Clovis USD Wins Right to Assess Student with Down Syndrome Over Parent's Objection

Clovis Unified School District filed for due process after a parent refused to consent to triennial assessments in intellectual development and adaptive behavior for a 12-year-old student with Down Syndrome. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that the assessments were necessary, the assessment plan was legally proper, and the district's school psychologist was qualified to conduct them. The district was authorized to proceed with the assessments over the parent's objection.

What Happened

Student is a 12-year-old girl with Down Syndrome who qualifies for special education under the category of intellectual disability. She was placed in a general education classroom at her neighborhood school with resource specialist support, speech and language services, assistive technology, and a one-to-one instructional aide. Student had not been assessed for intellectual development in six years — since she was five years old — which was well past the legally required three-year triennial assessment window.

When Clovis Unified proposed a triennial assessment plan in December 2013 that included intellectual development and adaptive behavior testing, Parent crossed out those two areas and refused to consent. Parent believed the district already had enough information to confirm Student's continued eligibility, that the tests would be inaccurate given Student's Down Syndrome, and that testing was only useful if the district wanted to move Student out of the general education classroom — which Parent did not want. After months of phone calls, meetings, and detailed explanatory letters from the district, Parent still refused to consent, suggesting instead that an outside (independent) psychologist conduct the assessments. The district declined that proposal and filed for due process in June 2014 to obtain authorization to assess Student over Parent's objection.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ sided entirely with Clovis, finding that the district had both the right and the legal obligation to conduct the disputed assessments. The evidence showed that a child's intellectual ability does not stabilize until around ages eight or nine, meaning the assessment conducted when Student was five years old was not reliable for current decision-making. The IEP team could not use that outdated data to understand Student's current strengths, weaknesses, rate of learning, memory, or processing speed — all of which are essential for designing an appropriate program, especially as Student was about to transition to sixth grade and then junior high.

The ALJ also found that the adaptive behavior assessment was necessary to determine whether Student could generalize her skills across different environments (home, school, and community), which directly shapes what the IEP team should be teaching her. Additionally, the district's speech and language therapist credibly testified that she could not properly interpret Student's speech and language assessment results without knowing Student's current cognitive level — making the intellectual development assessment essential to understanding whether Student had unmet needs in articulation and language.

Parent's concern that the tests would be inaccurate for a student with Down Syndrome was found to be speculative and unsupported by evidence. The ALJ also rejected Parent's request that an independent (outside) evaluator conduct the assessments, finding that the law does not give parents the right to choose the district's assessor. The district's school psychologist, with 15 years of experience and proper credentials, was found fully qualified to conduct the assessments.

Finally, the ALJ found that the district's assessment plan met all legal requirements: it was in plain English, explained what the tests would measure, included a copy of Parent's procedural rights, and gave Parent more than 15 days to review and sign it.

What Was Ordered

Clovis Unified was authorized to proceed with the intellectual development and adaptive behavior assessments over Parent's objection.
The district was required to notify Parent within 10 business days of the assessment dates and times.
Parent was required to bring Student to the assessments and return any requested paperwork on time.
If Parent failed to comply, the district would not be obligated to continue providing special education and related services to Student until Parent complied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts have the right to conduct triennial assessments even if you disagree. Under federal and California law, school districts are required to reassess students with disabilities at least every three years. If you withhold consent, the district can go to a due process hearing and get authorization to assess your child without your permission. Refusing to consent does not permanently block the assessment.
You cannot require the district to use an independent evaluator for its own triennial assessment. An Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) is a separate right that applies after a district completes its own assessment and you disagree with the results. You cannot require the district to use an outside evaluator instead of its own staff as a condition of agreeing to a triennial assessment.
Outdated assessments — even a few years old — can legally justify new testing. The ALJ in this case found that a six-year-old intellectual assessment was not valid for current use and could not support IEP decisions. If your child's last assessment is more than a few years old, the district has a strong legal basis to require updated testing, especially if your child's disability category depends on cognitive or adaptive functioning data.
Your concerns about test accuracy must be backed by evidence, not just belief. Parent's worry that the tests would be inaccurate for a student with Down Syndrome was understandable, but the ALJ found it speculative because no expert testimony or evidence supported it. If you believe a specific assessment tool is inappropriate for your child, bring documentation — such as research or an expert opinion — to support that position before the hearing.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Clovis Unified was authorized to proceed with the intellectual development and adaptive behavior assessments over Parent's objection.
The district was required to notify Parent within 10 business days of the assessment dates and times.
Parent was required to bring Student to the assessments and return any requested paperwork on time.
If Parent failed to comply, the district would not be obligated to continue providing special education and related services to Student until Parent complied.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts have the right to conduct triennial assessments even if you disagree. Under federal and California law, school districts are required to reassess students with disabilities at least every three years. If you withhold consent, the district can go to a due process hearing and get authorization to assess your child without your permission. Refusing to consent does not permanently block the assessment.
You cannot require the district to use an independent evaluator for its own triennial assessment. An Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) is a separate right that applies after a district completes its own assessment and you disagree with the results. You cannot require the district to use an outside evaluator instead of its own staff as a condition of agreeing to a triennial assessment.
Outdated assessments — even a few years old — can legally justify new testing. The ALJ in this case found that a six-year-old intellectual assessment was not valid for current use and could not support IEP decisions. If your child's last assessment is more than a few years old, the district has a strong legal basis to require updated testing, especially if your child's disability category depends on cognitive or adaptive functioning data.
Your concerns about test accuracy must be backed by evidence, not just belief. Parent's worry that the tests would be inaccurate for a student with Down Syndrome was understandable, but the ALJ found it speculative because no expert testimony or evidence supported it. If you believe a specific assessment tool is inappropriate for your child, bring documentation — such as research or an expert opinion — to support that position before the hearing.