District Loses IEE Battle After Failing to Prove Parents Consented to Assessments

Sonoma Valley Unified School District filed for due process to defend its 2018 psychoeducational and academic assessments of a 13-year-old student with a specific learning disability. The district failed to produce a signed assessment plan or any witness with personal knowledge that parents had consented to the evaluations. Because the district could not prove it had obtained proper parental consent, the ALJ ruled the assessments were legally invalid and ordered the district to fund independent evaluations at public expense.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old boy with a specific learning disability who had been receiving special education services through Sonoma Valley Unified School District since 2015. When Student's three-year reassessment came due in spring 2018, the district's school psychologist drafted an assessment plan and sent it to Parents multiple times by mail and email. Mother expressed concern that testing might result in Student losing his special education eligibility and did not sign the assessment plan. The school psychologist eventually reached out to the special education director for help obtaining consent.

The district moved forward with the psychoeducational and academic assessments after the special education director reportedly told the school psychologist that Mother had consented. The assessments were completed and presented at IEP meetings in October and November 2018. At the November meeting, the district recommended exiting Student from special education entirely. Mother disagreed and immediately requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at the district's expense. When the district refused and filed for due process to defend its assessments, Parents did not appear at the hearing. The ALJ ruled in favor of Student anyway, finding the district had failed to prove its own case.

What the ALJ Found

Despite being the party that filed for the hearing, the district was unable to meet its burden of proof. The ALJ identified a critical failure: the district could not produce a signed assessment plan showing that Parents had actually consented to the evaluations. The special education director — the one person who allegedly obtained consent — was never called as a witness. The school psychologist and the resource teacher who conducted the testing both testified that they had no personal knowledge of whether Mother ever signed or agreed to anything. They had simply taken someone else's word for it.

California law is clear that before a district reassesses a student, it must obtain written parental consent using a formal assessment plan that is written in plain language, in the parent's native language, and explains exactly what types of assessments will be conducted. Without a signed plan, the district could not prove any of these requirements were met. The ALJ found that because this foundational procedural step was not proven, there was no need to even look at whether the actual tests were good or appropriate — the process was legally invalid from the start.

What Was Ordered

Student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation at Sonoma Valley Unified School District's expense.
Student is entitled to an independent academic assessment at Sonoma Valley Unified School District's expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Consent must be documented in writing — a verbal "yes" is not enough. Under federal and California law, a district must have a signed assessment plan before it can evaluate your child. If the district cannot produce that document, the entire evaluation can be thrown out regardless of how thorough the testing was.
The district bears the burden of proof when it files for due process. When a district challenges a parent's IEE request by filing for a hearing, it must prove its assessments were legally valid. In this case, the district filed the complaint and still lost because it could not meet that burden — even without the parents showing up to contest anything.
Requesting an IEE is a powerful right. When a parent disagrees with a district's evaluation, they have the right to ask for an independent evaluation at the district's expense. The district can only deny that request by filing for a hearing and proving its assessment was proper. If the district cannot prove that, you are entitled to the IEE at no cost to you.
Procedural violations can invalidate an assessment even if the testing itself was competent. The ALJ did not evaluate whether the actual psychological and academic tests were good or bad — that question never came up. Because the district could not prove consent was properly obtained, the entire evaluation was legally defective. Procedural protections exist for a reason, and districts that skip them face real consequences.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation at Sonoma Valley Unified School District's expense.
Student is entitled to an independent academic assessment at Sonoma Valley Unified School District's expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Consent must be documented in writing — a verbal "yes" is not enough. Under federal and California law, a district must have a signed assessment plan before it can evaluate your child. If the district cannot produce that document, the entire evaluation can be thrown out regardless of how thorough the testing was.
The district bears the burden of proof when it files for due process. When a district challenges a parent's IEE request by filing for a hearing, it must prove its assessments were legally valid. In this case, the district filed the complaint and still lost because it could not meet that burden — even without the parents showing up to contest anything.
Requesting an IEE is a powerful right. When a parent disagrees with a district's evaluation, they have the right to ask for an independent evaluation at the district's expense. The district can only deny that request by filing for a hearing and proving its assessment was proper. If the district cannot prove that, you are entitled to the IEE at no cost to you.
Procedural violations can invalidate an assessment even if the testing itself was competent. The ALJ did not evaluate whether the actual psychological and academic tests were good or bad — that question never came up. Because the district could not prove consent was properly obtained, the entire evaluation was legally defective. Procedural protections exist for a reason, and districts that skip them face real consequences.