District Wins Right to Assess Student Over Parent's Refusal of School Psychologist

Val Verde Unified School District filed for due process after parents repeatedly refused to consent to a reassessment of their 11th-grade son with learning disabilities, specifically objecting to any involvement by a school psychologist. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that the reassessment was long overdue and legally warranted. The district was authorized to assess the student using its October 30, 2020 assessment plan, including use of a school psychologist, even without parental consent.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old 11th grader eligible for special education under the categories of specific learning disability and language disorder. He transferred to Val Verde Unified School District in August 2019 from Long Beach Unified, and before that had attended ABC Unified School District. When Student arrived at Val Verde, the most recent assessment data on file dated back to 2013 — more than six years earlier — from his time at ABC Unified. Long Beach had attempted to conduct a three-year reassessment before Student transferred, but parents had refused that assessment as well, specifically because they objected to involvement by a school psychologist.

Val Verde needed current assessment data to determine whether Student still qualified for special education and, if so, to design an appropriate individualized education program (IEP) for him. Starting in September 2019, the district made repeated efforts over more than a year to obtain parental consent for a comprehensive reassessment, including presenting updated assessment plans at IEP meetings in September 2019 and October 2020, and following up by email in October, November, and December 2019 and again in late 2020. Parents consistently refused to consent to any testing that involved a school psychologist. After Parents formally refused in writing in December 2020, Val Verde gave notice it would seek a due process hearing, and filed its complaint in March 2021. Parents did not appear at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district filed this case and won, this section explains why the ALJ sided with Val Verde.

The ALJ found that Val Verde had a clear legal right to conduct the reassessment. Under both federal and California law, students receiving special education must be reassessed at least every three years. Student's last assessment was completed in 2013 — well over three years before he even enrolled at Val Verde — making a reassessment long overdue by any standard. The IEP team had no current information about Student's cognitive abilities, social-emotional functioning, processing skills, or transition needs, and could not meaningfully develop an IEP or confirm ongoing eligibility without it.

The ALJ also found that Val Verde had fully complied with all procedural requirements. The October 30, 2020 assessment plan was written in plain language and in the family's native language. Parents were clearly informed that the assessment would not automatically result in a new IEP, that their consent was voluntary, and that it could be revoked. The district provided procedural safeguard notices on multiple occasions and gave parents the required 15-day review period each time. Despite all of this, parents continued to refuse.

Critically, the ALJ applied a Ninth Circuit rule: parents who want their child to receive special education services must permit the district to assess the student when conditions warrant it. Because the reassessment was legally required and procedurally sound, the district was entitled to proceed over the parents' objection.

What Was Ordered

Val Verde Unified School District is authorized to assess Student using the October 30, 2020 assessment plan — including the use and participation of the district's school psychologist — without parental consent, provided Parents want Student to continue receiving special education services from the district.

Why This Matters for Parents

Parents have the right to refuse assessments, but not without consequences. Withholding consent to a legally required reassessment does not protect your child — it can actually prevent the district from designing the right program for them. If you have concerns about who conducts the assessment or how it's done, raise those concerns at the IEP meeting rather than refusing outright.
The three-year reassessment deadline is a legal requirement, not a suggestion. Districts are required by law to reassess students at least every three years. If your child's last assessment is approaching the three-year mark, you should expect the district to send an assessment plan. Refusing to sign it does not make that obligation disappear.
Objecting to a specific assessor — like a school psychologist — is not a recognized basis for refusing an entire assessment plan. Parents in this case refused any involvement by a school psychologist, but many required assessments (cognitive, processing, social-emotional) legally require a credentialed school psychologist to administer or oversee. If you have concerns about a specific staff member, you can request a different qualified professional, but you cannot simply eliminate that role from the assessment.
Districts can go to court — or due process — to override your refusal. If you withhold consent for a required reassessment, the district has the legal authority to file for due process and obtain an order allowing the assessment to happen anyway. This case shows that courts will generally side with the district when the reassessment is genuinely overdue and the district has followed proper procedures.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Because the district filed this case and won, this section explains why the ALJ sided with Val Verde.

What Was Ordered

Val Verde Unified School District is authorized to assess Student using the October 30, 2020 assessment plan — including the use and participation of the district's school psychologist — without parental consent, provided Parents want Student to continue receiving special education services from the district.

Why This Matters for Parents

Parents have the right to refuse assessments, but not without consequences. Withholding consent to a legally required reassessment does not protect your child — it can actually prevent the district from designing the right program for them. If you have concerns about who conducts the assessment or how it's done, raise those concerns at the IEP meeting rather than refusing outright.
The three-year reassessment deadline is a legal requirement, not a suggestion. Districts are required by law to reassess students at least every three years. If your child's last assessment is approaching the three-year mark, you should expect the district to send an assessment plan. Refusing to sign it does not make that obligation disappear.
Objecting to a specific assessor — like a school psychologist — is not a recognized basis for refusing an entire assessment plan. Parents in this case refused any involvement by a school psychologist, but many required assessments (cognitive, processing, social-emotional) legally require a credentialed school psychologist to administer or oversee. If you have concerns about a specific staff member, you can request a different qualified professional, but you cannot simply eliminate that role from the assessment.
Districts can go to court — or due process — to override your refusal. If you withhold consent for a required reassessment, the district has the legal authority to file for due process and obtain an order allowing the assessment to happen anyway. This case shows that courts will generally side with the district when the reassessment is genuinely overdue and the district has followed proper procedures.