Charter School Wins: Student Found Ineligible for Special Education Despite ADHD and Prior IEP

What Happened

Student was a 14-year-old boy who enrolled at The Met Sacramento Public High School — a charter school within the Sacramento City Unified School District — in August 2018. He had previously been found eligible for special education under a speech and language disorder at his prior district, Folsom Cordova Unified, but had progressed so significantly that he was exited from special education with Parent's agreement and placed on a 504 plan instead. When Parent enrolled Student at The Met, she was dissatisfied with that 504 plan and requested a full special education assessment in September 2018, hoping to re-establish Student's eligibility for an IEP. Student had a long-standing diagnosis of ADHD and had previously been diagnosed with autism at age four. Parent believed Student also had a specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, and ongoing speech and language needs.

The Met conducted a comprehensive interdisciplinary assessment — including psychoeducational, academic, behavioral, health, speech and language, and communications evaluations — and convened an IEP team meeting in January 2019. The IEP team, with the exception of Parent, concluded that Student was not eligible for special education in any category and offered a 504 plan instead. Parent rejected the 504 plan and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs), which The Met agreed to fund. A second IEP team meeting was held in September 2019 to review those independent assessments. The IEP team again found Student ineligible. Parent withdrew Student from The Met in March 2020 and filed for due process, arguing the school had failed to timely and adequately assess him, failed to find him eligible, and failed to develop an IEP.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of The Met on all three issues. On the question of assessment timeliness, the ALJ found that while the IEP meeting occurred after the usual 60-day deadline, the delay was the result of a written agreement between Parent and the school to reschedule the meeting — which is a legally permitted extension. The ALJ also noted that Parent had declined to attend the originally scheduled meeting, and that any technical timing error was harmless because Parent actually gained more time to review the reports before the meeting.

On the substance of the assessments, the ALJ found each one — academic achievement, social-emotional, speech and language, behavior, health, communications, and adaptive behavior — to be thorough and appropriate. Parent had argued the school should have assessed Student for motor development, but The Met had actually offered an occupational therapy assessment and Parent declined it. On transition services, the ALJ found no obligation existed because Student was only 14, and the law only requires transition planning beginning with the IEP in effect when a student turns 16.

On eligibility, the ALJ rejected Parent's expert Dr. Hale's conclusions on multiple grounds. In the specific learning disability analysis, Dr. Hale used only Student's single highest cognitive test score to calculate a discrepancy — a method the ALJ found violated state regulations requiring all relevant data to be considered and prohibiting reliance on a single score. For autism, Dr. Hale based her opinion heavily on rating scales completed by a student teacher rather than Student's actual experienced teachers, and failed to analyze whether the "mild behaviors" she observed significantly affected Student's communication or educational performance. The ALJ also noted that Dr. Hale ultimately conceded that a 504 plan would work for Student and that all of her recommendations could be implemented without special education.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. No compensatory education, IEP development, or eligibility findings were ordered.
3. The Met was found to have met its legal obligations at every stage of the assessment and eligibility determination process.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Having a prior IEP or disability diagnosis does not automatically guarantee re-eligibility. A student who was previously found eligible and later exited from special education starts fresh at a new school. The new school must conduct its own assessment, and eligibility depends on whether the student's current needs require specially designed instruction — not just whether a disability label exists.

2. Your independent evaluator's methodology matters enormously. The ALJ rejected the parent's expert not because she was unqualified, but because she used a single test score instead of all available data to calculate a learning disability discrepancy — which directly violates California regulations. If you pursue an IEE, make sure your evaluator follows the legally required process and explicitly addresses the eligibility criteria in their report.

3. An evaluator who concedes a 504 plan is sufficient has undermined the case for special education. When Dr. Hale testified that "504 would work" and that all her recommendations could be implemented without an IEP, that admission significantly damaged the eligibility argument. Before hearing, carefully review whether your independent evaluator's conclusions are consistent with the relief you are seeking.

4. The threshold question is not just disability — it's whether the disability requires special education. A student can have ADHD, a history of speech issues, and even mild cognitive processing differences and still not qualify for an IEP if those needs can be met in general education with accommodations. The law reserves special education for students whose needs cannot be addressed through modifications to the regular program.