District Wins: Student Found Ineligible for Special Ed Under SLD Criteria

What Happened

Student was an eleven-year-old sixth grader who had never been found eligible for special education. His parents became concerned during third and fourth grade, when his grades declined sharply and he was flagged as "at risk for retention." His fourth-grade teacher observed that he was distractible and often didn't turn in homework, but believed he was a passive learner rather than a child with a disability. She tried classroom interventions — moving him to the front of the room, shortening assignments, and keeping a written log — before referring him for any special education evaluation.

In August 2004, just before fifth grade, Student's mother formally requested a special education assessment. The District developed an assessment plan and evaluated Student, then held an IEP team meeting in October 2004 to determine eligibility. The District found Student ineligible under the specific learning disability (SLD) category. A second round of assessments occurred in spring 2005, again resulting in a finding of ineligibility. Student's parents had also obtained an independent assessment from a private psychologist, Dr. Wright, in July 2004. They filed for due process, arguing the District should have identified Student much earlier, failed to properly consider the private assessment, used the wrong intelligence score, and failed to test him in all areas of suspected disability.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District on every issue.

On child-find, the ALJ found that the District had a legitimate written child-find system and had no legal duty to initiate a referral earlier. During third grade, Student was performing at grade level. During fourth grade, while his grades dropped, the District was first required under California law to try regular education interventions before referring him for special education — and it did exactly that.

On eligibility, the key dispute was which intelligence score to use. California law requires a "severe discrepancy" of at least 22.5 points between a student's cognitive ability score and their academic achievement scores. Student's parents argued the District should have used a score of 111 from a test called the K-ABC. The District used a score of 104 from a different test (the WISC-III), administered by the parents' own private assessor. The ALJ found the 104 score more reliable, pointing out that the District's school psychologist had cross-checked it with a third test (the TONI), which also yielded a score of 98 — consistent with 104, not 111. Using 104 as the cognitive ability score, Student's largest achievement gap was only 17 points, well below the required 22.5.

On the private assessment, the ALJ found the District had actually used Dr. Wright's test results heavily — the eligibility determination was based primarily on scores Dr. Wright obtained. No procedural violation occurred.

On assessment adequacy, the ALJ found the District had tested Student in all three areas the parents claimed were missed: auditory processing (using the TAPS-R), hearing (a screening was conducted and passed), and behavior (using the Conners' Rating Scales completed by Student's mother and teacher).

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. No private assessments, auditory integration therapy, speech and language assessment, assistive technology assessment, parent training, or tutoring were ordered.
3. The District was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The specific IQ test used can determine eligibility. California's SLD eligibility formula depends heavily on which cognitive ability score is chosen. When multiple tests yield different scores, the IEP team decides which is most valid — and their choice can make or break eligibility. If you believe the wrong test was used, challenge it specifically and bring expert evidence explaining why a different score is more accurate.

2. Districts are allowed to try classroom interventions before referring for special education. California law actually requires schools to consider regular education resources first. A teacher keeping a written intervention log and modifying assignments is doing exactly what the law permits — this does not automatically trigger a duty to refer for special education, even if grades are declining.

3. A private assessment does not automatically override the District's findings. The District is required to consider an independent evaluation, but it is not required to adopt its conclusions. In this case, the District used the private assessor's own test scores to support a different conclusion than the assessor reached.

4. Expert credibility matters. The ALJ found the parents' private psychologist not credible in part because she recommended a functional analysis assessment for a student with no history of serious behavioral problems, and recommended treatments outside her area of expertise. If you hire a private expert, make sure their recommendations are tightly grounded in the facts of your child's case.