District's Flawed Assessment Plan Blocks It From Evaluating Student With Complex Disabilities

Pleasanton Unified School District filed for due process seeking permission to assess a 15-year-old student with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome without parental consent, after Parent attached conditions to his approval of the assessment plan. The ALJ found the district's March 2023 assessment plan was legally defective — missing required evaluations in vision, transition, and hearing/vision screening, and proposing a medical assessor whose methods exceeded the lawful scope of a special education assessment. The district was ordered to issue a new, legally compliant assessment plan and provide staff training on assessment requirements.

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old with Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, a chromosomal disorder affecting all areas of development. She has significant cognitive, fine motor, and gross motor impairments; is nonverbal and visually impaired; has seizures; requires a feeding tube; and uses assistive technology to communicate. Student had not attended school in person since March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and underwent spinal fusion surgery in July 2023. The parties had a long history of disputes, previously resolved through a March 2021 settlement agreement, which expired at the end of the 2023 extended school year.

In March 2023, Pleasanton issued an assessment plan to conduct Student's triennial evaluation — the legally required comprehensive reassessment that must happen at least every three years. Parent signed the plan in January 2024 but attached five conditions, including: being present in the room during all assessments, acting as an intermediary for Student's medical records, having Student fitted for equipment before assessments, choosing mutually agreed assessment dates, and recording the sessions. Pleasanton did not agree to those conditions and filed for due process, asking the ALJ to authorize the assessments without Parent's consent and without his conditions. The ALJ had to first determine whether Parent's conditions invalidated his consent — and if so, whether Pleasanton's assessment plan was legally sound enough to proceed without it.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that three of Parent's five conditions (acting as medical records intermediary, being present in the room, and recording assessments) were unreasonable and effectively withdrew his consent. However, even with consent invalidated, Pleasanton could only proceed if its assessment plan met all legal requirements — and it did not.

Missing required assessments: The March 2023 plan omitted a functional vision assessment by a teacher for the visually impaired, despite the fact that Student's 2021 triennial had included one and that a credentialed vision specialist testified it was clearly necessary. The plan also failed to include a post-secondary transition assessment, which is required when an IEP will be in effect at age 16 or older. And the plan contained no provision for the vision and hearing screening mandated by California regulations for all triennial evaluations.

Unqualified and legally problematic medical assessor: The district's chosen physician, Dr. Howard Taras, admitted he never physically examines students, rarely speaks with parents (only about 10% of the time), and routinely calls students' private doctors to "inform" them of what schools are obligated to provide — with the admitted goal of getting doctors to change their recommendations. The ALJ found this practice went far beyond the scope of a lawful special education assessment and encroached on IEP team decision-making authority, which parents are legally entitled to share. The ALJ also noted concerns that Taras could not force Student's private physicians to participate and that Pleasanton had not ensured parents would not be billed for those physicians' time.

Failure to provide procedural safeguards notice: Pleasanton did not prove it sent Parent the required notice of procedural rights and safeguards along with the assessment plan. The district's own case manager could not confirm the notice was attached to the emails he sent Parent, and Parent credibly testified he never received it.

What Was Ordered

Pleasanton may not assess Student under the March 10, 2023 assessment plan without Parent's consent.
Pleasanton must issue a new triennial assessment plan to Parent no later than June 14, 2024. The plan must include assessments in all areas of suspected disability, including at minimum: academic achievement, medical, intellectual development, speech and language (including augmentative and alternative communication), occupational therapy, physical therapy, adapted physical education, social-emotional and behavioral, adaptive behavior, functional vision by a teacher for the visually impaired, and post-secondary transition. The plan must also include a vision and hearing screening.
Within 30 days of the decision, Pleasanton must contract with an independent special education expert (not the district's hearing attorneys) to provide at least three hours of training to special education administrators, IEP case managers, and program supervisors. The training must cover requirements for initial and triennial assessment plans, including proper notice of procedural rights and ensuring all areas of suspected disability are included. Training must be completed by September 30, 2024.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot override your concerns about an assessment plan if that plan is legally defective. Before a school district can assess your child without your consent, it must prove its assessment plan covers all required areas. If the plan is missing evaluations — like vision, transition, or health screenings — the district cannot use due process to force it through.
Your child's triennial must cover every area of suspected disability, not just the ones the district finds convenient. The law requires comprehensive evaluations. If your child has a known visual impairment, a history of hearing needs, or is approaching age 16, those areas must be in the assessment plan. Review any proposed plan carefully against your child's full disability profile.
Conditions on your consent can backfire. The ALJ found that three of Parent's five conditions — including being present in the room and recording sessions — were unreasonable and effectively voided his consent. Courts have consistently held that parents cannot dictate how assessments are conducted. If you have concerns about safety or procedures, raise them collaboratively rather than as formal conditions on your signature.
You have the right to receive a notice of procedural safeguards whenever a district proposes an assessment. This is not optional paperwork. If you are handed or emailed an assessment plan without a copy of your parental rights, document that fact — it is a procedural violation the district must answer for.
Be cautious of medical assessors who see their role as representing the school rather than objectively evaluating your child. The IDEA requires that assessments give an accurate, unbiased picture of your child's needs. An assessor who admits to contacting your child's doctors to change their recommendations is not conducting a neutral evaluation — and you have the right to challenge that assessor's appointment.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Pleasanton may not assess Student under the March 10, 2023 assessment plan without Parent's consent.
Pleasanton must issue a new triennial assessment plan to Parent no later than June 14, 2024. The plan must include assessments in all areas of suspected disability, including at minimum: academic achievement, medical, intellectual development, speech and language (including augmentative and alternative communication), occupational therapy, physical therapy, adapted physical education, social-emotional and behavioral, adaptive behavior, functional vision by a teacher for the visually impaired, and post-secondary transition. The plan must also include a vision and hearing screening.
Within 30 days of the decision, Pleasanton must contract with an independent special education expert (not the district's hearing attorneys) to provide at least three hours of training to special education administrators, IEP case managers, and program supervisors. The training must cover requirements for initial and triennial assessment plans, including proper notice of procedural rights and ensuring all areas of suspected disability are included. Training must be completed by September 30, 2024.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district cannot override your concerns about an assessment plan if that plan is legally defective. Before a school district can assess your child without your consent, it must prove its assessment plan covers all required areas. If the plan is missing evaluations — like vision, transition, or health screenings — the district cannot use due process to force it through.
Your child's triennial must cover every area of suspected disability, not just the ones the district finds convenient. The law requires comprehensive evaluations. If your child has a known visual impairment, a history of hearing needs, or is approaching age 16, those areas must be in the assessment plan. Review any proposed plan carefully against your child's full disability profile.
Conditions on your consent can backfire. The ALJ found that three of Parent's five conditions — including being present in the room and recording sessions — were unreasonable and effectively voided his consent. Courts have consistently held that parents cannot dictate how assessments are conducted. If you have concerns about safety or procedures, raise them collaboratively rather than as formal conditions on your signature.
You have the right to receive a notice of procedural safeguards whenever a district proposes an assessment. This is not optional paperwork. If you are handed or emailed an assessment plan without a copy of your parental rights, document that fact — it is a procedural violation the district must answer for.
Be cautious of medical assessors who see their role as representing the school rather than objectively evaluating your child. The IDEA requires that assessments give an accurate, unbiased picture of your child's needs. An assessor who admits to contacting your child's doctors to change their recommendations is not conducting a neutral evaluation — and you have the right to challenge that assessor's appointment.