Long Beach Denied FAPE to Autistic Student by Wrong Placement, Missing IEP, and Predetermination

A Long Beach parent of a 14-year-old autistic student won significant reimbursement after the district placed him in the wrong classroom, skipped his annual IEP for nearly two years, and then rubber-stamped an outdated IEP without updating his progress or goals. The ALJ found multiple FAPE denials and ordered over $84,000 in private school tuition reimbursement for Davidson Learning Center, plus continued reimbursement through the 2021 extended school year.

What Happened

The student is a 14-year-old boy diagnosed with autism who was in eighth grade at the time of the hearing. His parent filed for due process in January 2021, challenging a series of failures by Long Beach Unified School District stretching back to 2019. The core dispute began when Long Beach held the student's annual IEP meeting on January 30, 2019, and offered placement in a moderate-to-severe special day class (SDC) with a functional curriculum and only group instruction — despite evidence that the student needed one-to-one instruction and was making progress in a less restrictive mild-to-moderate SDC. The parent refused to consent to the moderate-to-severe placement and notified the district in August 2019 that she was enrolling her son at Davidson Learning Center, a private program, and would seek reimbursement. The district never filed for due process to defend its IEP, never held an annual IEP meeting in January 2020 as required, and arrived at the December 2020 IEP meeting with essentially the same two-year-old offer — unchanged despite the student's significant academic progress at Davidson.

At Davidson Learning Center, the student received exclusive one-to-one instruction and made nearly two full grade levels of academic progress over approximately two years. By hearing time, he was approaching a third-grade reading level and could sustain focus on tasks for up to 40 minutes. The parent argued that the district's repeated failures — wrong placement, missing annual IEP, no updated goals or present levels, and a predetermined December 2020 IEP — denied her son a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and entitled her to tuition reimbursement. The district argued, unsuccessfully, that because the student had "unenrolled" by attending a private school, it had no ongoing obligations. The ALJ rejected that argument entirely.

What the District Did Wrong

Wrong Placement in the January 30, 2019 IEP: Long Beach offered placement in a moderate-to-severe SDC with only group instruction, even though the IEP itself acknowledged the student needed one-to-one instruction to learn. The independent evaluator Dr. Johnson found, credibly, that the student was not cognitively suited to a functional curriculum and would be more distracted in a moderate-to-severe setting. The student had been making progress in a mild-to-moderate SDC and did not require the more restrictive setting the district proposed.
Inappropriate Language Arts Goals in the January 2019 IEP: The proposed comprehension and sequencing goals only asked the student to listen to first-grade texts — even though his baseline showed he could already decode words at a third-grade level and answer comprehension questions when a text was read to him. The goals were a step backward, not forward, and lacked a direct relationship to his present levels of performance.
Failure to Hold an Annual IEP Meeting by January 2020: After the January 30, 2019 IEP, Long Beach did not hold another annual IEP meeting for nearly two years — until December 15, 2020. The district wrongly claimed the student had "unenrolled." The ALJ was clear: residency, not enrollment, triggers IDEA obligations, and a parent's unilateral private placement to seek reimbursement does not end the district's duty to hold annual IEP meetings.
Failure to Have an IEP in Place for the 2020-2021 School Year: Because no annual meeting was held, no updated IEP existed when the 2020-2021 school year began. This left the parent unable to make an informed decision about returning to Long Beach, since there was no current FAPE offer to evaluate.
Predetermination of the December 15, 2020 IEP: Long Beach came to the December 2020 meeting with the same placement and services it had offered two years earlier when the student was in sixth grade. The district did not contact Davidson Learning Center, did not request progress records, did not draft updated goals, and did not update present levels of performance. Allowing the parent to attend and speak at the meeting did not cure the predetermination. The ALJ found Long Beach presented a take-it-or-leave-it offer without an open mind, violating the student's and parent's procedural rights under the IDEA.
December 2020 IEP Also Substantively Denied FAPE: Because the December 2020 IEP was identical to the defective January 2019 IEP — wrong placement, no one-to-one instruction, inadequate language arts goals — it independently denied the student a FAPE on the merits as well.

