Lakeport Unified Cannot Implement IEP Without Consent — Missing Communication and Behavior Goals

Lakeport Unified School District filed for due process seeking to implement an IEP over parents' objections for a 15-year-old student with Down syndrome. The ALJ found the IEP failed to address the student's severe receptive and expressive language deficits, lacked appropriate functional communication and behavior goals, and omitted an augmentative communication device the student needed. Despite finding the proposed Regional Program placement could potentially be appropriate, the district could not implement the IEP without parental consent because the underlying goals and services were deficient.

What Happened

A 15-year-old student with Down syndrome had been enrolled in Lakeport Unified since early childhood, qualifying for special education under the categories of intellectual disability and speech or language impairment. By the time he reached high school, his behaviors had escalated significantly: he was suspended multiple times for inappropriate touching of staff and peers, sexual gestures, noncompliance, and aggression. Expert assessors — including a board-certified behavior analyst with 30 years of experience — concluded that the student's severe deficits in receptive and expressive language were directly driving his problem behaviors, because he had no reliable way to communicate his wants and needs. The district's own speech-language pathologist agreed the student urgently needed functional communication goals woven throughout his school day.

Lakeport Unified developed an April 14, 2021 IEP (amended September 20, 2021) and proposed placing the student in a regional special day class for students with moderate-to-severe disabilities at a neighboring district's high school. When the parents refused to consent — primarily objecting to the out-of-district placement — the district filed for due process seeking permission to implement the IEP without parental consent. The parents, who were Spanish-speaking and participated with an interpreter throughout, argued the IEP itself was inadequate, not just the placement. The ALJ agreed with the parents and ruled the district could not implement the IEP.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the student/parents on the sole issue. Although procedural notice and parental participation requirements were met, the IEP contained multiple substantive and procedural failures that collectively denied the student a FAPE:

Failed to describe communication and behavior deficits in present levels. The IEP mentioned only speech intelligibility needs but did not document the student's severe receptive and expressive language deficits or explain how those deficits fueled his problem behaviors. This omission denied parents critical information needed to meaningfully participate in IEP development.
No functional communication goals. The IEP offered no goals targeting the student's ability to understand directives (receptive language) or to express wants and needs through appropriate functional communication. The behavior analyst and speech-language pathologist both testified this was the student's single most important need.
Behavior goals did not address communication. The two behavior goals in the IEP aimed at reducing inappropriate behaviors through redirection and social stories, but neither goal required the student to use functional communication as a replacement behavior — the very strategy the experts said was essential.
Unmeasurable math goal. The math goal failed to specify a target number of objects for addition/subtraction, meaning it did not require the student to improve beyond his current ability level. A goal that does not push a student forward is not an appropriate goal.
No augmentative communication (AAC) device offered. The behavior intervention plan referenced the possibility of an AAC device, and the behavior analyst explicitly recommended one, but the IEP itself never formally offered an AAC device as an accommodation or assistive technology service. Without it, neither the trained behavior aide nor the behavior intervention plan could adequately support the student's functional communication needs.
Inadequate speech-language services. The 90 minutes per month of speech services addressed only speech intelligibility (speaking more clearly), not the student's broader receptive and expressive language deficits. No service minutes were allocated to functional communication instruction.
Placement cannot be approved without valid goals and services. Even though the Regional Program at Kelseyville High School appeared to have appropriate facilities, credentialed staff, and mainstreaming opportunities, the ALJ held that a placement offer is only valid if it is built on an IEP with appropriate goals, services, and supports. Because the underlying IEP was deficient, the placement offer also failed.

What Was Ordered

Lakeport Unified may not implement the April 14, 2021 IEP, as amended on September 20, 2021, without parental consent.

(Note: Because the district filed this case seeking permission to implement the IEP, and lost, no compensatory services or other affirmative remedies were ordered. The practical effect is that the status quo — the placement and services the parents have consented to — must continue until a new, compliant IEP is developed and either agreed to by the parents or approved through a new legal proceeding.)

