District Wins Right to Reassess Student Over Parent's Objection to Chosen Assessors

Sequoia Union High School District filed for due process after a parent refused to consent to a reassessment, insisting that only outside board-certified professionals conduct the evaluations. The ALJ found that the district's proposed assessors were qualified under California law and that the reassessment was clearly warranted given the student's dramatic academic decline and escalating behavioral incidents. The district was authorized to proceed with the reassessment without parental consent.

What Happened

Student is a 16-year-old 11th grader who has qualified for special education under the category of speech or language disorder since kindergarten. Throughout her three years in high school, the district and her parents had been unable to agree on an IEP, so Student continued working on the same single speech and language goal she had carried over from middle school. By the 2007–2008 school year, Student's situation had deteriorated significantly: her GPA dropped from a 2.08 the prior spring to a 0.848 in the fall semester, she failed four classes, and her behavior in class — including constant drawing instead of attending to instruction — had become a serious and recurring problem. On one occasion, law enforcement was called to campus after Student drew a poster depicting blood dripping alongside the word "Acceptance," which school staff interpreted as an imminent threat.

The district proposed a comprehensive reassessment covering speech and language, academics, behavior, and a functional analysis assessment (FAA). Parent agreed to the academic portion of the plan but refused to consent to the rest unless the evaluations were performed by an outside board-certified psychologist and a speech therapist licensed by the state speech-language pathology board — rather than the district's own credentialed staff. Parent also wanted the IEP team to formally adopt a behavioral report written by a private psychologist, Dr. Marone, in place of a new district assessment. The district disagreed with several of Dr. Marone's recommendations — including one that would have prevented Student from graduating — and filed for due process to obtain authorization to conduct the reassessment using its own qualified staff.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district. The central finding was that the district's proposed assessors — school psychologist Dr. Karen McGee and speech-language therapist Marian Welch — were fully qualified under California law to conduct the assessments. Both held the required state credentials and had extensive experience, and both had previously been found qualified to assess this same student in an earlier OAH proceeding. California law requires assessors to meet state credentialing requirements, not necessarily hold board certifications issued by outside professional bodies.

The ALJ also found that the reassessment was clearly necessary. Student's academic performance had declined sharply, her behavior had escalated in both frequency and severity, and multiple teachers testified credibly that they needed updated assessment information to understand how to serve her. The ALJ rejected the parent's effort to use the consent requirement as leverage to force the district to rely solely on Dr. Marone's private report. Citing federal case law, the ALJ explained that a parent cannot withhold consent to a district reassessment as a way to compel the district to adopt an independent evaluation — if a parent wants their child to receive special education services under the IDEA, they must allow the school to conduct its own evaluation.

What Was Ordered

The district was authorized to proceed with the reassessment of Student as proposed in the assessment plan dated February 6, 2008, without parental consent.
Parents were ordered to make Student reasonably available for the assessment.

Why This Matters for Parents

You can object to an IEP, but you generally cannot block the district from reassessing your child. Federal and California law give districts the right to seek a due process hearing if a parent refuses consent for a reassessment. If the district can show the reassessment is warranted, a hearing officer can authorize it over a parent's objection. Withholding consent is a serious step with real legal consequences.
Insisting on outside evaluators is not a guaranteed right when the district has qualified staff. California law requires assessors to be credentialed — it does not require them to hold board certifications from outside professional organizations. If the district's own staff hold the proper state credentials and have relevant experience, that is generally sufficient. Demanding a board-certified outside evaluator is not a legally protected position on its own.
A private evaluation can inform the IEP, but the district is not required to adopt it. Parent wanted the IEP team to accept Dr. Marone's behavioral report as the official assessment and build goals around his recommendations. The ALJ made clear that the district has the right — and sometimes the obligation — to conduct its own assessment even when a private report exists. The district can disagree with an independent evaluator's conclusions.
Document your child's declining performance carefully — it cuts both ways. In this case, the student's dramatic GPA drop and escalating behavioral incidents were exactly what justified the district's push for a reassessment. Evidence of regression strengthens a district's case for reassessment and can undermine a parent's argument that no new evaluation is needed.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district was authorized to proceed with the reassessment of Student as proposed in the assessment plan dated February 6, 2008, without parental consent.
Parents were ordered to make Student reasonably available for the assessment.

Why This Matters for Parents

You can object to an IEP, but you generally cannot block the district from reassessing your child. Federal and California law give districts the right to seek a due process hearing if a parent refuses consent for a reassessment. If the district can show the reassessment is warranted, a hearing officer can authorize it over a parent's objection. Withholding consent is a serious step with real legal consequences.
Insisting on outside evaluators is not a guaranteed right when the district has qualified staff. California law requires assessors to be credentialed — it does not require them to hold board certifications from outside professional organizations. If the district's own staff hold the proper state credentials and have relevant experience, that is generally sufficient. Demanding a board-certified outside evaluator is not a legally protected position on its own.
A private evaluation can inform the IEP, but the district is not required to adopt it. Parent wanted the IEP team to accept Dr. Marone's behavioral report as the official assessment and build goals around his recommendations. The ALJ made clear that the district has the right — and sometimes the obligation — to conduct its own assessment even when a private report exists. The district can disagree with an independent evaluator's conclusions.
Document your child's declining performance carefully — it cuts both ways. In this case, the student's dramatic GPA drop and escalating behavioral incidents were exactly what justified the district's push for a reassessment. Evidence of regression strengthens a district's case for reassessment and can undermine a parent's argument that no new evaluation is needed.