District Denied FAPE by Refusing to Schedule Assessments After Settlement Agreement

A parent and Upland Unified School District settled a prior special education case in June 2007, with the district agreeing to assess the student. The district then failed to ever schedule the assessments, claiming the parent had not properly consented — even though the signed settlement agreement itself constituted consent. The ALJ found the district violated the student's right to a FAPE but reduced reimbursement because the parent's private school choice was not an appropriate placement and the parent's own conduct was found to be unreasonable.

What Happened

Student is a young woman with an intellectual disability who had not attended a public school since kindergarten, remaining instead at a private parochial school called Our Lady of Assumption (OLA) within the Claremont Unified School District boundaries. After years of dispute with Upland Unified School District, Student's parents settled a prior due process case in June 2007. As part of that settlement, the district agreed to assess Student so it could develop an IEP and make an offer of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2007–2008 school year. The parents, in turn, agreed to make Student available for assessment at "reasonable times."

What followed was months of letters going back and forth, a contentious meeting on July 16, 2007, and ultimately — no assessments. The district claimed the parents never signed a formal assessment plan form and had therefore never consented. The parents argued they had consented when they signed the settlement agreement and that they were never actually given specific dates, times, or locations to bring Student for testing. By December 2007, with the school year already underway and no assessment in sight, the parents filed a new due process complaint.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district violated Student's right to a FAPE in two ways. First, when the parents signed the June 2007 settlement agreement, that signature constituted valid legal consent to the assessments — the district did not need a separate signed assessment plan form. The law does not require consent to be given only on a specific form; a written agreement works just as well. Despite having that consent, the district never once proposed specific dates, times, or locations for the assessments to take place.

Second, the parent sent multiple written letters requesting assessment and even proposed specific available dates in October 2007. Under California law, when a parent makes a written referral requesting assessment, the district must provide an assessment plan within 15 days. The district never responded with an assessment plan. Instead, it wrongly told the parent that only the Claremont Unified School District — where the private school was located — had any obligation to assess Student. That was incorrect: both districts had a concurrent legal duty to assess Student upon written request.

The ALJ rejected the district's argument that the parent had "constructively revoked" consent by questioning the 12–15 hour length of the proposed assessments. Because the district never actually scheduled anything, there was no way to know whether the parent would have refused to cooperate. A district cannot avoid its responsibilities by assuming a parent will say no before even asking.

What Was Ordered

The district was ordered to reimburse Parents $6,699.25 for wages paid to Student's two one-on-one instructional aides during the 2007–2008 school year, who provided meaningful educational benefit to Student.
The district was ordered to reimburse Parents $300 for private speech and language therapy sessions proven by cancelled check.
The total reimbursement ordered was $6,999.25, to be paid within 45 days of the decision.
All other requests for reimbursement — including OLA tuition and related school costs — were denied because OLA was found not to be an appropriate placement (it had no special education staff, no IEP capability, and no specialized instruction).

Why This Matters for Parents

A signed settlement agreement can serve as consent to assessments. Parents do not have to sign a separate assessment plan form if the settlement agreement already clearly states they agree to assessment. Districts cannot use a technicality about form signatures to avoid their obligations under a written agreement.
If you request an assessment in writing, the district must respond within 15 days with an assessment plan — period. California law is clear: a written request from a parent triggers a 15-day deadline for the district to provide an assessment plan. If the district ignores your written request, that is a procedural violation that can constitute a denial of FAPE.
Districts cannot assume you will refuse and use that assumption to avoid scheduling anything. The district here argued the parent would never have agreed to the assessment. The ALJ rejected this as "pure speculation." A district must actually propose dates and give parents the chance to respond before concluding that parents are uncooperative.
Your choice of private school matters for reimbursement. Even when a district clearly violates the law, you can only be reimbursed for a private placement that provides some meaningful special education benefit. A general education private school with no special education staff or services — even one where your child earns good grades with the help of privately-funded aides — may not qualify. Plan carefully and document the educational benefit your child is receiving.
Your own conduct during disputes will be evaluated. The ALJ reduced reimbursement in part because the parent's tone and tactics were found to be confrontational and obstructive. Even when you are right about the law, how you communicate with the district can affect what remedies you receive. Keep communications professional, specific, and solution-focused.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

The district was ordered to reimburse Parents $6,699.25 for wages paid to Student's two one-on-one instructional aides during the 2007–2008 school year, who provided meaningful educational benefit to Student.
The district was ordered to reimburse Parents $300 for private speech and language therapy sessions proven by cancelled check.
The total reimbursement ordered was $6,999.25, to be paid within 45 days of the decision.
All other requests for reimbursement — including OLA tuition and related school costs — were denied because OLA was found not to be an appropriate placement (it had no special education staff, no IEP capability, and no specialized instruction).

Why This Matters for Parents

A signed settlement agreement can serve as consent to assessments. Parents do not have to sign a separate assessment plan form if the settlement agreement already clearly states they agree to assessment. Districts cannot use a technicality about form signatures to avoid their obligations under a written agreement.
If you request an assessment in writing, the district must respond within 15 days with an assessment plan — period. California law is clear: a written request from a parent triggers a 15-day deadline for the district to provide an assessment plan. If the district ignores your written request, that is a procedural violation that can constitute a denial of FAPE.
Districts cannot assume you will refuse and use that assumption to avoid scheduling anything. The district here argued the parent would never have agreed to the assessment. The ALJ rejected this as "pure speculation." A district must actually propose dates and give parents the chance to respond before concluding that parents are uncooperative.
Your choice of private school matters for reimbursement. Even when a district clearly violates the law, you can only be reimbursed for a private placement that provides some meaningful special education benefit. A general education private school with no special education staff or services — even one where your child earns good grades with the help of privately-funded aides — may not qualify. Plan carefully and document the educational benefit your child is receiving.
Your own conduct during disputes will be evaluated. The ALJ reduced reimbursement in part because the parent's tone and tactics were found to be confrontational and obstructive. Even when you are right about the law, how you communicate with the district can affect what remedies you receive. Keep communications professional, specific, and solution-focused.