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts must document WHY a behavior exists, not just what it looks like. If your child's experts say problem behaviors stem from a communication deficit, that analysis belongs in the IEP's present levels section — in plain terms. If the IEP only describes the behavior without connecting it to its root cause, the goals and services that follow will likely miss the mark. Ask at every IEP meeting: "Does this IEP explain why my child behaves this way?"
Functional communication is a standalone need — not a side effect of other goals. A visual schedule or a behavior redirection plan is not the same as teaching a child to communicate. If your child uses behavior to communicate wants and needs, the IEP must include explicit goals for functional communication (receptive AND expressive language). Don't accept the argument that other goals "cover" this need.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices must be formally offered in the IEP — not just mentioned in an attached report. It is not enough for an expert's report to recommend an AAC device. The device must appear as a formally offered accommodation or assistive technology service in the IEP document itself. If an evaluator recommends one, insist it be written into the IEP.
A district that files for due process still has to prove its entire IEP is appropriate — not just the part parents objected to. In this case, the parents objected mainly to the placement, but the ALJ evaluated the whole IEP and found deeper problems. If your district files due process against you, you have the right to challenge every aspect of the IEP, not only the specific item in dispute.
An impressive placement cannot rescue a deficient IEP. Even if a proposed school or program sounds good on paper — great staff, good facilities, mainstreaming opportunities — a placement is only as valid as the goals and services it is designed to deliver. If the IEP's goals are missing or unmeasurable, the placement offer fails with them. Always evaluate the IEP document itself before agreeing to any placement.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Failed to describe communication and behavior deficits in present levels. The IEP mentioned only speech intelligibility needs but did not document the student's severe receptive and expressive language deficits or explain how those deficits fueled his problem behaviors. This omission denied parents critical information needed to meaningfully participate in IEP development.
No functional communication goals. The IEP offered no goals targeting the student's ability to understand directives (receptive language) or to express wants and needs through appropriate functional communication. The behavior analyst and speech-language pathologist both testified this was the student's single most important need.
Behavior goals did not address communication. The two behavior goals in the IEP aimed at reducing inappropriate behaviors through redirection and social stories, but neither goal required the student to use functional communication as a replacement behavior — the very strategy the experts said was essential.
Unmeasurable math goal. The math goal failed to specify a target number of objects for addition/subtraction, meaning it did not require the student to improve beyond his current ability level. A goal that does not push a student forward is not an appropriate goal.
No augmentative communication (AAC) device offered. The behavior intervention plan referenced the possibility of an AAC device, and the behavior analyst explicitly recommended one, but the IEP itself never formally offered an AAC device as an accommodation or assistive technology service. Without it, neither the trained behavior aide nor the behavior intervention plan could adequately support the student's functional communication needs.
Inadequate speech-language services. The 90 minutes per month of speech services addressed only speech intelligibility (speaking more clearly), not the student's broader receptive and expressive language deficits. No service minutes were allocated to functional communication instruction.
Placement cannot be approved without valid goals and services. Even though the Regional Program at Kelseyville High School appeared to have appropriate facilities, credentialed staff, and mainstreaming opportunities, the ALJ held that a placement offer is only valid if it is built on an IEP with appropriate goals, services, and supports. Because the underlying IEP was deficient, the placement offer also failed.

What Was Ordered

Lakeport Unified may not implement the April 14, 2021 IEP, as amended on September 20, 2021, without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts must document WHY a behavior exists, not just what it looks like. If your child's experts say problem behaviors stem from a communication deficit, that analysis belongs in the IEP's present levels section — in plain terms. If the IEP only describes the behavior without connecting it to its root cause, the goals and services that follow will likely miss the mark. Ask at every IEP meeting: "Does this IEP explain why my child behaves this way?"
Functional communication is a standalone need — not a side effect of other goals. A visual schedule or a behavior redirection plan is not the same as teaching a child to communicate. If your child uses behavior to communicate wants and needs, the IEP must include explicit goals for functional communication (receptive AND expressive language). Don't accept the argument that other goals "cover" this need.
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices must be formally offered in the IEP — not just mentioned in an attached report. It is not enough for an expert's report to recommend an AAC device. The device must appear as a formally offered accommodation or assistive technology service in the IEP document itself. If an evaluator recommends one, insist it be written into the IEP.
A district that files for due process still has to prove its entire IEP is appropriate — not just the part parents objected to. In this case, the parents objected mainly to the placement, but the ALJ evaluated the whole IEP and found deeper problems. If your district files due process against you, you have the right to challenge every aspect of the IEP, not only the specific item in dispute.
An impressive placement cannot rescue a deficient IEP. Even if a proposed school or program sounds good on paper — great staff, good facilities, mainstreaming opportunities — a placement is only as valid as the goals and services it is designed to deliver. If the IEP's goals are missing or unmeasurable, the placement offer fails with them. Always evaluate the IEP document itself before agreeing to any placement.