District Wins on All Issues After Student's Exit from Special Ed Is Upheld

A nine-year-old student with emotional disturbance and other health impairment challenged Travis Unified School District's decision to exit him from special education in October 2021, alleging failures to assess in all areas of suspected disability, improper exit, inadequate goals, and refusal to fund an independent behavior evaluation. The ALJ found in favor of the district on every issue, concluding that Travis conducted comprehensive assessments, appropriately exited Student when the data supported it, and properly denied the IEE request because its functional behavior assessment met legal standards.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old fourth grader who had previously been eligible for special education under emotional disturbance and other health impairment. During the 2021–2022 school year, Travis Unified conducted a comprehensive triennial reassessment and, in October 2021, the IEP team — including Parent — concluded Student no longer met the eligibility criteria for special education. Parent consented to the exit that same day. Shortly after, in November 2021, Student's behavior deteriorated sharply. He began exhibiting aggression, noncompliance, and elopement. In January 2022, Student experienced a mental health crisis at school that required county emergency mental health services. Parent promptly requested reassessment, Travis responded with a new assessment plan within days, and Student was re-evaluated and found eligible again under emotional disturbance by March 2022.

Parent subsequently challenged the district's handling of the entire 2021–2022 school year, alleging Travis failed to assess Student for autism, speech-language, behavior, and mental health needs; improperly exited him from special education; failed to develop appropriate social-emotional goals; failed to review a private psychological report by Dr. Crampton; and failed to fund an independent behavior evaluation. Travis also filed for due process to defend the appropriateness of its March 2022 functional behavior assessment after Parent sought an independent evaluation in behavior. The cases were consolidated and heard over eight days in spring 2023.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in Travis's favor on every issue. On the assessment claims, the evidence showed Travis conducted two full psychoeducational evaluations, two speech-language assessments, and two functional behavior assessments during the 2021–2022 school year — each using a wide battery of standardized tools, observations, teacher and parent input, and clinical interviews. Student's expert witnesses were given little or no weight: one had only observed Student over Zoom for one hour the day before testifying and was unfamiliar with the actual testing instruments used; another had not completed her evaluation report by the time of the hearing and could not explain how she would have improved the functional behavior assessment she was critiquing.

On the exit from special education, the ALJ found the October 2021 decision was supported by the data. Student was performing academically at grade level, his behavior goal was nearly met (97% accuracy across 10 consecutive school days), and no team member — including Parent — raised concerns about autism at that time. Parent had consented to the exit after receiving all assessment reports in advance and being offered time to review the IEP before signing. The ALJ found that a student can derive educational benefit even if not every IEP goal is fully mastered, and that the single unmet behavior goal did not make the exit improper.

On the IEE request, the ALJ found Travis's March 2022 functional behavior assessment was legally appropriate. The assessor was a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst who conducted direct observations, collected antecedent-behavior-consequence data, reviewed records, and gathered teacher and parent input. Travis was therefore entitled to defend its evaluation rather than fund an independent one.

On the Crampton report, the ALJ found that Dr. Crampton — a licensed clinical psychologist, not a credentialed school psychologist — was not qualified to conduct a psychoeducational evaluation under school district standards. Her report, which was based solely on parent input and did not address Student's educational needs, was not an independent educational evaluation under the IDEA and Travis had no legal obligation to convene an IEP meeting to review it.

What Was Ordered

Student's requested relief on all issues was denied in full.
Travis prevailed on its affirmative claim that its March 2022 functional behavior assessment was appropriate and Student was not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in behavior at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Consenting to an IEP exit is a legally significant act. Once a parent signs consent to exit a child from special education, it becomes very difficult to argue the exit was improper — especially when the parent received all assessments in advance, had the opportunity to ask questions, and could have asked for more time before signing. If you have any doubt about whether your child still needs services, ask for more time before consenting or request that concerns be documented in the IEP notes.
A private clinical diagnosis is not the same as school eligibility. A psychologist or psychiatrist can diagnose a child with autism spectrum disorder under the DSM-5, but that diagnosis does not automatically make a child eligible for special education. Schools apply their own eligibility criteria, which focus on educational impact. If you receive a private diagnosis, share it with the school and ask them to consider it — but be prepared for the school to conduct its own evaluation.
Expert witnesses need to know the specific student and records. In this case, Parent's expert witnesses lost credibility because they had limited contact with Student, had not reviewed all testing instruments, or had not completed their own reports by the time of the hearing. If you hire an expert for a due process hearing, make sure they have thoroughly reviewed all school records, conducted their own assessment, and can speak specifically to your child's situation.
Districts can defend their evaluations rather than fund an IEE. When a parent disagrees with a district's evaluation and requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the district has the right to file for due process to prove its own evaluation was appropriate. If the district wins, it does not have to pay for the independent evaluation. Understanding this dynamic can help parents decide whether and how to challenge a district evaluation.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requested relief on all issues was denied in full.
Travis prevailed on its affirmative claim that its March 2022 functional behavior assessment was appropriate and Student was not entitled to an independent educational evaluation in behavior at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Consenting to an IEP exit is a legally significant act. Once a parent signs consent to exit a child from special education, it becomes very difficult to argue the exit was improper — especially when the parent received all assessments in advance, had the opportunity to ask questions, and could have asked for more time before signing. If you have any doubt about whether your child still needs services, ask for more time before consenting or request that concerns be documented in the IEP notes.
A private clinical diagnosis is not the same as school eligibility. A psychologist or psychiatrist can diagnose a child with autism spectrum disorder under the DSM-5, but that diagnosis does not automatically make a child eligible for special education. Schools apply their own eligibility criteria, which focus on educational impact. If you receive a private diagnosis, share it with the school and ask them to consider it — but be prepared for the school to conduct its own evaluation.
Expert witnesses need to know the specific student and records. In this case, Parent's expert witnesses lost credibility because they had limited contact with Student, had not reviewed all testing instruments, or had not completed their own reports by the time of the hearing. If you hire an expert for a due process hearing, make sure they have thoroughly reviewed all school records, conducted their own assessment, and can speak specifically to your child's situation.
Districts can defend their evaluations rather than fund an IEE. When a parent disagrees with a district's evaluation and requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the district has the right to file for due process to prove its own evaluation was appropriate. If the district wins, it does not have to pay for the independent evaluation. Understanding this dynamic can help parents decide whether and how to challenge a district evaluation.