District Wins: IEE Denied When Parent Refused to Consent to District's Dyslexia Assessment

A parent filed for due process against Franklin McKinley School District claiming the May 2011 IEP denied her son a FAPE by failing to include third-grade standards, improperly removing reading and writing therapies, and unlawfully denying her request for an independent dyslexia evaluation. The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding that the IEP was appropriate given the student's actual performance levels, that reading services were actually increased rather than reduced, and that the parent could not demand a publicly funded IEE because she had refused to consent to the district's own assessment plan.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old boy eligible for special education under specific learning disability (SLD) and speech and language impairment (SLI). Despite being enrolled in second grade, Student was performing academically at a kindergarten-to-early-first-grade level across reading, writing, spelling, and math. He also had a medical diagnosis of progressive high myopia and received occupational therapy (OT) to address fine motor and visual-motor deficits in addition to resource specialist program (RSP) and speech and language services.

In May 2011, the district held an IEP team meeting and proposed moving Student from his general education classroom with RSP pull-out support to a special day class (SDC), which would provide 150 minutes per day of specialized academic instruction. Parent did not consent to this IEP and withdrew Student from school entirely for the 2011–2012 school year. Parent filed for due process in August 2011, alleging that the IEP failed to include third-grade curriculum, improperly removed reading and writing therapies, and that the district had unlawfully refused her request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) in the area of dyslexia.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied all of the parent's claims and ruled in favor of the district on every issue.

On third-grade standards: The parent herself acknowledged at hearing that Student did not have the academic foundation for third-grade curriculum — or even first-grade curriculum — at the time of the IEP. The claim was effectively withdrawn, and the ALJ found the district's use of a mixed kindergarten-through-second-grade curriculum was appropriate given Student's actual performance levels.

On reading and writing therapy: The evidence showed that the May 2011 IEP did not reduce reading services — it actually offered more reading support by placing Student in an SDC with 150 minutes per day of academic instruction, compared to the 120 minutes per week of RSP he had previously received. On OT (the "writing therapy"), the district's occupational therapist credibly testified that the reduction from two sessions per week to one was justified because Student had made measurable progress in his OT goals. The parent did not cross-examine the OT provider or present any competing evidence.

On the IEE for dyslexia: This was the most significant legal issue. When Parent requested a dyslexia evaluation at the December 2010 IEP meeting, the district responded within 11 days with a written assessment plan using two standardized tests — the Jordan Left-Right Reversal Test and the Visual Aural Digit Span Test — both appropriate tools for identifying dyslexia. The parent refused to sign the assessment plan and never contacted district staff with questions about it. Because the parent blocked the district from ever completing an assessment, there was no district assessment for her to disagree with — and the right to an IEE at public expense only arises after a parent disagrees with a completed district assessment. The ALJ found that Parent had no legal basis to demand a publicly funded IEE under these circumstances.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on every issue heard and decided.
No IEE was ordered, no placement change was ordered, and no compensatory services were awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must consent to a district assessment before you can demand a publicly funded IEE. The right to an independent evaluation at public expense is triggered when you disagree with a completed district assessment. If you refuse to let the district assess your child in the first place, you lose the legal basis to request an IEE. If you have concerns about whether an assessment plan is adequate, ask questions in writing — but do not simply withhold consent without pursuing alternatives.
Reducing a service is not automatically a FAPE violation — the district must show it is based on progress. The ALJ upheld the OT reduction because the district's therapist documented that Student had made real gains in the targeted skill areas. When a district proposes reducing a service, ask for data showing your child's progress toward those specific goals before agreeing or disagreeing.
Withdrawing your child from school does not strengthen your legal position. Parent kept Student out of school for an entire year during the dispute. The ALJ noted this fact and Student's skills appeared to regress during that time. Exercising "stay put" rights — keeping the last agreed-upon IEP in place while you dispute a new one — is generally a safer strategy than unilateral withdrawal.
If you believe your child may have dyslexia, engage with the district's process and document your concerns in writing. The district here actually offered to investigate the dyslexia question promptly. If you believe the proposed assessment tools are insufficient, say so in writing and request that additional or different tools be used. That creates a record — and if the district refuses, you then have a real basis to pursue an IEE.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied all of the parent's claims and ruled in favor of the district on every issue.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
The district was found to have prevailed on every issue heard and decided.
No IEE was ordered, no placement change was ordered, and no compensatory services were awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

You must consent to a district assessment before you can demand a publicly funded IEE. The right to an independent evaluation at public expense is triggered when you disagree with a completed district assessment. If you refuse to let the district assess your child in the first place, you lose the legal basis to request an IEE. If you have concerns about whether an assessment plan is adequate, ask questions in writing — but do not simply withhold consent without pursuing alternatives.
Reducing a service is not automatically a FAPE violation — the district must show it is based on progress. The ALJ upheld the OT reduction because the district's therapist documented that Student had made real gains in the targeted skill areas. When a district proposes reducing a service, ask for data showing your child's progress toward those specific goals before agreeing or disagreeing.
Withdrawing your child from school does not strengthen your legal position. Parent kept Student out of school for an entire year during the dispute. The ALJ noted this fact and Student's skills appeared to regress during that time. Exercising "stay put" rights — keeping the last agreed-upon IEP in place while you dispute a new one — is generally a safer strategy than unilateral withdrawal.
If you believe your child may have dyslexia, engage with the district's process and document your concerns in writing. The district here actually offered to investigate the dyslexia question promptly. If you believe the proposed assessment tools are insufficient, say so in writing and request that additional or different tools be used. That creates a record — and if the district refuses, you then have a real basis to pursue an IEE.