District Denied Right to Assess Without Consent Due to Flawed Assessment Plan and Defective Notice

Soledad Unified School District filed for due process seeking permission to assess a 10-year-old student with other health impairment and speech-language impairment without parental consent. The ALJ ruled against the district, finding that the August 30, 2024 assessment plan was procedurally defective in two key ways: the proposed health assessor was not qualified under California law, and the written notice accompanying the plan was missing multiple legally required disclosures. As a result, the district was not authorized to proceed with the assessment without the parents' signed consent.

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old fourth grader eligible for special education under the categories of other health impairment and speech-language impairment. During the 2023-2024 school year, Student attended only 23 days of school. Because of this significant absence — and because the district's most recent reassessment was completed in March 2023 — Soledad Unified School District proposed a new comprehensive reassessment to gather updated information about Student's educational and behavioral needs and to make an appropriate offer of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). On August 30, 2024, the district provided Parents with a new assessment plan covering areas including health history, cognition, speech-language, behavior, and academics. Parents did not consent.

After Parents refused to sign the assessment plan, Soledad filed for due process, asking the ALJ to authorize the assessments without parental consent. Parents argued that the district's proposed assessors were not qualified. The ALJ agreed with Parents — and went further, finding that the written notice accompanying the assessment plan was also defective in multiple ways. Because of these procedural failures, the district was denied permission to assess Student without consent.

What the District Did Wrong

1. The wrong person was assigned to conduct the health assessment. California law is clear: a health assessment must be conducted by a credentialed school nurse or a physician. The district's assessment plan assigned a school psychologist — not a nurse or physician — to conduct Student's health and developmental history assessment, which included reviewing health records and administering vision and hearing screenings. Even though the school psychologist testified that he had completed over 100 such reports and was trained to do so, the ALJ found this unpersuasive. The law sets specific credential requirements, and experience alone does not substitute for proper credentials.

2. The written notice was missing multiple legally required disclosures. California Education Code section 56329 requires that the notice accompanying an assessment plan explain several specific things to parents. Soledad's notice failed on multiple counts:

It did not explain the "limiting factors" on special education eligibility — specifically, that a student cannot be found eligible for special education solely because of a lack of appropriate reading or math instruction, or because of limited English proficiency.
It did not inform Parents that they would receive a copy of the assessment report and the eligibility determination upon completion of the assessments.
It did not notify Parents that results of a privately obtained assessment could be presented as evidence at a due process hearing.
It did not explain the district's observation rights if Parents sought a nonpublic school placement.
The procedural safeguards notice stated the two-year deadline for filing a due process complaint but failed to mention any exceptions to that deadline, and did not inform Parents about model forms available to help them file a complaint.

Because the notice was defective, Parents could not give legally valid informed consent — making it unnecessary for the ALJ to even decide whether the district had made reasonable efforts to obtain consent.

What Was Ordered

Soledad Unified School District may not assess Student pursuant to the August 30, 2024 assessment plan without Parents' consent.
Student was declared the prevailing party.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to review who will assess your child — and to challenge unqualified assessors. California law specifies exactly who can conduct certain types of assessments. A health assessment must be done by a credentialed school nurse or physician — not just any school employee. If a district's assessment plan assigns the wrong type of professional to an area of evaluation, that is a legal defect you can raise.
The notice that comes with an assessment plan must contain specific information — and gaps in that notice can be a valid reason to withhold consent. The law requires districts to tell you, in writing, things like: what limits exist on eligibility determinations, that you will receive a copy of the completed assessment report, and that a private assessment you obtain can be used as evidence at a hearing. If these disclosures are missing, the notice is legally defective.
Districts can file due process to override your refusal to consent to an assessment — but they must first follow all procedural requirements. This case shows that a district cannot bypass parental consent simply because it believes a reassessment is needed. The process must be followed correctly from the start, including using qualified assessors and providing complete, accurate written notice.
Read the procedural safeguards notice carefully and compare it to what the law actually requires. In this case, the district's safeguards notice omitted important information about exceptions to filing deadlines and about model forms for complaints. These omissions were additional grounds for finding the notice defective. Parents are entitled to a full, plain-language explanation of their rights — not just a citation to a statute.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

It did not explain the "limiting factors" on special education eligibility — specifically, that a student cannot be found eligible for special education solely because of a lack of appropriate reading or math instruction, or because of limited English proficiency.
It did not inform Parents that they would receive a copy of the assessment report and the eligibility determination upon completion of the assessments.
It did not notify Parents that results of a privately obtained assessment could be presented as evidence at a due process hearing.
It did not explain the district's observation rights if Parents sought a nonpublic school placement.
The procedural safeguards notice stated the two-year deadline for filing a due process complaint but failed to mention any exceptions to that deadline, and did not inform Parents about model forms available to help them file a complaint.

What Was Ordered

Soledad Unified School District may not assess Student pursuant to the August 30, 2024 assessment plan without Parents' consent.
Student was declared the prevailing party.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to review who will assess your child — and to challenge unqualified assessors. California law specifies exactly who can conduct certain types of assessments. A health assessment must be done by a credentialed school nurse or physician — not just any school employee. If a district's assessment plan assigns the wrong type of professional to an area of evaluation, that is a legal defect you can raise.
The notice that comes with an assessment plan must contain specific information — and gaps in that notice can be a valid reason to withhold consent. The law requires districts to tell you, in writing, things like: what limits exist on eligibility determinations, that you will receive a copy of the completed assessment report, and that a private assessment you obtain can be used as evidence at a hearing. If these disclosures are missing, the notice is legally defective.
Districts can file due process to override your refusal to consent to an assessment — but they must first follow all procedural requirements. This case shows that a district cannot bypass parental consent simply because it believes a reassessment is needed. The process must be followed correctly from the start, including using qualified assessors and providing complete, accurate written notice.
Read the procedural safeguards notice carefully and compare it to what the law actually requires. In this case, the district's safeguards notice omitted important information about exceptions to filing deadlines and about model forms for complaints. These omissions were additional grounds for finding the notice defective. Parents are entitled to a full, plain-language explanation of their rights — not just a citation to a statute.