District Correctly Found Student Ineligible for Special Education Despite FASD, ADHD, and PTSD Diagnoses

What Happened

Student entered second grade at Sheridan Elementary School in San Francisco in fall 2012, after being placed with her great-aunt and legal guardian by the juvenile court. Student had been diagnosed at birth with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder (FASD) due to her biological mother's substance use, and later received diagnoses of ADHD and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Guardian was deeply involved in Student's education and was concerned that these diagnoses would affect Student's ability to learn. After an SST meeting in March 2013 — prompted by Guardian's concerns about homework struggles and academic progress — Guardian requested a special education assessment.

San Francisco conducted a psychoeducational assessment and held an IEP team meeting on May 28, 2013. The assessment showed Student's cognitive abilities and academic achievement were both in the average range, with no evidence of visual, auditory, or processing disorders. Student's second-grade teacher reported she was near the top of her class. The IEP team found Student ineligible for special education under the categories of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) or Other Health Impairment (OHI). Guardian disagreed, and San Francisco agreed to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The independent evaluator, a neuropsychologist, diagnosed Student with a Specific Learning Disorder under a psychiatric diagnostic manual (the DSM-V) and recommended special education services. A second IEP meeting was held on April 16, 2014, but the team again found Student ineligible. Guardian then filed for due process.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all three issues. On the eligibility questions, the ALJ found that neither IEP team made an error. Under California law, a student must show a severe discrepancy between cognitive ability and academic achievement caused by a processing disorder, AND must require specialized academic instruction to access the general education curriculum. Student met none of these criteria at either IEP meeting. Her report cards, standardized test scores, and teacher observations consistently showed she was performing at or above grade level and successfully accessing the curriculum without specialized instruction.

The ALJ gave significant weight to the testimony of Student's classroom teachers, who observed her daily and both described her as average to above average academically. The independent evaluator's report was given little weight. The ALJ noted that the evaluator used the wrong standard — the DSM-V criteria for a "Specific Learning Disorder" — rather than California's legal criteria for SLD eligibility. The evaluator also largely dismissed Student's strong report card grades and test scores, which the ALJ found problematic. Crucially, Student's below-average score on one reading comprehension subtest was not sufficient, by itself, to establish a severe discrepancy qualifying her for special education.

On the procedural issue, Guardian argued she should have received the district's psychoeducational assessment report before the May 2013 IEP meeting, and that not receiving it in advance prevented her from meaningfully participating. The ALJ found no violation. While the law requires districts to provide parents with a copy of the assessment report, no law specifies it must be provided before the IEP meeting. Importantly, Guardian had not requested it in advance, and there was no evidence the district would have refused to provide it earlier if asked.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. San Francisco Unified School District prevailed on all three issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A medical diagnosis alone does not qualify a child for special education. Having FASD, ADHD, PTSD, or any other medical condition does not automatically entitle a child to an IEP. The law requires showing that the condition is causing the child to be unable to access the general education curriculum without specialized instruction. If your child is performing at grade level, that is powerful evidence against eligibility — even if their situation at home looks very different.

2. An independent evaluation must use the right legal standard. When a district funds an IEE, the independent evaluator's conclusions carry more weight if they are grounded in IDEA and California eligibility criteria — not just a clinical diagnosis from a psychiatric manual like the DSM-V. If you pursue an IEE, make sure your evaluator specifically addresses the legal criteria your district uses to determine eligibility, not just whether your child has a clinical disorder.

3. Ask for the assessment report before the IEP meeting — in writing. The law does not require districts to automatically send you the assessment report in advance. But you have every right to request it ahead of time. Do so in writing so you have a record. Reviewing the report before the meeting gives you time to understand the findings, prepare questions, and meaningfully participate in the eligibility decision.

4. Homework struggles do not equal school failure under special education law. In this case, Student had significant difficulty completing homework at home, which took one to three hours for work that should have taken thirty minutes. But the ALJ found that her classroom performance — not her homework behavior — was the proper measure of whether she needed special education. If your child struggles at home but appears to manage in the classroom, be prepared for the district to argue that special education is not warranted.