District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parents' Objection

What Happened

The student in this case was a seventh-grader at Rosemont Middle School in Glendale whose family spoke Armenian at home. Since fourth grade, the student had been struggling academically in reading, writing, and math. The district created an individualized intervention learning plan (ILP) — a general education support program that included tutoring, summer school, and small-group help — but after two and a half years, the ILP had not worked. By seventh grade, the student was failing every core class, frequently leaving his seat and walking around the classroom, not completing assignments, and showing declining social skills. His teachers reported that he had difficulty understanding the meaning of words and text even when he could read them aloud correctly.

In November 2008, the district convened a Student Success Team (SST) meeting — a general education problem-solving team — and determined that the student might have a disability. The district asked for the parents' consent to conduct a special education assessment. The mother declined on behalf of both parents at the SST meeting, and also declined after receiving a written assessment plan in the mail. Rather than simply drop the matter, the district filed for due process, asking an ALJ to authorize the assessment without parental consent. The parents argued that their son had no disability and that his struggles were caused by poor teaching and insufficient time to complete assignments.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on every point. The evidence — including teacher testimony, report cards, standardized test scores, and the student's progress reports — convincingly showed that the student had stopped making academic progress for reasons the district's staff could not explain without a formal assessment. The ALJ found that the district reasonably suspected the student might have a disability and was legally required to evaluate him to determine whether he qualified for special education services.

The ALJ also examined the district's assessment plan and found one procedural flaw: the written plan did not mention that an IEP team meeting would be held after the assessment to review results and recommendations, as required by California law. However, the ALJ ruled that this omission did not matter legally because it did not prevent the parents from participating in decisions about the student's education, did not deny the student any educational benefit, and did not affect his right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The district's repeated written assurances that no special education placement could happen without parental consent further reduced any harm from the missing notice.

The parents' argument — that the student's failures were caused by unmotivating teachers rather than a disability — was not supported by credible evidence and was rejected.

What Was Ordered

1. The district is authorized to assess the student pursuant to its November 3, 2008 assessment plan without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts can go to court — or to a hearing — if you refuse a special education assessment. Under both federal and California law, if parents refuse consent for an initial evaluation, the district has the right (though not the obligation) to file for due process and ask a hearing officer to override that refusal. If the district has a reasonable basis to suspect a disability, it may win that hearing.

2. A pattern of failure over multiple years, combined with unsuccessful interventions, gives a district strong grounds to assess. In this case, years of failing grades, a failed ILP, and teacher observations of classroom behavior gave the district a legally solid foundation to seek an assessment. Parents who believe their child's struggles have a non-disability cause should be prepared to present their own evidence, not just their own testimony.

3. Minor paperwork errors won't automatically help your case. The district made a procedural mistake by omitting the post-assessment IEP meeting notice from the written plan. But the ALJ refused to penalize the district because the error didn't actually hurt the parents' ability to participate or the student's access to education. Procedural violations only matter legally if they cause real harm.

4. You retain the right to refuse special education placement and services even if you lose a consent-to-assess hearing. The district in this case was only authorized to assess the student — not to place him in special education. Parents always retain a separate right to refuse an IEP and any resulting placement, even after an assessment is completed.