Stockton Unified Excluded Parents from IEP Meetings and Gutted Student's Program

A 16-year-old student with autism attended Edison High School in Stockton Unified School District during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The district held two IEP meetings without parents present, dramatically cut the student's specialized academic instruction and speech services without explanation, and failed to develop adequate goals addressing his behavioral and language needs. The ALJ found FAPE denials on multiple grounds and ordered 186 hours of compensatory education, a publicly funded speech and language evaluation, a behavior IEP meeting, and mandatory staff training.

What Happened

A 16-year-old student with autism had been receiving special education services since 2009. When he transitioned to Edison High School as a freshman in the 2020-2021 school year, Stockton Unified held his annual IEP meeting on August 27, 2020 — without his parents present. The district claimed it had Mother's written consent to proceed without her, but the ALJ found Stockton failed to take the required steps to ensure parental participation before going ahead. That IEP dramatically slashed the student's services: specialized academic instruction was cut by roughly 43 percent compared to his prior IEP, and speech and language services were cut in half — from 30 minutes to 15 minutes monthly — with no documented rationale. Stockton's own staff later admitted the team didn't even discuss appropriate service levels because parents weren't in the room.

The district held a second annual IEP meeting on October 29, 2021, again without parents present, and again without following proper procedures. Despite the student earning mostly D's, F's, and no-marks throughout both school years, making little to no progress on his IEP goals, and showing escalating behavioral problems including work refusal and inappropriate outbursts, the October 2021 IEP offered virtually the same program as the year before. No behavior goals were developed. No additional supports were added. Parents filed for due process in August 2022, raising issues covering both school years, COVID-era distance learning, and the adequacy of goals, services, and placement.

What the District Did Wrong

Held IEP meetings without parents — twice. Stockton convened both the August 27, 2020 and October 29, 2021 IEP team meetings without parents present and without fulfilling the legal requirements to document genuine attempts to schedule at a mutually agreed time. The IDEA places the burden on the district to make meaningful efforts to include parents — not to simply check a box and proceed.
Predetermination of the August 2020 IEP. Stockton unilaterally attached an "emergency circumstances learning plan" to the August 27, 2020 IEP without notifying parents or reconvening a meeting. This constituted predetermination — deciding the IEP content outside the team process.
Drastically cut services without justification. The August 2020 IEP reduced specialized academic instruction by approximately 43 percent and cut speech and language services by 50 percent. At hearing, Stockton's only explanation was a mistaken belief that parents didn't want special education services for their son — which is not a lawful basis for reducing a student's program. If parents refuse consent, the district must pursue due process, not simply eliminate services.
Failed to develop adequate IEP goals. Goals in both the 2020 and 2021 IEPs lacked baseline data, failed to address all known areas of need (particularly math and behavior), and did not identify who was responsible for implementing them. Without legally sound goals, an IEP cannot offer an appropriate program.
Ignored a pattern of failure and declining grades. Despite the student earning mostly failing or barely passing grades for two consecutive years and showing no meaningful progress on goals, the October 2021 IEP made no changes to his level of specialized academic instruction and developed no behavior plan — even though the team was well aware of his escalating behavioral difficulties.
Provided insufficient speech and language services. Both IEPs failed to offer speech and language services adequate to address the student's documented pragmatic language deficits, and no current speech and language assessment data existed to inform the IEP team's decisions.

