District Wins: Student Found No Longer Eligible After Speech and Learning Disability Assessments

Lassen View Union Elementary School District filed for due process to formally exit a second-grade student from special education services after triennial assessments found she no longer met eligibility criteria for speech/language impairment or specific learning disability. The ALJ ruled in the District's favor, finding the assessments were thorough and legally compliant, and that the student was performing at or above grade level without any special education support.

What Happened

Student is a nine-year-old bilingual girl (English and Spanish) who had received special education services under the category of speech and language impairment since 2004, when she was found to be speaking unintelligibly and not using complete sentences. She received speech therapy through her IEP, with a goal of speaking in complete, coherent sentences using all English speech sounds at least 80% of the time. By the time of her triennial reassessment in 2009, she was exceeding that goal — speaking in complete sentences more than 90% of the time.

As part of the required three-year reassessment, the District conducted a speech and language evaluation in May 2009 and a full psychoeducational assessment between September and November 2009 (the latter prompted by Parent's own request for additional evaluation). Both assessments concluded that Student no longer qualified for special education. When the IEP team recommended exiting Student from special education at a May 2009 meeting, Parent refused to consent and continued to assert that Student had unaddressed speech and learning difficulties. The District ultimately filed for due process to obtain a formal ruling that Student was no longer eligible for special education services.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor, finding that both assessments were legally sound and that Student did not meet the eligibility criteria for either speech/language impairment or specific learning disability.

On the speech and language question, the District's speech-language pathologist used multiple standardized tests appropriate for a bilingual student, conducted observations across settings, and interviewed teachers. Student's scores on tests of expressive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary, and auditory comprehension were all in the average range. She had no articulation errors, and her speech fluency was normal. California law requires that a student score at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on two or more standardized tests in areas like grammar or vocabulary — Student did not come close to that threshold.

On the specific learning disability question, a school psychologist and a resource specialist used multiple tools including an IQ test (WISC-IV), academic achievement battery (Woodcock-Johnson III), phonological processing tests, and behavioral assessments. Student's full-scale IQ was 91 (average range), and her academic achievement scores ranged from 94 to 114 — all in the average range. There was no meaningful gap between her intellectual ability and her actual academic performance, which is what California law requires to find a specific learning disability. Her STAR test scores in Math and Reading were actually at the third-grade level while she was in second grade.

Parent raised a concern that the IEP meeting to review the psychoeducational assessment may have occurred more than 60 days after consent was given (a procedural violation). The ALJ found that the record did not establish exactly when Parent returned the signed assessment plan, so no violation was proven. The ALJ also noted that even if a timing violation had occurred, it would only matter legally if it caused a loss of educational benefit or blocked Parent's meaningful participation in the IEP — neither of which was shown here.

What Was Ordered

Student is not eligible for special education services under the category of speech or language impairment.
Student is not eligible for special education services under the category of specific learning disability.
All of Parent's requested relief was denied. The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Meeting a prior IEP goal can be used as evidence that a student no longer needs special education. When Student's speech therapy goal was exceeded, the District used that progress — along with formal test results — to support exiting her from services. Parents should carefully review whether IEP goals are written broadly enough to capture all of a child's actual needs, not just the narrowest measurable skill.
Eligibility for speech/language services has a specific legal threshold — scores alone don't tell the whole story. Under California law, a student must score at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on two or more standardized tests in areas like grammar or vocabulary, or show a combination of low scores and observed language problems. If your child is borderline, classroom observations and language samples matter — make sure the evaluator collects them.
If you suspect a procedural violation (like a missed 60-day deadline), document when you signed and returned the assessment plan. In this case, the timing dispute could not be resolved because there was no clear record of when Parent consented. Keep copies of every document you sign and date, and send consent forms by certified mail or request written confirmation.
A below-average score on one subtest does not automatically establish eligibility. Student scored below average on a phonological processing subtest, but the ALJ accepted the District's explanation that other tests measuring the same underlying skills showed average performance. Parents should ask evaluators to explain how they weigh mixed results — and consider requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) if they believe the District's interpretation is wrong.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student is not eligible for special education services under the category of speech or language impairment.
Student is not eligible for special education services under the category of specific learning disability.
All of Parent's requested relief was denied. The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Meeting a prior IEP goal can be used as evidence that a student no longer needs special education. When Student's speech therapy goal was exceeded, the District used that progress — along with formal test results — to support exiting her from services. Parents should carefully review whether IEP goals are written broadly enough to capture all of a child's actual needs, not just the narrowest measurable skill.
Eligibility for speech/language services has a specific legal threshold — scores alone don't tell the whole story. Under California law, a student must score at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean on two or more standardized tests in areas like grammar or vocabulary, or show a combination of low scores and observed language problems. If your child is borderline, classroom observations and language samples matter — make sure the evaluator collects them.
If you suspect a procedural violation (like a missed 60-day deadline), document when you signed and returned the assessment plan. In this case, the timing dispute could not be resolved because there was no clear record of when Parent consented. Keep copies of every document you sign and date, and send consent forms by certified mail or request written confirmation.
A below-average score on one subtest does not automatically establish eligibility. Student scored below average on a phonological processing subtest, but the ALJ accepted the District's explanation that other tests measuring the same underlying skills showed average performance. Parents should ask evaluators to explain how they weigh mixed results — and consider requesting an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) if they believe the District's interpretation is wrong.