training programs.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that Bellflower violated its "child find" obligation — the legal duty to identify, locate, and evaluate children who may need special education — from May 29, 2017 through October 18, 2018. Student's educational records, available to Bellflower the entire time, documented years of persistent struggles with reading comprehension, writing, math, attention, self-control, and task completion. These are recognized symptoms of a processing disorder and attention deficit disorder. Despite this clear pattern, no teacher or staff member ever referred Student for a special education assessment.

The ALJ was particularly critical of the district's reliance on the subjective belief of teachers that Student was simply unmotivated. This explanation was contradicted by Student's own report cards, which consistently showed satisfactory effort grades even as his academic performance fell. The ALJ noted that federal law does not allow school districts to substitute a staff member's personal opinion for the thorough, reliable evaluation procedures required under the IDEA. By waiting until a school psychologist actually reviewed Student's records — at which point the processing and attention issues were quickly identified — Bellflower demonstrated that it had the tools to recognize the problem far sooner, and simply failed to use them. This procedural violation significantly impeded Parent's ability to participate in educational decision-making and deprived Student of years of special education services he was entitled to receive.

What Was Ordered

Bellflower must fund 69 hours of compensatory education to address Student's deficits in attention, processing, and working memory. This figure was calculated based on approximately 46 school weeks of missed services, at 90 minutes per week of intensive one-on-one training.
The compensatory education must consist of the Attention, Memory, and Processing Skills training program and the Processing and Cognitive Enhancement training program offered by Stowell Learning Center — or similar peer-reviewed, research-based programs mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Parent has sole discretion to allocate the 69 hours between the selected programs.
Student has two years from the date of the decision to use the compensatory education.
Parent's request for reimbursement of the private assessment cost ($5,000 for Dr. Barbee's evaluation) was denied, because the private assessment was obtained after Bellflower had already assessed Student, and Parent did not challenge the adequacy of Bellflower's assessment.
All other claims for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot blame a child's struggles on laziness to avoid its legal duty to assess. If teachers consistently give a child satisfactory effort grades while the child still fails, that contradiction is a red flag that a disability — not motivation — may be the issue. Document this inconsistency and use it to push for an evaluation.
You do not need to use the words "special education" to trigger the district's duty to act. The ALJ found Bellflower's child find duty was triggered long before any formal request, simply because Student's records showed persistent, documented symptoms of disability. The district's awareness of those records is enough.
General education interventions do not excuse a district from assessing for disability. Bellflower repeatedly used intervention programs instead of evaluating Student. The law is clear: if a district suspects a disability, it cannot keep trying general education fixes in place of a proper assessment.
Reimbursement for a private assessment is not automatic, even when the district violated the law. The ALJ denied reimbursement here because the private assessment was obtained to support litigation after the district had already evaluated Student — not to fill a gap the district refused to fill. If you want reimbursement for a private evaluation, it is strongest when obtained because the district refused to assess or you disagree with the district's completed evaluation.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Bellflower must fund 69 hours of compensatory education to address Student's deficits in attention, processing, and working memory. This figure was calculated based on approximately 46 school weeks of missed services, at 90 minutes per week of intensive one-on-one training.
The compensatory education must consist of the Attention, Memory, and Processing Skills training program and the Processing and Cognitive Enhancement training program offered by Stowell Learning Center — or similar peer-reviewed, research-based programs mutually agreed upon by the parties.
Parent has sole discretion to allocate the 69 hours between the selected programs.
Student has two years from the date of the decision to use the compensatory education.
Parent's request for reimbursement of the private assessment cost ($5,000 for Dr. Barbee's evaluation) was denied, because the private assessment was obtained after Bellflower had already assessed Student, and Parent did not challenge the adequacy of Bellflower's assessment.
All other claims for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot blame a child's struggles on laziness to avoid its legal duty to assess. If teachers consistently give a child satisfactory effort grades while the child still fails, that contradiction is a red flag that a disability — not motivation — may be the issue. Document this inconsistency and use it to push for an evaluation.
You do not need to use the words "special education" to trigger the district's duty to act. The ALJ found Bellflower's child find duty was triggered long before any formal request, simply because Student's records showed persistent, documented symptoms of disability. The district's awareness of those records is enough.
General education interventions do not excuse a district from assessing for disability. Bellflower repeatedly used intervention programs instead of evaluating Student. The law is clear: if a district suspects a disability, it cannot keep trying general education fixes in place of a proper assessment.
Reimbursement for a private assessment is not automatic, even when the district violated the law. The ALJ denied reimbursement here because the private assessment was obtained to support litigation after the district had already evaluated Student — not to fill a gap the district refused to fill. If you want reimbursement for a private evaluation, it is strongest when obtained because the district refused to assess or you disagree with the district's completed evaluation.