Deficient SLD Assessment Leads to Wrongful Exit from Special Education and Restoration Order

What Happened

A student in Pleasanton Unified School District had complex suspected disabilities including dyslexia, ADHD, anxiety, apraxia, central processing disorder, sensory processing issues, and possible autism. The student had previously been found eligible for special education under the categories of autism and speech-language impairment, with an IEP dating to January 2020.

In the 2022-2023 school year, the district conducted a multidisciplinary psychoeducational assessment. At IEP team meetings on September 5 and 8, 2023, based on the results of this assessment, the district determined the student was no longer eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability and moved to exit him. The student's parent had provided the district with a previous neuropsychology assessment conducted in 2022 at UC Davis, but the school psychologist testified she had never seen it and never asked the parent for prior assessment reports.

The parent filed for due process, and the district filed its own case seeking to validate its assessment and exit the student. The cases were consolidated, with ALJ Charles Marson presiding.

What the District Did Wrong

Discarded the Standard IQ Measure Without Explanation

The school psychologist administered the WISC-V but discarded the full-scale IQ score — the standard measure used to calculate severe discrepancies — in favor of the General Ability Index (GAI). The ALJ found the GAI "is nowhere described in the report" and "does not appear on the list of measures administered." The assessor's stated reason — that the FSIQ was "deemed uninterpretable due to the nine-point range of scores" — was found to be "obscure" and "confusing." As the ALJ explained, replacing the FSIQ with the GAI "operated to reduce the importance of the two areas in which Student's scores were lowest and were therefore most likely to reveal severe discrepancies" — Working Memory and Processing Speed.

No Mathematical Calculations of Discrepancies

The SLD assessment report contained no mathematical calculations showing whether the student's scores produced severe discrepancies. The ALJ found: "There is no way for a reader to know whether the GAI Standard Score/Scaled Score of 105 was used as the measure, or sole measure, of intellectual ability." A reader of the report would have to "piece together disparate parts" to discover that the student's scores revealed at least six possible severe discrepancies, including a 30-point gap between intellectual ability and processing scores.

Failed to Gather Relevant Information

The school psychologist did not interview the parent or the student's teachers. She gathered information only through a written survey form and a study of records. She was aware of a prior UC Davis neuropsychology assessment but testified she had never seen it. The parent testified without contradiction that the assessor never asked for prior assessment reports. The district made a routine request for records from a prior school district, but the package arrived torn open and empty — and the district never re-requested the records.

Applied the Wrong Legal Standard to Exclusionary Factors

Rather than making the required finding that the student's discrepancies were "not primarily the result of" limited school experience, the assessor stated only that exclusionary factors "cannot be ruled out" as contributing causes. The ALJ found this was "far weaker than the required primary cause finding, and far less favorable to Student." Furthermore, expert testimony established that working memory and processing speed — the two areas where the student scored lowest — "have nothing to do with working memory or processing speed" in terms of being affected by school attendance.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Charles Marson issued a detailed 41-page decision finding that the SLD portion of the multidisciplinary assessment fundamentally failed to comply with the law at every level.

On the assessment's failure to provide information for the IEP team:

"In short, federal and State law imposed special duties on Student's IEP team members when it determined, at its September 2023 meeting, that Student was not eligible for special education in the category of SLD. Those duties could not have been discharged by an IEP team having only the information in the SLD assessment."

On the consequences of the deficient assessment:

"Exiting Student based on erroneous and incomplete information was an invalid act and denied Student a FAPE."

The ALJ found this single finding — that the SLD assessment was not legally compliant — established "a global FAPE denial for the time at issue in this matter" from September 8, 2023 through April 29, 2024. Because this finding was dispositive, the ALJ declined to rule on the remaining issues, noting: "That relief would not be any different if Student could prove the remaining issues he asserts."

The student also prevailed on both of the district's issues: the assessment was not legally compliant, and the district was not entitled to exit the student from special education.

What Was Ordered

1. Restore student to special education immediately, and conduct an IEP team meeting

2. Fund an independent educational evaluation in the area of psychoeducational status, including funding the assessor's appearance at the IEP team meeting to discuss the results

3. Five hours of staff training for IEP team members who attended the September 2023 meetings, on the procedures required for exiting a student from special education — training to be provided by an outside provider, not the district's own staff

4. Compensatory education in the form of academic tutoring in subjects determined by the parent, in an amount that roughly approximates one hour for every school day the student was denied FAPE after deducting for absences

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts cannot discard standard test measures to avoid finding eligibility. When a school psychologist substitutes an alternative measure for the standard WISC full-scale IQ score, it may have the effect of masking severe discrepancies. The Ninth Circuit in E.M. v. Pajaro Valley upheld the use of the WISC full-scale IQ score as the standard starting point for discrepancy analysis. If your child's assessment report uses an unusual measure of intellectual ability, demand an explanation.

2. Assessment reports must show their work. An SLD assessment that simply concludes "no discrepancy exists" without showing the mathematical calculations is not legally compliant. Parents and IEP team members cannot evaluate discrepancies they cannot see. If the report does not clearly lay out which scores were compared and what the gaps were, the assessment is deficient.

3. Exiting a student from special education based on a bad assessment is a FAPE denial. This case establishes that when a district relies on a non-compliant assessment to remove eligibility, every day the student is denied services counts as a denial of FAPE. The compensatory education remedy should cover the entire period.

4. The assessor must actually talk to parents and review prior assessments. A school psychologist who does not interview the parent, does not ask for prior evaluations, and does not speak to the student's teachers has not conducted a legally compliant assessment. California law requires that the assessment take into account "all relevant material which is available on the pupil."

5. "Cannot be ruled out" is not the legal standard for exclusionary factors. The legal question is whether the discrepancy is "primarily the result of" factors like limited school experience — not whether those factors "cannot be ruled out." This distinction matters enormously for students with non-traditional school histories, including students who were homeschooled or had attendance issues.