District Wins Right to Conduct Overdue Triennial Assessment Over Parent Objections

San Ramon Valley Unified School District sought due process after parents refused to consent to their 16-year-old son's overdue triennial assessment. The ALJ ruled the district had both the right and legal obligation to conduct the assessment without parental consent or conditions, and denied the parents' request for an Independent Educational Evaluation at district expense.

What Happened

A 16-year-old eleventh grader eligible for special education under the category of Speech or Language Impairment had not received a comprehensive assessment since June 2004. His triennial reassessment was due in November 2007. The district proposed written assessment plans in October 2007 and January 2008 covering academic achievement, speech and language, intellectual development, gross/fine motor skills, and vocational readiness — all areas relevant to a student approaching graduation and preparing for college or work. The parents refused to sign either assessment plan, raising concerns about the qualifications of individual assessors, the stress of testing on their son, and what they believed was excessive testing. They also wanted to select or pre-approve the assessors themselves before consenting.

Parents separately argued they were entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at district expense because the district had delayed delivering a written report from a 2006 independent reading and writing assessment conducted by Dr. Jackie Cheong. Although the final written report was not delivered until March 2008, the preliminary findings had been discussed at an August 2007 IEP meeting. Because parents had not consented to any district-conducted triennial assessment, the district filed for due process to obtain the right to proceed with the evaluation over parental objection.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both issues. Key findings included:

The triennial assessment was legally required and overdue. Student's last triennial had been completed in 2004, making the 2007 reassessment a mandatory legal obligation under both federal (IDEA) and California law. Multiple school staff — including the speech-language pathologist, occupational therapist, assistant principal, and vocational specialist — credibly testified that current assessment data was needed to properly serve the student.
Parents cannot impose conditions on who conducts the assessment. The ALJ found that parents' demands to pre-approve or select individual assessors, and to restrict the scope of testing, would "unfairly constrain the assessment process." District staff must be allowed to use their own professional judgment about what tests to administer and how to conduct valid evaluations.
The district made reasonable efforts to obtain consent. The district provided proper written assessment plans with required procedural safeguard notices and held multiple IEP meetings to seek agreement. Parents' continued refusal without legitimate grounds gave the district the right to proceed through due process.
Parents were not entitled to an IEE at district expense. The right to request an IEE at district expense arises only when a parent disagrees with a district-conducted assessment. Because the district had not yet completed a triennial assessment, there was no district evaluation to dispute. Dr. Cheong's 2006 report was an independent reading/writing evaluation — not the triennial — and the delay in delivering it did not create a new IEE entitlement.

What Was Ordered

The district is entitled to assess the student pursuant to the October 11, 2007 assessment plan as enhanced by the January 18, 2008 plan, without any conditions or restrictions imposed by the parents, and without parental consent.
If parents intend for the student to continue attending a public school, they must make the student reasonably available for assessment by the district.
Parents' request for an IEE at district expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Triennial assessments are legally required — you generally cannot block them. If your child is in special education, the district has both the right and the obligation to reassess every three years. Refusing to consent does not make the assessment go away; the district can file for due process and a hearing officer can authorize the assessment over your objection.
You cannot pick or approve the specific assessors. Parents have the right to receive a written assessment plan and to know the general areas and types of assessment — but you do not have the right to pre-approve individual evaluators or dictate which specific tests are used. Attempting to impose those conditions will likely not succeed.
Your IEE right is tied to disagreeing with a completed district assessment. You can only request an IEE at district expense when the district has actually conducted an assessment and you disagree with the results. You cannot request one simply because of a delay in receiving a report, or in anticipation of a future assessment.
Delays in receiving reports matter, but may not create IEE rights. The district took nearly two years to deliver Dr. Cheong's final written report. While that delay is concerning, the ALJ found it did not automatically entitle parents to a new IEE — especially since the findings had been discussed at an IEP meeting. Document all delays in receiving reports in writing, and consult an advocate or attorney about your options.
If you have real concerns about assessor qualifications, raise them in writing early. Parents' worries about evaluator credentials were not unreasonable, but the way they were raised — by refusing all consent and trying to pre-approve staff — backfired legally. A better approach is to put specific credential concerns in writing, request information about evaluators' qualifications through the assessment plan process, and consult an advocate before withholding consent entirely.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both issues. Key findings included:

The triennial assessment was legally required and overdue. Student's last triennial had been completed in 2004, making the 2007 reassessment a mandatory legal obligation under both federal (IDEA) and California law. Multiple school staff — including the speech-language pathologist, occupational therapist, assistant principal, and vocational specialist — credibly testified that current assessment data was needed to properly serve the student.
Parents cannot impose conditions on who conducts the assessment. The ALJ found that parents' demands to pre-approve or select individual assessors, and to restrict the scope of testing, would "unfairly constrain the assessment process." District staff must be allowed to use their own professional judgment about what tests to administer and how to conduct valid evaluations.
The district made reasonable efforts to obtain consent. The district provided proper written assessment plans with required procedural safeguard notices and held multiple IEP meetings to seek agreement. Parents' continued refusal without legitimate grounds gave the district the right to proceed through due process.
Parents were not entitled to an IEE at district expense. The right to request an IEE at district expense arises only when a parent disagrees with a district-conducted assessment. Because the district had not yet completed a triennial assessment, there was no district evaluation to dispute. Dr. Cheong's 2006 report was an independent reading/writing evaluation — not the triennial — and the delay in delivering it did not create a new IEE entitlement.

What Was Ordered

The district is entitled to assess the student pursuant to the October 11, 2007 assessment plan as enhanced by the January 18, 2008 plan, without any conditions or restrictions imposed by the parents, and without parental consent.
If parents intend for the student to continue attending a public school, they must make the student reasonably available for assessment by the district.
Parents' request for an IEE at district expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Triennial assessments are legally required — you generally cannot block them. If your child is in special education, the district has both the right and the obligation to reassess every three years. Refusing to consent does not make the assessment go away; the district can file for due process and a hearing officer can authorize the assessment over your objection.
You cannot pick or approve the specific assessors. Parents have the right to receive a written assessment plan and to know the general areas and types of assessment — but you do not have the right to pre-approve individual evaluators or dictate which specific tests are used. Attempting to impose those conditions will likely not succeed.
Your IEE right is tied to disagreeing with a completed district assessment. You can only request an IEE at district expense when the district has actually conducted an assessment and you disagree with the results. You cannot request one simply because of a delay in receiving a report, or in anticipation of a future assessment.
Delays in receiving reports matter, but may not create IEE rights. The district took nearly two years to deliver Dr. Cheong's final written report. While that delay is concerning, the ALJ found it did not automatically entitle parents to a new IEE — especially since the findings had been discussed at an IEP meeting. Document all delays in receiving reports in writing, and consult an advocate or attorney about your options.
If you have real concerns about assessor qualifications, raise them in writing early. Parents' worries about evaluator credentials were not unreasonable, but the way they were raised — by refusing all consent and trying to pre-approve staff — backfired legally. A better approach is to put specific credential concerns in writing, request information about evaluators' qualifications through the assessment plan process, and consult an advocate before withholding consent entirely.