District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parent's Objection

William S. Hart Union High School District filed for due process after a parent repeatedly refused to consent to a comprehensive special education assessment of her 14-year-old son. The student was failing all ninth grade classes despite prior records showing significant academic deficits, and the district had previously identified him as eligible for special education. The ALJ ruled that the district's assessment plan was legally sound and that the district could proceed with the assessment without parental consent.

What Happened

Student is a 14-year-old boy who was first found eligible for special education at age two due to orthopedic impairment and other health impairments. He had a long history of special education services across multiple school districts, and a prior OAH decision from 2014 had found that a previous district's IEP was appropriate. After that decision, Parent enrolled Student in California Virtual Academy (CAVA), an online charter school, for the 2014-2015 school year. When Parent enrolled Student in William S. Hart Union High School District for ninth grade in August 2015, she told school staff that Student did not need special education, was strong in math, and was average in English. Based on Parent's representations, the district placed Student in general education classes.

Within weeks, however, Student's teachers reported that he was failing in math, English, biology, and computer science. His English teacher described Student as far below grade level — unable to follow classroom instructions even when repeated one-on-one, regularly failing to turn in homework, and producing work with errors not expected of a ninth grader. When the district received Student's prior school records, they told a very different story than what Parent had described: records from his previous district showed significant deficits in reading, math, and writing, and a prior IEP had recommended special day classes. The district's records also indicated that Student's prior school had recommended a full assessment, and a doctor's note Parent herself provided mentioned cognitive impairment. The district sent an assessment plan to Parent on November 17, 2015, asking for consent to conduct a comprehensive evaluation. Parent refused — multiple times and by multiple means — stating that Student would "never have an IEP." The district then filed for due process to obtain permission to assess Student without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

Because Parent did not appear at the hearing, the ALJ considered only the district's evidence, which was found credible and persuasive. The ALJ concluded that the district had a legal duty — called "child find" — to identify and evaluate students who may need special education. That duty was clearly triggered here: Student was failing all his classes, his prior records showed major academic deficits, and even a doctor's note Parent provided mentioned cognitive impairment. The threshold for suspecting a disability that requires assessment is relatively low under the law, and the district easily met it.

The ALJ also found that the district's November 17, 2015 assessment plan met every legal requirement: it was written in plain English (the family's native language), explained each type of assessment proposed, and clearly stated that no IEP would result from the assessment without Parent's consent. The district gave Parent more than 15 days to review and sign the plan, sent it multiple times by mail and email, and made repeated personal attempts to get Parent to agree. The proposed assessors — including a credentialed school psychologist and a registered school nurse — were found to be fully qualified for their assigned evaluations.

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess Student according to its November 17, 2015 assessment plan without Parent's consent.
If Student cannot attend school on a scheduled assessment day, Parent must notify the district promptly, and the district must reschedule within 30 days. Any delay caused by Student's absence tolls the 60-day assessment timeline.
Parent must complete and return any documents the district reasonably requests as part of the assessment process.
If Parent does not cooperate with the assessment, the district will not be considered to have a legal "basis of knowledge" that Student is a child with a disability — which has implications for protections Student might otherwise receive.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can override your refusal to consent to an assessment if it has enough evidence of a suspected disability. Under IDEA, districts have an affirmative legal duty to find and evaluate children who may need special education — including when a parent says no. If a district has credible evidence (teacher reports, prior records, medical notes) that a child may be disabled, it can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess without your consent.
Prior school records travel with your child and can be used against your stated position. In this case, Parent told the new district that Student was doing well academically, but records from prior districts showed significant deficits. Districts routinely request and review records from previous schools, and those records can trigger assessment obligations independent of what you tell them.
An assessment is not the same as an IEP — and consenting to one does not force the other. The law explicitly requires that assessment plans inform parents that no IEP will result from the assessment without their separate consent. Refusing an assessment to prevent an IEP is not legally necessary, and it may leave your child without critical information about their needs.
If you don't attend a due process hearing, the ALJ will decide based only on the other side's evidence. Parent did not appear at this hearing, which meant the district's witnesses went unchallenged. Regardless of your position, appearing and presenting your side of the story is essential to a fair outcome.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district is authorized to assess Student according to its November 17, 2015 assessment plan without Parent's consent.
If Student cannot attend school on a scheduled assessment day, Parent must notify the district promptly, and the district must reschedule within 30 days. Any delay caused by Student's absence tolls the 60-day assessment timeline.
Parent must complete and return any documents the district reasonably requests as part of the assessment process.
If Parent does not cooperate with the assessment, the district will not be considered to have a legal "basis of knowledge" that Student is a child with a disability — which has implications for protections Student might otherwise receive.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can override your refusal to consent to an assessment if it has enough evidence of a suspected disability. Under IDEA, districts have an affirmative legal duty to find and evaluate children who may need special education — including when a parent says no. If a district has credible evidence (teacher reports, prior records, medical notes) that a child may be disabled, it can go to a due process hearing and get permission to assess without your consent.
Prior school records travel with your child and can be used against your stated position. In this case, Parent told the new district that Student was doing well academically, but records from prior districts showed significant deficits. Districts routinely request and review records from previous schools, and those records can trigger assessment obligations independent of what you tell them.
An assessment is not the same as an IEP — and consenting to one does not force the other. The law explicitly requires that assessment plans inform parents that no IEP will result from the assessment without their separate consent. Refusing an assessment to prevent an IEP is not legally necessary, and it may leave your child without critical information about their needs.
If you don't attend a due process hearing, the ALJ will decide based only on the other side's evidence. Parent did not appear at this hearing, which meant the district's witnesses went unchallenged. Regardless of your position, appearing and presenting your side of the story is essential to a fair outcome.