Student v. San Antonio ISD, Dkt. No. 167-SE-0215 (Hearing Officer Tommy Broyles, August 17, 2015). Facts: The student qualified for special education as a student with autism and an other health impairment. The student was high-functioning but had difficulty in a large and noisy environment with many students, making a general education setting difficult. The student had a number of behavioral incidents and a behavior intervention plan was implemented. Although it was reported that the student was meeting behavioral goals and objectives, his behavioral problems continued. The student’s grades also deteriorated. Nevertheless, the District continued to report progress behaviorally. The parent requested a private placement at District expense, but the District developed its own Behavior Support Plan. The parent requested a due process hearing challenging the District’s decisions.
Holding: The hearing officer held that the District had denied the student a FAPE in the development and implementation of the student’s IEP, but that the student was not entitled to a private placement at District expense. The IEP was facially inadequate and not individualized on the basis of the student’s assessment and performance. The IEP also was not implemented in such a manner that would provide the student with a minimum floor of opportunity for educational success. According to the hearing officer, although the student could perform at grade level, the student was behind academically. While the IEP was inadequate, the student was not entitled to a private placement. The District could provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student and it was not shown that the private placement was appropriate. The hearing officer ordered the District to provide the student with a specialist trained in Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) and provide the student compensatory services.