District Must Fund IEEs After Review-Only Triennial Reassessment Without Proper Notice

What Happened

Student is a 16-year-old eleventh grader with autism who attended a moderate-to-severe special day class at Sweetwater Union High School District. He had a long history of serious aggressive behavior — including biting classmates and staff — that had escalated as he grew older and stronger. Despite this worsening situation, Student had not received formal psychological, speech and language, or behavioral assessments since he was 12 years old and in sixth grade at his prior elementary school district.

When Student's triennial reassessment came due in December 2014, Sweetwater did not conduct any new formal testing. Instead, the school psychologist reviewed existing records, gathered informal teacher observations, and presented parents with a "Summary of Special Education Re-evaluation" at the IEP meeting. The district never told parents that it had decided no new testing was needed, never explained the reasons for that decision, and never informed parents that they had the right to request formal assessments. Father signed the re-evaluation summary; Mother did not. Nearly two years later, in August 2016 — after Student's biting incidents became more severe and dangerous — parents formally disagreed with the 2014 review-based reassessment and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in psychoeducation, functional behavior, speech and language, assistive technology, and transition. The district refused, claiming parents had waived their right to challenge the reassessment by agreeing to the record review. Both parties filed for due process, and OAH consolidated the cases.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that the district's 2014 "Summary of Special Education Re-evaluation" was, in fact, a triennial reassessment — not an informal document or a waiver form. The summary itself stated that federal law required a reevaluation every three years and described its purpose in exactly those terms. Under California law, when a district decides that no additional formal testing is needed as part of a triennial reassessment, it must notify parents of that determination, explain the reasons for it, and specifically inform parents of their right to request assessments. The district did none of these things. Because parents were never fully informed, they could not have given legally valid consent to skip formal testing, and Father's signature on the summary did not constitute a knowing waiver of the right to request IEEs.

The district also claimed it was entitled to conduct its own assessments of Student because parents had "requested" district assessments at the August 2016 IEP meeting. The ALJ rejected this argument. What parents actually did was offer a compromise — agreeing to let the district handle assistive technology and transition assessments in exchange for IEEs in other areas — while still expressly requesting IEEs overall. That conditional offer was not a request for district assessments, and the district had no other lawful basis to conduct testing over parents' objection.

What Was Ordered

1. District must fund independent psychoeducational, speech and language, and functional behavior assessments, conducted by qualified assessors of Student's choosing.
2. District must contract with Student's chosen independent assessors within 30 calendar days of the decision date.
3. District must pay assessors the lesser of their usual and customary rates or the district's maximum allowable IEE rates in effect as of the August 2, 2016 request date.
4. Payment must include each independent evaluator's attendance at one IEP meeting to present their findings.
5. District must convene an IEP team meeting within 15 school days of receiving each completed IEE.
6. Spanish language interpreters must be provided at public expense, if needed, to facilitate the assessments.
7. Student's requests for IEEs in assistive technology and transition were denied, because those areas were not part of the 2014 reassessment scope.
8. District's request to conduct its own assessments without parental consent was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A "record review" triennial is still a reassessment you can challenge. If the district hands you a summary document at a triennial IEP meeting instead of conducting formal testing, that document is a reassessment under the law — and you have the right to disagree with it and request independent evaluations at district expense, just as you would with any other assessment.

2. The district must tell you when it decides not to test — and tell you your rights. Before skipping formal assessments at a triennial, the district is legally required to explain why it believes no new testing is needed and to inform you that you can request assessments anyway. If the district never gave you that notice, any "consent" you signed may not be legally valid.

3. A compromise offer is not a consent. If you offer to let the district assess in some areas while you pursue IEEs in others, make clear in writing that you are not consenting to district assessments across the board. The district cannot treat a conditional compromise as a blanket request for its own testing.

4. IEEs do not extend to areas the district had no reason to assess. Parents can only request publicly funded IEEs in areas that were within the scope of the district's reassessment. If the district did not assess — and had no reason to assess — a particular area, such as transition or assistive technology, you cannot obtain an IEE in that area based on the same reassessment challenge.