District Wins Right to Exit Student from Special Ed After Triennial Assessment

What Happened

Student is a ten-year-old fourth grader who had been receiving special education services for a speech and language disorder (specifically an articulation disorder) since preschool. Student was initially found eligible by Los Angeles Unified School District, continued receiving services through Ontario-Montclair Unified, and then transferred to Victor Elementary School District, where she received speech and language services twice a week in a small group setting. Parent had also raised concerns that Student might have autism (Student had a private diagnosis from 2002) and a specific learning disability, particularly in math.

When Student's triennial reassessment came due, the District conducted both a speech and language assessment and a multidisciplinary assessment in January 2008. The assessments found that Student's articulation had improved to the point where her speech was fully intelligible, her language scores were average to above average for her age, she did not display autistic-like behaviors at school, and her academic achievement was on par with her intellectual ability. The District concluded Student no longer qualified for special education under any eligibility category and sought to exit her from services. Parent disagreed, requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at District expense, and refused to consent to the exit. The District filed for due process to defend its assessments and confirm that Student was no longer eligible.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the District on every issue. The speech and language assessment, conducted by a pathologist with over 15 years of experience, used multiple standardized tests and found that Student's articulation, expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language skills were all age-appropriate. Student had met her IEP goal for articulation, her speech was intelligible, and her teachers reported no communication difficulties in the classroom. Student did not meet the legal threshold — scoring at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean — required for a speech or language disorder diagnosis under California law.

Regarding autism, the multidisciplinary assessors (neither of whom had previously worked with Student, as required by a prior settlement agreement) administered multiple rating scales and behavioral observations. Student's teacher rated her in the non-autistic range, and the assessors observed no autistic-like behaviors during testing. The ALJ noted that even if Student met the medical definition of autism under the DSM-IV — as a 2002 private assessment suggested — that alone is not enough to qualify for special education. A student must also show that the condition adversely affects educational performance to the degree that special education is required. Student was performing adequately in general education with only minor classroom modifications.

On the question of a specific learning disability, Student's intellectual functioning and academic achievement were both in the average to above-average range, with no severe discrepancy between ability and performance. The ALJ found that Student's dip in math grades during fourth grade was caused by excessive absences — Student missed nearly one-third of school days due to a family dispute with the District — not by any learning disability. When Student attended class, her teacher provided catch-up instruction and Student was able to learn the missed material.

The ALJ also rejected Parent's claim that the District violated a prior settlement agreement by having a familiar assessor conduct the speech/language evaluation. The evidence showed that Parent herself had requested that the familiar assessor conduct the evaluation, waiving that provision of the agreement.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's assessments were found appropriate; Parent is not entitled to independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense.
2. Student is no longer eligible for special education services and may be exited from special education.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A medical diagnosis of autism or another disability does not automatically guarantee special education eligibility. Under California and federal law, a student must both have a qualifying disability AND demonstrate that it adversely affects educational performance to a degree that requires special education. A private diagnosis alone is not enough.

2. When a student's test scores fall in the average range, it is very difficult to establish a specific learning disability using the severe discrepancy method. If you believe your child has a learning disability despite average test scores, consider requesting that the District also evaluate using the "response to intervention" method, and document specific struggles in the classroom with work samples and teacher input.

3. Excessive absences can undermine a special education case. The ALJ found that Student's academic difficulties were caused by missed instruction, not a disability. If your child is struggling, make sure attendance is consistent so that any academic gaps can be clearly attributed to a disability rather than missed school days.

4. If you negotiate a settlement agreement with a district, read it carefully before waiving any of its terms. In this case, Parent waived a key protection — the right to have an unfamiliar assessor conduct the evaluation — and was then unable to challenge the assessment on that basis. Any changes to a settlement agreement should be made in writing.