What Was Ordered

186 hours of compensatory education in specialized academic instruction and/or speech and language services, to be provided through a certified non-public agency at a location convenient to the family. Hours must be used by December 31, 2024. Parents may allocate hours between academics and speech-language at their discretion.
Transportation reimbursement for up to 50 miles round-trip per session if services are held outside the student's home.
Publicly funded independent speech and language evaluation (IEE) by a licensed speech-language pathologist of parents' choosing, at no cost to the family, funded at Stockton's SELPA rate. The district must provide a list of qualified evaluators within 14 school days.
IEP team meeting within 60 calendar days to develop behavior goals and/or a positive behavioral intervention and support plan specifically addressing the student's inattention, work refusal, inappropriate language, and other maladaptive behaviors. The district must offer parents three date options within 14 calendar days.
Four hours of mandatory staff training on IDEA procedural requirements, to be delivered by a non-public agency or special education law firm to the Special Education Executive Director and Edison High School special education staff. Training must cover: ensuring parental attendance at IEP meetings, proper IEP amendment procedures, and developing legally compliant IEP goals. Must be completed by August 31, 2023.
All other relief denied, including requests for a one-to-one aide, extended school year services, parent training on autism-related behaviors, and home- or clinic-based ABA therapy. The ALJ also denied claims related to COVID-era distance learning, failure to assess during distance learning, and failure to collect goal progress data.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot hold IEP meetings without you — period. The law requires schools to take documented, genuine steps to schedule meetings at a time that works for you. If a district proceeds without you, it must prove it made multiple real attempts — phone calls, written correspondence, and alternate scheduling offers. If it can't, it has violated your child's rights. Keep records of all scheduling communications.
If a district cuts your child's services, demand a written explanation in the IEP. Stockton cut this student's academic and speech services by nearly half with no documented reason. A reduction in services must be supported by current data showing the child no longer needs them — not assumptions about what parents want. If you see a significant reduction in services from one IEP to the next, ask the team to explain the data driving that decision and make sure it's written into the IEP document.
Disagreeing with services is not the same as consenting to have them removed. California law says that if a parent refuses consent to a special education service, the district must either accept that decision or go to due process if it believes the service is necessary for FAPE. A district cannot simply eliminate services it thinks you don't want. If you have concerns about a service, discuss them — but know that the district has its own legal obligation to offer what your child actually needs.
An IEP that ignores behavior problems is legally deficient. If your child has documented behavioral difficulties that interfere with learning, the IEP must address them — including goals and a positive behavioral intervention plan where warranted. An IEP that identifies problem behaviors but fails to designate who is responsible for addressing them, or fails to develop a systematic plan, does not meet the legal standard.
You can request a publicly funded independent evaluation (IEE) when the district's assessments are inadequate or outdated. In this case, the ALJ ordered a speech and language IEE because Stockton lacked current assessment data on the student's pragmatic language needs — even though it kept reducing his speech services. If your district is making service decisions without recent, complete assessments, you have the right to request an IEE at public expense.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Held IEP meetings without parents — twice. Stockton convened both the August 27, 2020 and October 29, 2021 IEP team meetings without parents present and without fulfilling the legal requirements to document genuine attempts to schedule at a mutually agreed time. The IDEA places the burden on the district to make meaningful efforts to include parents — not to simply check a box and proceed.
Predetermination of the August 2020 IEP. Stockton unilaterally attached an "emergency circumstances learning plan" to the August 27, 2020 IEP without notifying parents or reconvening a meeting. This constituted predetermination — deciding the IEP content outside the team process.
Drastically cut services without justification. The August 2020 IEP reduced specialized academic instruction by approximately 43 percent and cut speech and language services by 50 percent. At hearing, Stockton's only explanation was a mistaken belief that parents didn't want special education services for their son — which is not a lawful basis for reducing a student's program. If parents refuse consent, the district must pursue due process, not simply eliminate services.
Failed to develop adequate IEP goals. Goals in both the 2020 and 2021 IEPs lacked baseline data, failed to address all known areas of need (particularly math and behavior), and did not identify who was responsible for implementing them. Without legally sound goals, an IEP cannot offer an appropriate program.
Ignored a pattern of failure and declining grades. Despite the student earning mostly failing or barely passing grades for two consecutive years and showing no meaningful progress on goals, the October 2021 IEP made no changes to his level of specialized academic instruction and developed no behavior plan — even though the team was well aware of his escalating behavioral difficulties.
Provided insufficient speech and language services. Both IEPs failed to offer speech and language services adequate to address the student's documented pragmatic language deficits, and no current speech and language assessment data existed to inform the IEP team's decisions.

What Was Ordered

186 hours of compensatory education in specialized academic instruction and/or speech and language services, to be provided through a certified non-public agency at a location convenient to the family. Hours must be used by December 31, 2024. Parents may allocate hours between academics and speech-language at their discretion.
Transportation reimbursement for up to 50 miles round-trip per session if services are held outside the student's home.
Publicly funded independent speech and language evaluation (IEE) by a licensed speech-language pathologist of parents' choosing, at no cost to the family, funded at Stockton's SELPA rate. The district must provide a list of qualified evaluators within 14 school days.
IEP team meeting within 60 calendar days to develop behavior goals and/or a positive behavioral intervention and support plan specifically addressing the student's inattention, work refusal, inappropriate language, and other maladaptive behaviors. The district must offer parents three date options within 14 calendar days.
Four hours of mandatory staff training on IDEA procedural requirements, to be delivered by a non-public agency or special education law firm to the Special Education Executive Director and Edison High School special education staff. Training must cover: ensuring parental attendance at IEP meetings, proper IEP amendment procedures, and developing legally compliant IEP goals. Must be completed by August 31, 2023.
All other relief denied, including requests for a one-to-one aide, extended school year services, parent training on autism-related behaviors, and home- or clinic-based ABA therapy. The ALJ also denied claims related to COVID-era distance learning, failure to assess during distance learning, and failure to collect goal progress data.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts cannot hold IEP meetings without you — period. The law requires schools to take documented, genuine steps to schedule meetings at a time that works for you. If a district proceeds without you, it must prove it made multiple real attempts — phone calls, written correspondence, and alternate scheduling offers. If it can't, it has violated your child's rights. Keep records of all scheduling communications.
If a district cuts your child's services, demand a written explanation in the IEP. Stockton cut this student's academic and speech services by nearly half with no documented reason. A reduction in services must be supported by current data showing the child no longer needs them — not assumptions about what parents want. If you see a significant reduction in services from one IEP to the next, ask the team to explain the data driving that decision and make sure it's written into the IEP document.
Disagreeing with services is not the same as consenting to have them removed. California law says that if a parent refuses consent to a special education service, the district must either accept that decision or go to due process if it believes the service is necessary for FAPE. A district cannot simply eliminate services it thinks you don't want. If you have concerns about a service, discuss them — but know that the district has its own legal obligation to offer what your child actually needs.
An IEP that ignores behavior problems is legally deficient. If your child has documented behavioral difficulties that interfere with learning, the IEP must address them — including goals and a positive behavioral intervention plan where warranted. An IEP that identifies problem behaviors but fails to designate who is responsible for addressing them, or fails to develop a systematic plan, does not meet the legal standard.
You can request a publicly funded independent evaluation (IEE) when the district's assessments are inadequate or outdated. In this case, the ALJ ordered a speech and language IEE because Stockton lacked current assessment data on the student's pragmatic language needs — even though it kept reducing his speech services. If your district is making service decisions without recent, complete assessments, you have the right to request an IEE at public expense.