Aspire Charter School Prevails on Nearly All Claims in Autism FAPE Dispute

A parent filed a wide-ranging due process complaint against Aspire Public Schools charter schools on behalf of a seventh-grade student with autism, alleging denial of FAPE across multiple school years. The ALJ found in the district's favor on nearly every claim, concluding that Aspire's IEPs contained measurable goals, considered parent input, and provided appropriate services. The only finding against Aspire was a procedural violation for failing to have a new IEP in place before the start of the 2022-2023 school year, which the ALJ remedied by ordering one hour of staff training.

What Happened

Student is a student with autism who attended Aspire Inskeep Academy Charter for fifth and sixth grade and then Aspire Centennial College Preparatory Academy for seventh grade. Student has needs in social communication, behavior, English language development, reading, writing, and math, and attended general education classes with supports. Parent filed a due process complaint in February 2023 raising dozens of claims spanning the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, alleging that Aspire's IEPs were inadequate, that Aspire ignored Parent's concerns, predetermined its service offers, failed to implement consented-to services, and denied Student appropriate behavioral supports, speech-language services, a one-to-one aide supervised by a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA), and inclusion specialist services.

The hearing lasted 14 days and involved extensive testimony from Aspire educators, related service providers, and Student's privately retained experts. Parent's primary concerns centered on Student needing a full-time, all-day aide and more intensive pull-out services, views that were not shared by any of Aspire's qualified staff. After reviewing all evidence, ALJ Ted Mann ruled in Aspire's favor on virtually every claim. The one narrow exception was a procedural finding that Aspire had failed to complete a timely IEP before the start of the 2022-2023 school year, which interfered with Parent's opportunity to participate in the IEP process — though it caused no substantive harm to Student's education.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ rejected Parent's claims across the board. On the question of whether IEP goals were measurable, the ALJ found that all goals across multiple IEPs — including those from April 2021, June 2021, September 2021, October 2021, June 2022, September 2022, and October 2022 — were objectively measurable, tied to Student's present levels of performance, and included clear methods of evaluation. On predetermination, the ALJ found that Aspire prepared draft IEPs as is common practice, but genuinely engaged with Parent and Student's advocate over many meetings, considered their concerns, and in some cases adopted their suggestions. The fact that Aspire declined to provide an all-day one-to-one aide did not mean the outcome was predetermined — it meant the IEP team disagreed with Parent's request after genuine consideration.

On behavioral supports, the ALJ credited Aspire's teachers and staff, who testified that Student did not exhibit the dangerous or severely disruptive behaviors Parent described, and that Student was actually relatively independent. On speech-language services, Aspire's contract speech-language pathologist explained that 90 minutes per week was more than sufficient for Student to make progress, and that Student's expert's recommendation of 135 minutes would unnecessarily reduce time in general education. The ALJ gave more weight to Aspire's professionals than to Student's retained experts, particularly where those experts had not observed Student in the classroom or applied the wrong legal standard (such as recommending services to "close the gap" with peers rather than to provide meaningful educational benefit).

The one procedural violation found was Aspire's failure to finalize Student's IEP before the 2022-2023 school year began, after Student transitioned from Aspire Inskeep to Aspire Centennial. The ALJ found this impeded Parent's right to participate in timely IEP development, even though it caused no substantive educational harm — the operative goals from October 2021 were still in effect and the September 2022 IEP differed only minimally from what had been in place.

What Was Ordered

Aspire must provide one hour of training to Aspire Inskeep IEP team members on IEP process and timelines within 60 days of the decision.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for a private Lindamood-Bell reading program, compensatory education, and related service reimbursements — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an IEP is not the same as the district predetermining it. The ALJ made clear that when a district genuinely listens to parent concerns and considers them — even if it ultimately says no — that is not predetermination. To win on predetermination, a parent must show the district had already made up its mind and nothing they said could have changed the outcome.
Expert witnesses must be grounded in what actually happens in the classroom. Student's experts lost credibility in part because they had not observed Student in the classroom and applied the wrong legal standard. When retaining private evaluators, parents should ensure their experts can speak to real classroom observations and understand that the IDEA requires meaningful educational benefit — not closing the gap with typical peers.
A procedural violation alone rarely results in meaningful relief. Even when Aspire committed a real procedural violation (failing to have a timely IEP), the ALJ awarded only one hour of staff training — not compensatory education or reimbursement — because Student suffered no substantive educational harm. Procedural claims are stronger when you can show the violation actually cost your child services or learning opportunities.
The IEP team is not required to adopt parent requests — only to genuinely consider them. Parent's extensive concerns about Student's safety, behavior, and need for a full-time aide were heard across many meetings but ultimately not adopted. That is legally permissible. Parents have the right to participate meaningfully, not the right to veto an IEP team's professional judgment.
Transitioning between schools within the same charter organization requires careful IEP planning. The one area where Parent partially succeeded was the gap in IEP coverage when Student moved from one Aspire school to another. Parents should proactively request that a new IEP — or confirmation of a continuing IEP — be in place before their child starts at a new school, even within the same charter system.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Aspire must provide one hour of training to Aspire Inskeep IEP team members on IEP process and timelines within 60 days of the decision.
All other requests for relief — including reimbursement for a private Lindamood-Bell reading program, compensatory education, and related service reimbursements — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an IEP is not the same as the district predetermining it. The ALJ made clear that when a district genuinely listens to parent concerns and considers them — even if it ultimately says no — that is not predetermination. To win on predetermination, a parent must show the district had already made up its mind and nothing they said could have changed the outcome.
Expert witnesses must be grounded in what actually happens in the classroom. Student's experts lost credibility in part because they had not observed Student in the classroom and applied the wrong legal standard. When retaining private evaluators, parents should ensure their experts can speak to real classroom observations and understand that the IDEA requires meaningful educational benefit — not closing the gap with typical peers.
A procedural violation alone rarely results in meaningful relief. Even when Aspire committed a real procedural violation (failing to have a timely IEP), the ALJ awarded only one hour of staff training — not compensatory education or reimbursement — because Student suffered no substantive educational harm. Procedural claims are stronger when you can show the violation actually cost your child services or learning opportunities.
The IEP team is not required to adopt parent requests — only to genuinely consider them. Parent's extensive concerns about Student's safety, behavior, and need for a full-time aide were heard across many meetings but ultimately not adopted. That is legally permissible. Parents have the right to participate meaningfully, not the right to veto an IEP team's professional judgment.
Transitioning between schools within the same charter organization requires careful IEP planning. The one area where Parent partially succeeded was the gap in IEP coverage when Student moved from one Aspire school to another. Parents should proactively request that a new IEP — or confirmation of a continuing IEP — be in place before their child starts at a new school, even within the same charter system.