Glendale Unified's Flawed Behavior Assessments Denied Student with Autism a FAPE

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old girl with autism who attended Glendale Unified School District. Her behaviors worsened significantly over her elementary school years — she became physically aggressive, non-compliant, had dramatic mood shifts, and engaged in behaviors that staff found difficult to understand and manage. Beginning in the 2018–2019 school year, Parent raised serious concerns that the district's assessments and IEPs were not adequately addressing Student's behavioral needs. Parent filed two due process complaints that were eventually consolidated into one hearing, raising 12 issues covering assessments, multiple IEPs spanning 2018 through 2020, implementation of services during COVID-19 distance learning, and whether the district added a second behavior aide without consent.

The district conducted a triennial assessment in November 2018, followed by a functional behavior assessment in October 2019, and held multiple IEP meetings over the following years. Parent argued that both assessments used flawed methods, that the resulting behavior intervention plans were internally contradictory and ineffective, and that Student was denied a math goal she clearly needed. The hearing took place over 11 days by videoconference in March and April 2021.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the November 2018 behavior assessment was fundamentally flawed in two important ways. First, the ABC chart used to track Student's behaviors never defined what each behavior actually looked like, lumping distinct behaviors like hitting, throwing tantrums, and destroying property into vague categories. This made the data unreliable. Second, the Motivation Assessment Scale — a tool used to identify why a student misbehaves — produced results showing "sensory seeking" as the dominant function of Student's behaviors. But the assessor then wrote in the report that sensory supports had not worked, yet still listed sensory seeking as the primary function. This internal contradiction was never explained to the IEP team, leaving them without accurate information to design an effective behavior program. The ALJ concluded this procedural failure significantly prevented Parent from meaningfully participating in developing Student's program.

The October 2019 functional behavior assessment had a similar fatal flaw: the behavior intervention plan it produced defined "non-compliant behavior" in a way that included functional communication phrases — the very same phrases the plan was also trying to teach Student. In other words, the plan told staff to discourage behaviors it simultaneously told them to encourage. This contradiction carried over into the November 2019 IEP's behavior intervention plan as well. The ALJ also found that the November 2018 IEP failed to include any math goal, despite math being identified as an area of need and Student having significant math deficits.

The ALJ further found that in April 2019, the district added a second behavior aide to Student's program without parental consent and without putting the service in the IEP — a procedural violation that denied Student a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

1. Glendale Unified shall contract with a nonpublic agency or credentialed special education teacher of Parent's choice to provide Student 41 hours of individual academic instruction (compensatory education for the missing math goal), accessible through June 1, 2023.
2. Glendale Unified shall fund up to eight hours of time for an independent behavior expert of Parent's choice, including up to four hours of school observation (in up to four sessions), up to two hours of travel time, and up to two hours to attend one IEP team meeting — at a rate up to $200 per hour. Parent has one year from the resumption of in-person instruction to request the observations.
3. All other claims for relief — including compensatory social skills services and behavior consultation services for Parent — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Behavior assessments must define behaviors precisely and resolve contradictions. If a district's assessment lumps multiple different behaviors together or produces conflicting results it never explains, that is a legally significant flaw. Parents can challenge assessments that don't clearly define what behaviors are being tracked or why conclusions seem inconsistent with the data.

2. A behavior intervention plan that contradicts itself cannot provide a FAPE. In this case, the district's plan literally discouraged the same communication it was trying to teach. If your child's behavior plan seems to work against itself — for example, targeting behaviors that are actually appropriate coping strategies — that is grounds for challenging the IEP.

3. If your child's IEP identifies an area of need, the IEP must include a goal for it. The district listed math as an area of need but offered no math goal. The ALJ found this was a denial of FAPE. Parents should review their child's IEP carefully to ensure every identified area of need has a corresponding measurable goal.

4. Districts cannot add services like a second behavior aide without putting it in the IEP and getting parental consent. Informal changes to a child's program — even if well-intentioned — are procedural violations if they aren't reflected in the IEP and consented to by Parent.