CDE's Schools for the Deaf and Blind Were Not Required to Assess Student Without Suspected Disability

What Happened

Student was over 20 years old at the time of the hearing and had been eligible for special education since age three under the categories of autistic-like behavior and intellectual disability. He was nonverbal, functioned below a pre-kindergarten level, and had never been conversant in American Sign Language. Critically, Student had been tested for hearing loss eight times and for visual impairment four times over many years — every single evaluation found that he was neither deaf nor blind. His corrected vision was 20/30, well above the legal threshold for visual impairment, and his hearing tests showed normal auditory nerve function. His limited responses to sounds and language were consistently attributed to his autism and intellectual disability, not to any sensory deficit.

As part of a 2010 settlement of a prior due process complaint against his local school district (Plumas Unified), Parent negotiated a referral of Student to both the California School for the Deaf, Fremont (CSDF) and the California School for the Blind (CSB) for further assessment — not for placement, but to explore whether placement there might be appropriate. Both state schools reviewed Student's file and declined. CSDF found no indication of a suspected hearing impairment; CSB found no indication of a suspected vision impairment. Parent then filed a new due process complaint against CDE, arguing that the refusals to assess denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). As a remedy, Parent sought placement at a school for the deaf, including a school in Washington, D.C.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that neither CSDF nor CSB violated the law by declining to assess Student. Under California and federal special education law, a school is only required to assess a student in areas of a suspected disability. Because Student's extensive prior evaluation history showed no credible basis for suspecting a hearing or vision impairment, the state schools were not obligated to conduct further assessments. The referral created by the settlement agreement bound only the local school district — it did not require the state schools to accept an assessment they had no reason to perform.

Parent's primary expert witness was a literacy specialist with no training in deafness or vision impairment. She had concluded Student was deaf because he didn't respond to sounds in her presence, but she admitted this was a guess and that she didn't know the legal definition of hearing impairment. The ALJ gave her testimony no weight. By contrast, the CSDF's admissions supervisor — who had 35 years of experience working with deaf students — and CSB's Director of Curriculum — who held a Ph.D. in special education — both reviewed Student's records thoroughly and reached well-supported conclusions that Student did not have a qualifying sensory impairment.

The ALJ also found that even if a procedural violation had occurred, it caused no real harm. A procedural error only rises to a denial of FAPE if it impedes the child's education, significantly prevents the parent from participating in decisions, or deprives the student of educational benefit. Here, Parent had been fully involved in all prior decisions. The 2012 CSDF assessment — ultimately completed during the litigation — reached the exact same conclusions as every prior evaluation going back to 2003. There was no new information a 2010 assessment would have revealed.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. CDE was found to be the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Schools are only required to assess in areas of suspected disability. The law does not give parents an unlimited right to demand assessments from any school or program they choose. There must be some credible reason — in the student's records or current presentation — to suspect a particular disability before an assessment obligation is triggered.

2. A settlement agreement binds the parties who signed it — not third parties. The local school district agreed to refer Student for further assessment, but that agreement could not force the state schools to accept the referral and conduct assessments they found to be unsupported. Parents should understand the limits of what a settlement can compel.

3. Procedural violations only matter if they cause real harm. Even when a school makes a technical mistake, a court or ALJ will only find a FAPE denial if that mistake actually hurt the student's education or prevented the parent from meaningfully participating. Extensive prior evaluations that all reach the same conclusion can undercut a claim that a missing assessment caused any harm.

4. Expert qualifications matter enormously. The parent's witness — despite being sincere and well-intentioned — had no professional training in deafness or vision impairment and acknowledged her conclusions were guesses based on personal observation. The ALJ gave her testimony no weight. When pursuing a due process case, parents should ensure any expert they rely on has credentials and experience directly relevant to the disability in question.