Janet L. HortonThompson & Horton LLP3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2000Houston, Texas 77027

jhorton@thompsonhorton.com713-554-6746

Special Education Evaluations:Legal Issues

Region 4 Education Service Center

June 5, 2014

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AN IDEA

EVALUATION?

1. Determine whether a student has an IDEA

disability and, because of the disability, the

student needs special education and related services.

2. Provide information to help the IEP Team

identify the specialized instruction and related services the student needs to receive FAPE.

A district “must conduct a full and individual initial evaluation” before providing special education and related services to a student.

Reg. 300.301(a).

Initial evaluation – Preplacement evaluation

May be initiated by district or parent.

Reevaluation – for students who are already receiving

special education.

Must the district conduct an initial evaluation just

because the parent requests one?

No. If the district does NOT suspect the student has a

disability and needs special education, it may deny the request. But whenever a

parent request for any evaluation is denied…

Prior written notice to the parent is required.• Description of action refused.• Explanation of why refused.• Documentation and data used as basis of

refusal.• Other options considered and why rejected.• Other factors relevant to refusal.• Copy of procedural safeguards.• Sources to contact for assistance.Reg. 300.503.

Parent’s IDEA options:

• TEA complaint.• Mediation.• Due process hearing.

WHAT TIMELINES APPLY TO AN INITIAL

EVALUATION?

Initial evaluation done and report completed by 45th school day after district receives written consent for the evaluation. If student is absent 3 or more days during initial evaluation period, time to complete is extended by number of days absent.

TEC § 29.004(a)(1).

Students under 5 by September 1st and not enrolled in public school, and students enrolled in private school or home school – initial evaluation done and report completed by 45th school day after written consent is received by the district.TEC § 29.004(a)(2).

Written consent is received with less than 45 school days, but at least 35 school days left in the year – initial evaluation done and report completed by June 30th. ARD Committee meets by 15th school day in new school year. Student absent 3 or more days, district has a full 45 school days, plus the days absent, to complete report (into the new school year).

TEC § 29.004(a-1).

Written consent is received with less than 35 school days left in the year – initial evaluation done and report completed in 45 school days (plus 3 or more days of absence) – completed in the new school year).

TEC § 29.004(a-1).

“School day” does not include a day that falls after the last instructional day of the spring semester, and before the first instructional day of the fall semester.

TEC § 29.004(a-2).

These timelines do not impair the rights of an infant or toddler with a disability who is receiving early intervention services under 20 U.S.C. § 1431.

TEC § 29.004(a-3).

If a parent makes a request for an initial evaluation to the special education director or administrator, district has 15 school days to:-- Provide opportunity for parent to give written consent or-- Refuse to provide an evaluation and give the parent notice of procedural safeguardsTEC § 29.004(c).

30 calendar days from date of completion of initial evaluation report, IEP Team meets to make decisions. (Summer – meet on or before first day of classes.)

19 TAC § 89.1050(d).

CHILD FIND AND THE DUTY TO

EVALUATE

IDEA requires that all children with disabilities… “who are in need of special education services be identified, located and evaluated.”

Reg. 300.3111

Child Find duty is triggered when district has reason to suspect a disability coupled with reason to suspect special education services may be needed to address the disability.

Compliance with Child Find – two-part inquiry

1. When did district have reason to suspect presence of disability and need for special education?

2. Did district evaluate student within a reasonable time after having notice of circumstances likely to indicate a disability and a need for services?

Docket No. 197-SE-0410 (Rubinett 2011)

2008 – 2009 – District had reason to suspect student had a disability because of documented diagnosis of ADHD.

BUT – District did not have reason to suspect a need for special education to address disability.

• General education interventions were successful

• Student achieved academic success

• No significant behavioral problems

• Parent did not make district aware of outside tutoring and emotional issues

2009 – 2010 – Parents did not report concerns of bullying and threats of suicide over the summer.

• September 2009 – after two minor discipline referrals, noncompliant behavior in class, and then a fight, parents shared information about bullying, thoughts of suicide and depression.

By October 2, 2009:

• District transferred student to a new campus

• Identified student as 504 eligible

• Developed a 504 plan

• District had no reason to suspect a need for special education in October 2009

- transfer to a new school and 504 services seemed to address need

- two times parent refused IDEA testing

• Failure to pursue initial evaluation through due process hearing to override refusal to consent is not a violation of Child Find duties.

Reg. 300.300(3)

• November 2009 – student had serious emotional breakdown at school and was admitted to mental health facility.

