District Wins Right to Reassess Student Over Parent Objection in Manhattan Beach

What Happened

Student was an eight-year-old second grader eligible for special education under the category of speech and language impairment (SLI). She had been receiving small-group pull-out speech and language therapy twice a week for 30 minutes per session. Her last formal assessment had been conducted in 2004, when she was in kindergarten. At her October 2006 annual IEP meeting, her classroom teacher and speech-language pathologist (SLP) both reported ongoing difficulties with receptive and expressive language — Student struggled to organize her thoughts, use correct word order and grammar, and follow multi-step directions without support. The IEP team, including Father, agreed that a reassessment was needed and an assessment plan was provided.

Shortly after Father signed the assessment plan, Mother — who had not been informed of Father's consent — discovered that Student had been pulled from physical education class to begin testing. This triggered a series of written disputes between the parents and the district. Parents ultimately revoked their consent to the reassessment and, in December 2006, formally requested that Student be exited from all special education services. The district filed for due process in March 2007, seeking authorization to reassess Student and a finding that its October 2006 IEP offered a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ sided with the district on every issue. On the reassessment, the ALJ found that the district had two independent legal grounds to reassess Student: (1) the IEP team — including Father — had determined that Student's educational needs warranted a reassessment based on documented struggles in the classroom, and (2) parents had requested to exit Student from special education, which legally requires the district to conduct a reassessment before a child can be removed from services. The ALJ ruled that parents cannot unilaterally block a reassessment by revoking consent once a child is already enrolled in special education — the district's proper remedy is to file for due process, which is exactly what it did here.

On the FAPE question, the ALJ rejected parents' argument that the October 2006 IEP was fatally flawed by procedural violations. Parents claimed the regular education teacher left the meeting early, that assessors should have been present, and that their concerns about scheduling pull-out services outside of class time were ignored. The ALJ found none of these arguments persuasive. The classroom teacher was present, made substantive contributions to the IEP, and signed it. Assessors who had not yet conducted any assessments were not required to attend. And while the district declined to accommodate parents' preference to schedule therapy outside of class time, Father participated meaningfully in the meeting and had full opportunity to raise concerns. The ALJ also found that the district's January 2007 assessment plan provided adequate notice, even though specific test names appeared in a cover letter rather than the form itself.

What Was Ordered

1. The district is entitled to reassess Student, and parents must present Student for reassessment pursuant to the January 22, 2007 assessment plan.
2. The district is entitled to implement the October 9, 2006 IEP until parents and the district agree to an amended or new IEP.
3. Student's requests for relief were denied. The district prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Parents cannot unilaterally exit a child from special education. Once a child is enrolled in special education and receiving services, a parent cannot simply write a letter saying they want to stop services. The district is legally required to conduct a reassessment first to confirm the child is no longer eligible — and if parents refuse, the district can go to due process to compel the assessment.

2. Revoking consent to an assessment does not automatically win the argument. Parents have the right to revoke consent, but that revocation is not absolute when the child is already enrolled in special education. The district's legal remedy is to file for due process, and a hearing officer can order the child to submit to assessment even over parental objection.

3. Procedural complaints about an IEP only matter if they caused real harm. The ALJ dismissed claims that the IEP was invalid because a teacher may have left slightly early or because assessors weren't present. Under IDEA, a procedural violation only voids an IEP if it actually prevented the parent from participating meaningfully or denied the child educational benefit — not just because something felt imperfect.

4. Assessment plans don't need to name every specific test — but additional detail helps. The district satisfied its notice obligation by including specific test names in a cover letter alongside the formal assessment plan form. Parents who want more detail have the right to ask, but they cannot reject an assessment plan solely because it doesn't list every instrument by name on the official form.