District Wins: Parent Cannot Block Social-Emotional Assessment of Autistic-Behavioral Student

What Happened

Student is a 9-year-old African-American boy with eligibility under Specific Learning Disability and Speech and Language Impairment. Since 2008, he has been placed at a non-public school, Children's Home of Stockton (CHS), which primarily serves students with emotional disturbances. He was placed there because his behaviors — violent tantrums, throwing objects, and attempting to strike teachers and peers — could not be managed in a general education setting. All parties agreed that his IEP and placement at CHS were providing educational benefit; the dispute was solely about the triennial assessment process.

In late 2010, the district prepared a triennial assessment plan. Parent approved most of it but explicitly refused consent for any social, emotional, or behavioral assessments, and wrote on the assessment plan that no rating scales were needed. The school psychologist proceeded with only the authorized assessments. However, the resulting assessment report contained serious errors: it listed two social-emotional assessment instruments that were never actually administered, included several pages of boilerplate text about emotional disturbance and autism eligibility categories, and included an unsupported statement about the student's emotional concerns. These errors led Parent to believe the district had secretly conducted unauthorized assessments, sparking a breakdown in trust and the filing of multiple due process complaints. The district also filed its own complaint, seeking permission to conduct social and emotional assessments without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

On the NNAT (alleged IQ test violation): Parent argued that the district violated the Larry P. v. Riles injunction — which prohibits IQ testing of African-American students — by administering the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). The ALJ disagreed. Multiple credible district witnesses, including the school psychologist and program specialists, testified that the NNAT is a brief nonverbal ability test, does not produce an IQ score, and is commonly used as an alternative to IQ testing for African-American students. The CDE investigator who found the district out of compliance was given little weight because his analysis was based solely on a sentence from the publisher's website and he failed to account for a later court ruling (Crawford v. Honig, 1994) that modified the original Larry P. ban.

On the unauthorized assessments claim: The ALJ found that the district did NOT actually conduct social or emotional assessments — the school psychologist followed Parent's instructions and omitted those instruments. However, the ALJ acknowledged that the assessment report was genuinely flawed and understandably caused Parent to distrust the district. Listing instruments that were never used, including boilerplate about autism and emotional disturbance, and making unsupported statements about the student's emotional state were all described as serious problems with the report. Despite this, errors in a report do not equal a FAPE denial if the underlying assessment was conducted correctly.

On parental participation: The ALJ found that Parent was, in fact, a highly active and effective advocate who had participated meaningfully in every IEP meeting and decision. No evidence showed that the district had actually blocked or limited his participation — the dispute arose from the report errors, not from any deliberate exclusion.

On the district's request to assess without consent: The ALJ granted this request. It has been three years since any social or emotional assessment was conducted. The student continues to have significant behavioral outbursts at school — approximately twice per week — that interfere with his access to education. The law requires the district to assess in all areas of suspected disability, and the district cannot fulfill that obligation if a parent blocks a necessary component of the evaluation.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. The district is permitted to conduct social and emotional assessments of Student without parental consent.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A flawed assessment report can destroy trust — but errors alone don't equal a FAPE violation. The ALJ clearly found the school psychologist's report was poorly written and caused real confusion, but because the actual assessment was conducted properly, no legal violation occurred. If you believe your child was assessed without your consent, ask the district to walk you through exactly which instruments were administered and request documentation.

2. Parents cannot permanently block a required area of assessment. Under the IDEA, if you want your child to receive special education services, you must allow the district to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability. Withholding consent for a needed evaluation — even with good intentions — can result in a due process order requiring the assessment to proceed without your agreement.

3. The NNAT is not considered an IQ test under California's Larry P. injunction — at least in this case. If your African-American child has been assessed using the NNAT and you are concerned about the Larry P. prohibition, know that this ALJ found it to be a permissible alternative assessment tool. The legal landscape around Larry P. is complex, and a subsequent federal ruling (Crawford v. Honig) modified some of the original ban's scope.

4. Active advocacy is powerful, but the IEP process is not a voting process. Parent believed the IEP team should vote on which assessment instruments to use. The ALJ clarified that once a district follows proper assessment procedures, it has discretion to select the specific tools — parents do not have veto power over individual instruments, only over the broader consent to assess.