District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parent's Revoked Consent

Kern High School District sought permission to conduct a triennial special education reassessment after the parent revoked consent she had already given. The parent feared the assessments would discriminate against her African-American son and change his eligibility category. The ALJ ruled in the district's favor, finding the assessment plan was legally sound and that the district could proceed without parental consent.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old African-American young man receiving special education services under the category of "other health impairment" due to ADHD. He had been on home instruction since October 2013 following a suspension pending expulsion. His last formal assessment had been conducted in February 2011 — when he was still in middle school — and he had since transitioned to Kern High School District without ever being assessed by that district. A triennial reassessment was legally due in early 2014.

In December 2013, the district prepared an assessment plan and presented it at an IEP meeting where Parent was accompanied by both an attorney and an advocate. Parent consented in writing. However, before any assessments could begin, Parent met with the school psychologist and became concerned that the proposed test instruments were the same ones she believed had previously led to an "emotionally disturbed" eligibility determination in a prior district — a category she strongly opposed. Parent revoked her consent in writing in January 2014, offering no explanation. The district tried to address her concerns but was unable to obtain renewed consent, and ultimately filed for due process to seek permission to assess Student without it. Parent attempted to have the case dismissed, claiming she had moved outside the district's boundaries, but was unable to provide proof of a change of residence.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on every point. First, the motion to dismiss was denied because Parent never completed the required disenrollment paperwork, refused to provide a new address, and Student was still receiving home instruction from district staff as late as two days before the hearing. Under California law, a student's residency cannot be lost until a new one is gained, and Parent provided no evidence of that.

On the core issue, the ALJ found that the district's December 2013 assessment plan met every legal requirement: it covered multiple assessment areas, used a variety of tools, was to be administered by qualified personnel, was not discriminatory, and complied with all procedural notice requirements. The school psychologist testified in detail about the specific instruments she planned to use, none of which generated a full-scale IQ score — which was the legally sensitive issue given California's Larry P. injunction limiting IQ testing of African-American students for special education purposes. The ALJ found that the district went above and beyond legal requirements in trying to explain the assessments to Parent and address her concerns. Because parents who want their children to receive special education services must allow the district to reassess them, and because Student was overdue for a triennial evaluation, the district was entitled to proceed.

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess Student pursuant to the December 3, 2013 triennial assessment plan without parental consent.
The assessments may be conducted during Student's home instruction sessions or at any time Student attends a district school.

Why This Matters for Parents

You can revoke consent, but there are real consequences. Under federal and California law, if a parent refuses to allow a required triennial assessment, the district can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess the student anyway. Refusing assessments does not automatically protect your child — it can result in an outdated IEP that fails to capture your child's current needs.
Your concerns about discriminatory testing are legally valid and worth raising — but raise them through the IEP process, not by walking away. California's Larry P. injunction prohibits the use of IQ tests to place African-American students in certain special education categories. If you believe proposed assessments are discriminatory, you have the right to request specific information about the test instruments before consenting. Ask for that information in writing and document your objections — but remain engaged in the process.
A parent's consent to an assessment plan, once given, carries legal weight. In this case, Parent had already signed the consent form before revoking it. The ALJ treated the prior consent as evidence that the plan was reasonable. Before signing any assessment plan, make sure you fully understand what is being proposed and why — it is harder to object later.
Claiming you moved out of the district will not end a case if you cannot prove it. California law requires a formal disenrollment process and evidence of a new address. If you genuinely relocate, complete the paperwork, provide your new address, and enroll your child in the new district promptly. Simply refusing to share your address while continuing to use district services will not establish a change of residency.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess Student pursuant to the December 3, 2013 triennial assessment plan without parental consent.
The assessments may be conducted during Student's home instruction sessions or at any time Student attends a district school.

Why This Matters for Parents

You can revoke consent, but there are real consequences. Under federal and California law, if a parent refuses to allow a required triennial assessment, the district can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess the student anyway. Refusing assessments does not automatically protect your child — it can result in an outdated IEP that fails to capture your child's current needs.
Your concerns about discriminatory testing are legally valid and worth raising — but raise them through the IEP process, not by walking away. California's Larry P. injunction prohibits the use of IQ tests to place African-American students in certain special education categories. If you believe proposed assessments are discriminatory, you have the right to request specific information about the test instruments before consenting. Ask for that information in writing and document your objections — but remain engaged in the process.
A parent's consent to an assessment plan, once given, carries legal weight. In this case, Parent had already signed the consent form before revoking it. The ALJ treated the prior consent as evidence that the plan was reasonable. Before signing any assessment plan, make sure you fully understand what is being proposed and why — it is harder to object later.
Claiming you moved out of the district will not end a case if you cannot prove it. California law requires a formal disenrollment process and evidence of a new address. If you genuinely relocate, complete the paperwork, provide your new address, and enroll your child in the new district promptly. Simply refusing to share your address while continuing to use district services will not establish a change of residency.