Where the District Prevailed:

The triennial assessment conducted in early 2019 was found adequate. Although the school psychologist did not conduct standardized testing (because the parent had withheld consent for that portion), she used teacher reports, parent interviews, observations, and reviewed the independent evaluation. The ALJ found this met legal requirements.
Long Beach's failure to file for due process to defend its January 2019 placement offer was a procedural violation, but because the student received meaningful educational benefit while remaining in the mild-to-moderate SDC through June 2019, that particular procedural lapse did not rise to a FAPE denial.
The mathematics and writing goals in the January 2019 IEP were found appropriate.
The student was not entitled to reimbursement for the independent psychoeducational evaluation because the triennial assessment issue was decided in the district's favor.

What Was Ordered

$84,517.50 tuition reimbursement — Long Beach must reimburse the parent within 45 days for Davidson Learning Center tuition from September 2019 through May 14, 2021, including quarterly curriculum development fees and the initial academic testing fee. The $100 uniform fee was denied.
Continued ESY reimbursement — Long Beach must reimburse the parent for Davidson Learning Center tuition for every day the student attended from May 17, 2021 through the end of the 2021 extended school year, at a rate not to exceed $65 per hour for three hours per day, plus a $300 curriculum development fee for Q4 2021. Payment is due within 45 days of receiving adequate documentation.
All other requests denied — The request for an additional full year of compensatory tuition reimbursement for the 2021-2022 school year and the 2022 ESY was denied. The ALJ found the ordered remedy was sufficient to address the FAPE denials without awarding prospective compensation beyond the ESY period.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child stays the district's responsibility even if you place them privately. If you pull your child from public school because the district failed to offer FAPE and you want reimbursement, the district still must hold annual IEP meetings and have an IEP in place each school year. Do not let the district tell you otherwise. Residency — not enrollment — is what triggers IDEA obligations.
Document everything when you disagree with a placement. This parent gave written 10-day notice of the private placement and clearly stated she was seeking reimbursement. That notice protected her reimbursement rights. If you are considering a private placement, give written notice to the district before or at the time of enrollment.
An IEP that is simply recycled from a prior year — without updating present levels, goals, or services — can be thrown out as predetermination. If the district shows up to your IEP meeting with a pre-written document that looks nearly identical to last year's IEP and refuses to incorporate new information (like a private school's progress reports or an independent evaluation), that is a red flag for predetermination. Push back and document your objections in writing.
Goals that do not challenge your child are legally defective. In this case, the district proposed language arts goals that actually required less of the student than his baseline showed he could do. Goals must have a direct relationship to present levels of performance and must be reasonably calculated to produce progress — not plateau or regression.
If the district offers you a placement but you don't consent, it must either implement what you agreed to or file for due process — not just wait. California law (Ed. Code § 56346) requires a district to go to due process if it believes the portion of the IEP you refused to consent to is necessary for FAPE. A district that simply lets years pass without acting is committing a procedural violation — and if your child is not receiving meaningful benefit in the meantime, that violation becomes a full FAPE denial.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Wrong Placement in the January 30, 2019 IEP: Long Beach offered placement in a moderate-to-severe SDC with only group instruction, even though the IEP itself acknowledged the student needed one-to-one instruction to learn. The independent evaluator Dr. Johnson found, credibly, that the student was not cognitively suited to a functional curriculum and would be more distracted in a moderate-to-severe setting. The student had been making progress in a mild-to-moderate SDC and did not require the more restrictive setting the district proposed.
Inappropriate Language Arts Goals in the January 2019 IEP: The proposed comprehension and sequencing goals only asked the student to listen to first-grade texts — even though his baseline showed he could already decode words at a third-grade level and answer comprehension questions when a text was read to him. The goals were a step backward, not forward, and lacked a direct relationship to his present levels of performance.
Failure to Hold an Annual IEP Meeting by January 2020: After the January 30, 2019 IEP, Long Beach did not hold another annual IEP meeting for nearly two years — until December 15, 2020. The district wrongly claimed the student had "unenrolled." The ALJ was clear: residency, not enrollment, triggers IDEA obligations, and a parent's unilateral private placement to seek reimbursement does not end the district's duty to hold annual IEP meetings.
Failure to Have an IEP in Place for the 2020-2021 School Year: Because no annual meeting was held, no updated IEP existed when the 2020-2021 school year began. This left the parent unable to make an informed decision about returning to Long Beach, since there was no current FAPE offer to evaluate.
Predetermination of the December 15, 2020 IEP: Long Beach came to the December 2020 meeting with the same placement and services it had offered two years earlier when the student was in sixth grade. The district did not contact Davidson Learning Center, did not request progress records, did not draft updated goals, and did not update present levels of performance. Allowing the parent to attend and speak at the meeting did not cure the predetermination. The ALJ found Long Beach presented a take-it-or-leave-it offer without an open mind, violating the student's and parent's procedural rights under the IDEA.
December 2020 IEP Also Substantively Denied FAPE: Because the December 2020 IEP was identical to the defective January 2019 IEP — wrong placement, no one-to-one instruction, inadequate language arts goals — it independently denied the student a FAPE on the merits as well.

