District Wins Right to Assess Student with Down Syndrome Over Parent's Objections

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old fourth grader with Down syndrome (Trisomy 21) and selective mutism, enrolled in Upland Unified School District since January 2016. She received specialized academic instruction, speech and language services, occupational therapy, adapted physical education, assistive technology, and a full-time one-to-one aide. Despite these supports, Student was performing three to four years below grade level and was making slow progress on her IEP goals — meeting only five of 13 annual academic goals at the end of one school year, and only four of 13 academic goals at her most recent annual IEP meeting. Notably, the district had never conducted a psychoeducational, occupational therapy, health, or adapted physical education assessment of Student during her enrollment.

In December 2016, the district sent Parent a comprehensive assessment plan to gather updated information about Student's cognitive, academic, and functional needs. Parent declined to consent, citing concerns about disruption to Student's school day, objections to IQ testing, and disagreement over which assessments should be included. The district revised the plan in March 2017 — removing two assessment areas Parent specifically objected to and agreeing to fund independent evaluations in those areas instead — but Parent still would not sign unless the district met additional conditions. Unable to reach agreement, the district filed for due process to obtain authorization to assess Student without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor. On the question of whether reassessment was educationally justified, the ALJ found the evidence clear: Student had been performing three to four years below grade level since enrolling, had not met the majority of her IEP academic goals across multiple school years, and had never been assessed by the district in several key areas including psychoeducation and occupational therapy. District staff — including Student's special education teacher, occupational therapist, and school psychologist — testified credibly that updated standardized assessment data was needed to understand how Student learned and to design an appropriate program for her. The ALJ rejected Parent's argument that Student was making "adequate progress," finding that goals written at a kindergarten-to-first-grade level for a student in fourth grade, some held across multiple years, did not support that conclusion.

On the procedural requirements, the ALJ found the district's assessment plan met every legal standard: it was written in plain English, provided in Parent's native language, explained what assessments would be conducted, identified qualified assessors, and stated that no IEP change would occur without parental consent. The ALJ also rejected Parent's claims that the district had bullied or intimidated her. The district's prior written notice letters and statements about its right to file for due process were found to be legally required communications, not improper pressure. Finally, the ALJ held that as long as a district meets procedural requirements, a parent cannot impose conditions on an assessment — including demanding that specific tests be excluded, that additional tests be added, or that testing occur only after school hours.

What Was Ordered

1. The district is authorized to reassess Student without parental consent, pursuant to the December 22, 2016 assessment plan as revised on March 2, 2017. Parent may not place any conditions on the assessments.
2. The district must notify Parent in writing within 15 business days of when and where to bring Student for testing, and Parent must cooperate in making Student available.
3. Parent must timely complete and return any documents requested by the district as part of the assessments.
4. If Parent does not comply, the district will not be obligated to provide Student with special education services or special education rights until Parent complies.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. If your child receives special education services, the district has the right to reassess — and a court can authorize it even without your consent. Under federal and California law, parents who want their child to receive special education must allow reassessment when educational needs warrant it. Refusing to sign an assessment plan does not automatically stop the process; the district can go to a due process hearing and win the right to assess anyway.

2. Slow progress on IEP goals is one of the strongest justifications a district can use to demand reassessment. In this case, Student's history of not meeting academic goals across multiple years, combined with the district never having conducted certain types of assessments, was enough for the ALJ to authorize reassessment over parental objection. Keeping detailed records of your child's progress — and challenging goals you believe are too low — matters enormously.

3. Parents cannot legally impose conditions on how or when an assessment is conducted, as long as the district follows required procedures. The ALJ ruled that Parent could not require testing to happen after school, demand certain tests be excluded, or insist on additional tests being added to the district's plan. The district has discretion over which instruments it uses and when testing occurs.

4. Requesting independent educational evaluations (IEEs) does not give you the right to block a district assessment entirely. In this case, the district agreed to fund independent evaluations in two areas Parent objected to, but that concession did not give Parent the right to withhold consent from the rest of the assessment plan. Districts cannot be forced to rely solely on independent evaluations.