District Wins: Student with Dyslexia and ADHD Found Ineligible for Special Education

Parents of a student diagnosed with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD challenged the San Mateo-Foster City School District's refusal to find their daughter eligible for special education. The ALJ found the student did not meet the legal criteria for either Specific Learning Disability or Other Health Impairment because she was making adequate educational progress in general education. Although the District committed procedural violations by failing to send an assessment plan and failing to provide Parents with a copy of their rights, those violations were ruled harmless because the student was not eligible for special education in the first place.

What Happened

Student is a 12-year-old girl with private diagnoses of dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD. Beginning in first grade, she showed difficulties with attention and focus, and by fourth grade, homework had become a significant struggle at home — involving hours of effort, tears, and anxiety. Parents hired a private educational psychologist (licensed with 23 years of experience) who assessed Student in late 2012 and diagnosed her with dyslexia, dysgraphia, and ADHD. However, that same psychologist did not conclude in her written report that Student needed special education, and instead recommended that the school team consider accommodations and determine eligibility.

Parents shared this assessment with the District in April 2013, expressed interest in understanding what public school services were available, and attended an SST (Student Study Team) meeting in May 2013. The District's school psychologist drafted an assessment plan and claims to have mailed it to Parents shortly after, but Parents never received it and no one followed up. Student was eventually enrolled at Athena Academy, a private school specializing in dyslexia and language-based learning disabilities, where she made consistent academic progress without receiving formal special education services. In 2015, the District conducted its own assessment and held an IEP meeting, finding Student ineligible. Parents filed for due process, arguing that Student had been eligible for special education since at least April 2013 and was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) throughout that time.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on all issues. On the core question of eligibility, the ALJ found that Student did not meet the legal criteria for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) for two independent reasons. First, there was no "severe discrepancy" — the legally required gap of at least 22.5 points between cognitive ability and academic achievement scores — based on either the 2012 private assessment or the 2015 District assessment. Second, even if such a discrepancy had existed, the evidence did not establish that Student had a basic psychological processing disorder. The private assessor's report identified "weaknesses" in visual-spatial reasoning and phonemic processing, but did not conclude these rose to the level of a disorder — and her dramatically different testimony at hearing was given little weight because it contradicted her own written report. The ALJ similarly rejected the OHI (Other Health Impairment) claim based on ADHD, finding that while Student's attention difficulties were real, they did not adversely affect her educational performance: she was meeting or exceeding grade-level standards throughout her time at Highlands Elementary, including earning Advanced scores on state tests in her final year there.

The ALJ did find that the District committed two procedural violations: (1) failing to meet its child find obligation by not sending a timely assessment plan after being on notice of Student's diagnoses, and (2) failing to provide Parents with a copy of their procedural rights at the May 2013 SST meeting. However, under Ninth Circuit precedent, procedural violations are only "harmless error" when the student was not eligible for special education in the first place — and that is exactly what the ALJ concluded here. Because Student was found ineligible, the procedural missteps did not legally constitute a denial of FAPE, and no relief was ordered.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

A private diagnosis of dyslexia does not automatically mean your child qualifies for special education. Under California law, a student must also show a severe discrepancy between cognitive ability and academic achievement scores (at least 22.5 points), a basic psychological processing disorder, AND a need for specialized instruction that cannot be met through general education accommodations. Meeting one or even two of these criteria is not enough.
If your child is passing grade-level standards, it is very difficult to prove they need special education. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to Student's report card grades, state test scores, and progress at Athena Academy as evidence she could access education without special education services. Even if your child is struggling significantly at home or socially, a district can point to academic progress as evidence no special education placement is needed.
The District violated its legal "child find" duty but faced no consequences because Student was found ineligible. This is a critical legal principle: procedural violations — even significant ones like failing to send an assessment plan for over two years — do not result in any remedy if the student ultimately is not found eligible. The procedural rights protections in the IDEA have limited practical impact if eligibility is denied.
Make sure your private assessor's written report clearly states whether your child is eligible for special education and needs specialized instruction. In this case, the private psychologist's report did not make a specific eligibility finding, and her later testimony contradicting the report was given little weight. A private assessment is most useful in due process when it directly addresses eligibility criteria and concludes that special education is needed — not just that accommodations would help.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

A private diagnosis of dyslexia does not automatically mean your child qualifies for special education. Under California law, a student must also show a severe discrepancy between cognitive ability and academic achievement scores (at least 22.5 points), a basic psychological processing disorder, AND a need for specialized instruction that cannot be met through general education accommodations. Meeting one or even two of these criteria is not enough.
If your child is passing grade-level standards, it is very difficult to prove they need special education. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to Student's report card grades, state test scores, and progress at Athena Academy as evidence she could access education without special education services. Even if your child is struggling significantly at home or socially, a district can point to academic progress as evidence no special education placement is needed.
The District violated its legal "child find" duty but faced no consequences because Student was found ineligible. This is a critical legal principle: procedural violations — even significant ones like failing to send an assessment plan for over two years — do not result in any remedy if the student ultimately is not found eligible. The procedural rights protections in the IDEA have limited practical impact if eligibility is denied.
Make sure your private assessor's written report clearly states whether your child is eligible for special education and needs specialized instruction. In this case, the private psychologist's report did not make a specific eligibility finding, and her later testimony contradicting the report was given little weight. A private assessment is most useful in due process when it directly addresses eligibility criteria and concludes that special education is needed — not just that accommodations would help.