District Must Assess Student Even After Prior Special Ed Exit, But Parent Must Prove Speech Eligibility

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old 10th grader who had previously received special education services, including speech and language support, through another school district. Student was exited from special education in 2017. When Student enrolled at Visions In Education Charter School (within San Juan Unified School District) in February 2020, Student's transferred records included an independent psychoeducational evaluation concluding Student met eligibility criteria for specific learning disability, other health impairment, and autism. Critically, a separate independent speech and language assessment that had also been funded by the prior district was never included in the transferred records — a fact Parent did not learn until the hearing itself.

On February 21, 2020, Parent emailed school staff requesting IEP support, explaining that Student had a previous IEP, had been exited in 2017, and was still experiencing the same challenges — difficulty with math, organization, handwriting, and speech enunciation. Parent offered to share prior assessment reports. The district declined, citing Student's 3.14 GPA and the general education program's supports. Parent made a second request on March 2, 2020. The district treated it as a repeat of the first request and sent the same refusal language again. Later, on April 29, 2020, a 504 accommodation plan was created, but Parent asked for an IEP specifically addressing speech needs. The district again refused using identical boilerplate language.

What the District Did Wrong

Failing to meet child-find obligations. Under federal and California law, a school district must actively seek out and evaluate children who may have disabilities — a duty known as "child find." The threshold for suspecting a disability is intentionally low: the question is whether a child should be referred for evaluation, not whether they will ultimately qualify. Here, Parent's February 21 request clearly described ongoing learning challenges, a history of an IEP, prior assessments documenting suspected disabilities, and an offer to share those records. This was more than enough to trigger the duty to assess.

Providing legally deficient prior written notice. When a district refuses a parent's assessment request, it must provide a "prior written notice" that specifically describes every record and evaluation it relied on to make that decision. The district's notice failed to list the specific records reviewed. This mattered enormously: because the notice was vague, Parent had no way to know that the speech and language assessment from Bright Star Therapies was missing from Student's file — and therefore never considered. The ALJ ruled that because the prior written notice was deficient, the district could not use it to justify its refusal to assess.

Failing to cooperate and consult with Parent. The law requires that the child-find and evaluation process be cooperative and consultative — meaning the district must actually engage with parents and consider the information they offer. There was no evidence that anyone from San Juan or Visions contacted Parent before refusing to assess, even though Parent had explicitly offered to share prior evaluation reports.

What Was Ordered

1. San Juan Unified and Visions In Education shall provide Parent with a comprehensive assessment plan covering all areas of suspected disability within 10 days of the start of the 2020-2021 school year, developed through a cooperative and consultative process with Parent.
2. Parent has 15 calendar days to provide written consent to the assessment plan.
3. The district must complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting within 60 days of Parent's consent to determine whether Student is eligible for special education.
4. If COVID-19 restrictions prevent on-site assessments, the district must make its best efforts to contract with private assessors. The 60-day timeline will not be enforced against the district if private assessments genuinely cannot be arranged.
5. Student's request for compensatory education and reimbursement were denied, because Student did not prove current eligibility for speech and language services.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A prior IEP — even one you didn't agree to end — is powerful evidence. The fact that Student had a previous IEP and was still experiencing the same challenges was central to the child-find finding. If your child had an IEP at a prior school, document those ongoing needs in writing when you enroll at a new school.

2. A parent's written request triggers legal obligations — make it detailed. Parent's email describing specific challenges (math, organization, handwriting, speech) and referencing prior assessments was what triggered the district's legal duty. Vague verbal requests are harder to enforce. Always request assessments in writing and describe the specific concerns you've observed.

3. A deficient refusal letter can be thrown out entirely. Districts must follow specific legal requirements when they refuse to assess. If the refusal letter doesn't list exactly which records were reviewed, it may be legally invalid — which means the district can't hide behind it. Ask the district to specifically name every document it relied on when refusing your request.

4. Proving a child should be assessed is much easier than proving they qualify. The ALJ ordered the assessment because the bar for triggering child-find is low. But Parent lost on the speech eligibility issue because no expert testified about current speech needs. If you believe your child needs services, get a qualified professional — a speech-language pathologist, psychologist, or other specialist — who can testify or provide a current report explaining how the disability affects your child's education.