District Wins Right to Assess Student With Autism Despite Its Own Assessment Failures

Sylvan Union School District filed for due process after Student's mother refused to sign an assessment plan she had herself requested. The ALJ found the District's fall 2005 assessments were incomplete — missing speech-language testing, a valid intellectual evaluation, a proper functional behavioral assessment, and a written slingerland screening report — and that the resulting IEPs did not offer a FAPE. However, the ALJ ordered that the District could proceed with its proposed April 2006 reassessment plan, making this a partial win for the District and a partial win for the Student.

What Happened

Student is an eight-year-old boy diagnosed with Asperger's disorder, qualifying for special education under autism as well as other health impairment and specific learning disability. He enrolled in Sylvan Union School District in the fall of 2005 after previously attending Modesto City Schools, where his last comprehensive evaluation had been conducted in January 2003. Because that evaluation was nearly three years old, the District and Student's mother agreed the District would conduct a new triennial assessment. Both parties signed assessment plans in October 2005, and the District completed its evaluations in November 2005, holding an IEP team meeting on November 18, 2005. The resulting IEP was finalized on January 26, 2006, and offered Student placement in a mild-to-moderate special day class with occupational therapy, adapted physical education, a 90-day interim aide, and transportation.

Student's mother became increasingly dissatisfied and pulled Student from school on February 9, 2006. At a March 2006 IEP meeting, the District agreed to fund independent educational evaluations (IEEs) that the mother had requested and proposed a new, comprehensive April 2006 assessment plan — including outside evaluators for most areas. Despite having requested these assessments herself, Student's mother refused to sign the plan. The District then filed for due process, asking the ALJ to authorize the assessments and to confirm that its IEPs offered a FAPE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found significant problems with the District's fall 2005 assessments. First, the District never assessed Student's speech and language/communication needs at all — even though the 2003 evaluation from his prior district had clearly identified communication deficits related to his Asperger's diagnosis. Second, the intellectual development assessment was deemed invalid because Student was tested without his prescription glasses and was highly distractible; the District's own psychologist acknowledged the results were unreliable. Third, the District failed to complete a proper functional behavioral assessment (FBA) — it had promised one in writing but substituted informal observations instead, without establishing it had run out of time to do the real thing. Fourth, the resource specialist who conducted the slingerland screening (a test for dyslexia-related learning patterns) never produced a written report until months later, and the report she eventually wrote contained errors — including another child's name substituted for Student's.

Because of these assessment gaps, the January 26, 2006 IEP also fell short of a FAPE. The IEP addressed Student's gross-motor, fine-motor, and academic needs reasonably well, but it contained no goals or services to address his social/adaptive behavior deficits, which multiple evaluators had observed. The IEP's vague "behavior specialist consultation" services were also found inadequate because the District had never completed the FBA that would have informed them. The March 29, 2006 IEP was substantively identical and failed for the same reasons.

Despite all of this, the ALJ authorized the District to proceed with the April 2006 assessment plan because conditions clearly warranted reassessment, the mother had originally requested those very evaluations, and the law requires parents to allow districts to assess their children. The ALJ denied all other relief the District sought.

What Was Ordered

The District is authorized to proceed with the April 4, 2006 Assessment Plan, using the proposed outside evaluators.
All other relief requested by the District was denied.
No compensatory education or additional remedies were ordered (Student's mother had removed Student from school and neither she nor her attorney appeared at the hearing).

Why This Matters for Parents

An IEP cannot be a FAPE if the district skipped whole areas of suspected disability. The ALJ was clear: because the District never assessed speech-language needs — despite a prior evaluation flagging communication deficits — the IEP could not be considered complete. If your child's prior records show a suspected area of need, the district must assess it, even if the last IEP did not include services in that area.
Assessment results must actually be valid — not just completed. The intellectual assessment here was thrown out because the evaluator acknowledged the results were unreliable due to vision problems and distractibility. A completed assessment is not the same as an appropriate assessment. Parents should ask evaluators directly whether they believe the test results are a reliable picture of their child's abilities.
If you request assessments and the district agrees, you generally must allow them to proceed. Courts and ALJs have consistently held that parents cannot block a district from assessing their child — especially when the parent requested the evaluations in the first place. Refusing to sign the plan while also seeking IEEs puts parents in a difficult legal position.
An IEP that ignores documented behavioral and social needs is legally deficient. Multiple staff members observed Student struggling socially, and assessments confirmed adaptive behavior deficits — yet the IEP contained no goals or services to address them. When evaluation data shows a need, the IEP must respond to it with measurable goals and appropriate supports.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District is authorized to proceed with the April 4, 2006 Assessment Plan, using the proposed outside evaluators.
All other relief requested by the District was denied.
No compensatory education or additional remedies were ordered (Student's mother had removed Student from school and neither she nor her attorney appeared at the hearing).

Why This Matters for Parents

An IEP cannot be a FAPE if the district skipped whole areas of suspected disability. The ALJ was clear: because the District never assessed speech-language needs — despite a prior evaluation flagging communication deficits — the IEP could not be considered complete. If your child's prior records show a suspected area of need, the district must assess it, even if the last IEP did not include services in that area.
Assessment results must actually be valid — not just completed. The intellectual assessment here was thrown out because the evaluator acknowledged the results were unreliable due to vision problems and distractibility. A completed assessment is not the same as an appropriate assessment. Parents should ask evaluators directly whether they believe the test results are a reliable picture of their child's abilities.
If you request assessments and the district agrees, you generally must allow them to proceed. Courts and ALJs have consistently held that parents cannot block a district from assessing their child — especially when the parent requested the evaluations in the first place. Refusing to sign the plan while also seeking IEEs puts parents in a difficult legal position.
An IEP that ignores documented behavioral and social needs is legally deficient. Multiple staff members observed Student struggling socially, and assessments confirmed adaptive behavior deficits — yet the IEP contained no goals or services to address them. When evaluation data shows a need, the IEP must respond to it with measurable goals and appropriate supports.