Long Beach Wins Right to Move Autistic Student to Co-Teaching Classroom

What Happened

Student was a seven-year-old with autism and a secondary eligibility of speech or language impairment, enrolled in the Long Beach Unified School District. He had a full-time one-to-one behavior aide, received speech and language therapy, and occupational therapy. During first grade, Student functioned significantly below his typically developing peers academically — he knew fewer than 10 letters of the alphabet, could not complete basic addition, and required extensive individual support from his teacher, a classroom volunteer, and his behavior aide. He also engaged in tantrum behaviors that sometimes required other students to be removed from the classroom.

Long Beach held Student's annual IEP on September 25, 2023, reconvened on October 23, 2023, and held an amendment meeting on May 28, 2024 to review independent educational evaluations. At these meetings, the district recommended moving Student from a general education classroom to a collaborative co-teaching classroom — a general education setting where both a general education teacher and a credentialed special education teacher work together. Parent refused to consent to the placement change. Rather than override the parent unilaterally, Long Beach filed for due process to obtain authorization to implement the IEP.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district prevailed, there were no findings against it. Instead, the ALJ carefully examined Parent's objections and explained why each one failed.

On the placement change: Parent argued Student should remain in a regular general education classroom. The ALJ applied the four-factor Rachel H. test used in California to determine whether a placement is the least restrictive environment appropriate for a child. On all three relevant factors, the evidence favored the collaborative co-teaching program. Academically, Student was falling further behind — while peers were reading and writing complete sentences, Student was still learning individual letters. Socially, Student was not meaningfully interacting with peers even while physically present in general education. And Student's behavioral outbursts negatively affected his teacher's ability to instruct other students. Critically, the ALJ found the collaborative co-teaching classroom was actually less restrictive than a resource specialist program, because it keeps the student in the general education setting all day while embedding special education support — instead of pulling the student out to a separate room.

On assessment adequacy: Parent argued that Long Beach should have assessed Student in sensory processing, vision therapy, and central auditory processing before making a placement offer. The ALJ found that an IEP must be judged based on what was reasonably known at the time it was developed, not in hindsight. Long Beach had already conducted or considered assessments in psychoeducation, functional behavior, occupational therapy, speech and language, and assistive technology. The district also offered to conduct the additional assessments Parent requested — it just wasn't required to delay the placement offer while waiting for those results.

On independent evaluations: Parent obtained independent evaluations in psychoeducation, occupational therapy, and functional behavior. The ALJ found the district appropriately considered all three at the May 2024 amendment meeting. The independent psychoeducational evaluator's report was given little weight because the evaluator did not testify and her report contained unexplained methodological inconsistencies. The independent occupational therapist recommended two hours per week of specialized sensory integration therapy — the ALJ found the district's offer of 25 minutes per week was appropriate because the evidence did not show Student needed more time or a specific methodology to make progress.

On procedural claims: Parent alleged she did not timely receive a copy of the IEP and that the placement offer was unclear. The ALJ found that Long Beach used multiple delivery methods precisely because of Parent's history of denying receipt of documents, and the weight of evidence showed the IEP was delivered in late October 2023. The ALJ also found the IEP clearly identified the collaborative co-teaching program at a specific school (Riley Elementary), and that Parent could not have reasonably been confused about what was being offered.

What Was Ordered

1. Long Beach Unified School District may implement the September 25, 2023 IEP, as amended on May 28, 2024, without parental consent.
2. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A collaborative co-teaching classroom can legally be considered less restrictive than a resource specialist pullout program. Many parents assume that keeping a child in a regular classroom at all costs is the least restrictive option. This case shows that when a child needs substantial special education support, a co-teaching model — where the support is built into the general education classroom — may actually provide more inclusive access than pulling a child out for resource services.

2. Refusing to consent to an IEP can lead to the district filing for due process against you. When a parent withholds consent for an IEP, the district has the legal right to seek a hearing to override that refusal. Parents should understand that withholding consent is not a permanent shield — it triggers a process that a district can win.

3. Independent evaluations carry more weight when the evaluator testifies at hearing. The independent psychoeducational report in this case was given little weight largely because the evaluator did not appear at hearing to explain her methods and conclusions. If you obtain an independent evaluation for use in due process, plan to have your evaluator present and available to testify.

4. Districts do not have to delay an IEP offer while waiting for additional assessments. Even if new assessment areas are identified at an IEP meeting, the district can still move forward with its placement offer based on what it already knows. If you believe additional assessments are needed before a placement decision is made, make that request in writing and document the district's response carefully.