Piedmont USD Failed to Timely Complete Speech and Language Assessment for Student with 'Textbook Dyslexia' Diagnosed by Private Evaluator, Ordered to Fund Independent Evaluations

What Happened

This case involves a 10-year-old boy in fourth grade who attended Charles Armstrong School, a private school in Belmont, California that specializes in serving students with dyslexia, since September 30, 2022. The student resided within Piedmont Unified School District's boundaries at all relevant times.

The student's path to this point was complicated. Piedmont originally found him eligible for special education in January 2018 under the category of speech or language impairment due to articulation deficits. He received group speech services targeting his articulation. At his January 5, 2021 IEP meeting, the parent expressed concern about the student's progress, noting that his speech errors interfered with his spelling and that he had difficulty processing certain letter sounds and consonant blends. The parent reported the student struggled with letter reversals and was not making sufficient reading and writing progress despite general education intervention.

Piedmont conducted a speech and language reassessment, which found the student no longer qualified for speech services. At the March 18, 2021 IEP team meeting, Piedmont recommended the student be exited from special education. The parent consented to exit that same evening. Critically, however, Piedmont did not assess the student's academic needs or attention deficits before exiting him -- the district only evaluated speech and language.

In May 2022, the parents obtained a private psychological evaluation from Dr. Kent Grelling, who had over 20 years of experience evaluating students with learning disabilities. Dr. Grelling diagnosed the student with a specific learning disability in reading and writing -- what he commonly called dyslexia. The evaluation found a phonological processing deficit and a significant discrepancy between the student's intellectual ability and his reading achievement.

What the District Did Wrong

The central assessment failure occurred during the 2022-2023 school year. After the parents shared Dr. Grelling's private evaluation, Piedmont conducted its own academic and psychoeducational assessments of the student by September 2022 and found him eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability -- though only "just barely" meeting the eligibility criteria in spelling.

Parents consented to additional speech and language and occupational therapy assessments on September 15, 2022. However, Piedmont failed to timely complete these assessments. Under California law, a district has 60 days from the date of receiving consent to complete an assessment and hold an IEP meeting to review the results (not counting school breaks). The district's failure to complete these agreed-upon assessments within the required timeline was a clear procedural violation that denied the student a FAPE.

The ALJ also noted concerns about the March 2021 exit from special education. A school district is required to evaluate the educational needs of a child with a disability before determining the child is no longer eligible for special education. Piedmont "did not assess Student's academic needs, or any attention deficits" noted by the speech pathologist before exiting him. However, the student did not specifically challenge the validity of his exit as an issue for hearing, so this finding did not directly affect the outcome.

What the Judge Found

ALJ Theresa Ravandi issued a detailed, 67-page decision addressing numerous issues spanning three school years. The ruling was mixed -- the student prevailed on one key issue while the district prevailed on many others.

On the assessment delay (Issue 3b), the ALJ found that Piedmont denied the student a FAPE by "failing to timely complete speech and language and occupational therapy assessments which Parent consented to on September 15, 2022." This was the student's primary victory.

On the child find and assessment claims for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years (Issues 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 2c), the district prevailed. The ALJ found that the parent's general inquiry at the January 2021 IEP meeting about further assessments "did not constitute a parent request for reevaluation." The student was making progress in reading intervention during this period, and the district reasonably attributed spelling difficulties to the challenges of distance learning during COVID-19.

On the September 2022 IEP offer (Issues 3c and 3d), the district also prevailed. The ALJ found that 90 minutes per week of group specialized academic instruction -- including 60 minutes of push-in services during writing/spelling class and 30 minutes of pull-out services -- was sufficient to meet the student's needs. The resource specialist, Coffey-Smith, was experienced in teaching phonology, spelling, and reading to students with specific learning disabilities and used Orton-Gillingham-based structured literacy approaches.

On the predetermination claim (Issue 3e), the district prevailed. The ALJ found that Piedmont could not legally offer IEP placement at Charles Armstrong School because it was not a certified nonpublic school, and this legal limitation did not constitute predetermination. The district asked questions about the private school and explored certified alternatives, which showed it was "not impermissibly wedded to its general education placement offer."

On the private speech assessment (Issue 3f), the district prevailed. The consultation note was shared during settlement discussions, and even if Piedmont was required to convene an IEP meeting, it would have had 30 days from receipt -- and the student's claims extended only to March 23, 2023, just three days later.

What Was Ordered

The ALJ ordered the following relief:

1. Piedmont shall fund independent speech and language and occupational therapy assessments of the student consistent with current Special Education Local Plan Area criteria for independent educational evaluations, at public expense.

2. All of the student's other requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

This case offers important lessons for parents of children with suspected dyslexia, even though the overall outcome was mixed.

The private evaluation mattered. Dr. Grelling's diagnosis of "textbook dyslexia" forced the district to conduct its own comprehensive assessment. While the district found the student eligible with a narrower finding (specific learning disability in spelling only, "just barely" meeting criteria), without the private evaluation, the student might never have been reassessed at all. Parents should not hesitate to obtain private evaluations when they believe the district is missing something.

Assessment timelines are enforceable. When a district agrees to conduct an assessment and the parent consents, the district must complete it within 60 days. The district's failure to complete the speech and occupational therapy assessments on time was the student's winning issue, and it resulted in the district being ordered to fund independent evaluations at public expense.

Exit from special education requires a full evaluation. The ALJ pointedly noted that Piedmont did not assess the student's academic needs before exiting him from special education -- it only assessed speech. While this issue was not directly before the hearing, it serves as a warning: if your district proposes to exit your child from special education, make sure they have evaluated all areas of suspected need, not just the eligibility category.

Districts have methodology discretion -- but not unlimited. The ALJ found that Piedmont's 90-minute-per-week offer using Orton-Gillingham-based approaches was sufficient, even though Dr. Grelling recommended placement at a specialized dyslexia school and the private expert recommended a minimum of 30 minutes per day of structured literacy. Courts and ALJs generally defer to districts on questions of educational methodology. However, the district's specialist was trained in structured literacy and could deliver evidence-based instruction -- parents should ensure the IEP specifies what approach will be used.

Document your assessment requests clearly. The ALJ found that the parent's general inquiry at the January 2021 IEP meeting about whether "there were other possible assessments" did not constitute a formal request for reevaluation. If you want an assessment, put it in writing. Be specific: "I am requesting that the district assess my child for a specific learning disability, including in the areas of reading, writing, and spelling." A clear, written request starts the clock and creates an enforceable obligation.