Where the District Prevailed:

The triennial assessment conducted in early 2019 was found adequate. Although the school psychologist did not conduct standardized testing (because the parent had withheld consent for that portion), she used teacher reports, parent interviews, observations, and reviewed the independent evaluation. The ALJ found this met legal requirements.
Long Beach's failure to file for due process to defend its January 2019 placement offer was a procedural violation, but because the student received meaningful educational benefit while remaining in the mild-to-moderate SDC through June 2019, that particular procedural lapse did not rise to a FAPE denial.
The mathematics and writing goals in the January 2019 IEP were found appropriate.
The student was not entitled to reimbursement for the independent psychoeducational evaluation because the triennial assessment issue was decided in the district's favor.

What Was Ordered

$84,517.50 tuition reimbursement — Long Beach must reimburse the parent within 45 days for Davidson Learning Center tuition from September 2019 through May 14, 2021, including quarterly curriculum development fees and the initial academic testing fee. The $100 uniform fee was denied.
Continued ESY reimbursement — Long Beach must reimburse the parent for Davidson Learning Center tuition for every day the student attended from May 17, 2021 through the end of the 2021 extended school year, at a rate not to exceed $65 per hour for three hours per day, plus a $300 curriculum development fee for Q4 2021. Payment is due within 45 days of receiving adequate documentation.
All other requests denied — The request for an additional full year of compensatory tuition reimbursement for the 2021-2022 school year and the 2022 ESY was denied. The ALJ found the ordered remedy was sufficient to address the FAPE denials without awarding prospective compensation beyond the ESY period.

Why This Matters for Parents

Your child stays the district's responsibility even if you place them privately. If you pull your child from public school because the district failed to offer FAPE and you want reimbursement, the district still must hold annual IEP meetings and have an IEP in place each school year. Do not let the district tell you otherwise. Residency — not enrollment — is what triggers IDEA obligations.
Document everything when you disagree with a placement. This parent gave written 10-day notice of the private placement and clearly stated she was seeking reimbursement. That notice protected her reimbursement rights. If you are considering a private placement, give written notice to the district before or at the time of enrollment.
An IEP that is simply recycled from a prior year — without updating present levels, goals, or services — can be thrown out as predetermination. If the district shows up to your IEP meeting with a pre-written document that looks nearly identical to last year's IEP and refuses to incorporate new information (like a private school's progress reports or an independent evaluation), that is a red flag for predetermination. Push back and document your objections in writing.
Goals that do not challenge your child are legally defective. In this case, the district proposed language arts goals that actually required less of the student than his baseline showed he could do. Goals must have a direct relationship to present levels of performance and must be reasonably calculated to produce progress — not plateau or regression.
If the district offers you a placement but you don't consent, it must either implement what you agreed to or file for due process — not just wait. California law (Ed. Code § 56346) requires a district to go to due process if it believes the portion of the IEP you refused to consent to is necessary for FAPE. A district that simply lets years pass without acting is committing a procedural violation — and if your child is not receiving meaningful benefit in the meantime, that violation becomes a full FAPE denial.