• 3 days after return, another serious meltdown at school.

• These events were clear signals that created a reason to suspect a need for special education because of a disability.

• District promptly sought consent to evaluate (within 2 days).

• District began evaluation process within a reasonable time.

• “Reasonable time” not defined in IDEA. Depends on circumstances but two days is clearly reasonable.

Downey Unified School District, 112 LRP 1261 (SEA CA 2011)

Kindergarten special education student exhibited significant fine motor deficits. District failed to timely assess for OT needs when it did an OT screening first, then an OT assessment.

Harrison School District Two, 57 IDELR 295 (OCR 2011)

• 2008-2009 enrollment form stated student diagnosed ADHD and on medication;

• 2009-2010 enrollment form - same information. Behavior escalated. RtI started. No IEP until June 2010.

• District failed to timely assess – waited 18 months after information where school should have suspected a disability and evaluated.

• RtI may be useful to identify instructional strategies, but it cannot be used to delay or deny evaluation in case of suspected disability.

Student v. School District, 57 IDELR 240 (SEA TX 2011)

• Year 1 – student identified as learning disabled; • Year 2 – student began to exhibit significant

behavior problems – aggression, work refusal, disrespect of authority.

• Year 3 – November to December – 12 discipline referrals. Spring semester – 19 discipline referrals, 1 day ISS, 6 days OSS.

• Year 3 – fall – FBA done – BIP prepared. Placed in DAEP.

• March Year 3 to November Year 4 – 23 discipline incidents. Police called many times. Absences increased; grades decreased.

• November Year 4 – assessed and found to be ED.

• District failed to timely assess for ED.

• District should have suspected

ED as early as Year 2. • Student entitled to

compensatory services.

K.A.B. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist.; 61 IDELR 159 (E.D. Pa. 2013)

Court held school district did not violate child find by waiting until second grade to evaluate student with reading problems adopted from Russian orphanage.

Carrollton-Farmers Branch Ind. Sch. Dist., 113 LRP 14998 (January 25, 2013)

District complied with child find and was not required to evaluate student with ADHD who was successful with a 504 plan.

Do not fail to timely assess a student because the student is engaging in response to intervention strategies.

Letter to Anonymous, 55 IDELR 172 (OSEP January 2010)

Mere fact that a student is “gifted” does not disqualify him from IDEA eligibility. IDEA does not address gifted students. BUT

“It remains the Department’s position that students who have high cognition, have disabilities and require special education and related services are protected under the IDEA and its implementing regulations.”

Examples

• Gifted student with ADHD – may be OHI and need special education and related services to address lack of organization skills and difficulty completing homework.

• Gifted student with Asperger’s Syndrome may be AU and require services to address behavioral and social challenges.

Commissioner’s Rules require district to use interventions outside special education as an integral part of a district’s identification for referral to special education.

Prior to special education referral, a district should consider:

… all support services available to all students, such as tutorial; remedial; compensatory; response to scientific, research-based interventions; and other academic or behavior support services. If the student continues to experience difficulty in the general classroom after the provision of interventions, district personnel must refer the student for a full and individual initial evaluation.

19 Texas Administrative Code § 89.1011

Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services, 47 IDELR 196 (OSEP 2007).

RtI is not intended to be a replacement for a comprehensive special education evaluation, but is instead one tool out of many a district can employ to identify eligible students.

Memorandum to State Directors Re: Response to Intervention (OSEP 2011)

• Use of RtI does not diminish district’s obligation to obtain consent and evaluate any time district has reason to suspect a disability and a need for special education.

• Requirement applies regardless of whether district is using, or plans to use, RtI strategies with student.

• RtI cannot be a basis to delay or deny an evaluation.

• District may deny parent request to evaluate if it does not suspect a disability and has given parent prior written notice.

• But participation in RtI should not be the basis for the refusal to evaluate.

Screenings by teacher/specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation – NOT an evaluation. Applies to both special education and general education student.

Reg. 300.302.

PARENT CONSENT

Parent informed consent required for• Initial evaluation.• Reevaluation.

Reg. 300.300(a), (c).

District should seek consent promptly. Not acceptable to wait several months after district has reason to suspect a disability and a need for special education.

71 Fed. Reg. 46,540 (2006).

Parent refuses to consent (initial/reevaluation)• District may file due process

hearing to override lack of consent (except private/home school student).

• May, but IS NOT REQUIRED to do so.

Reg. 300.300.

If district declines to pursue evaluation in light of parent refusal to consent, district does not violate obligation regarding child find (Reg. 300.111) and to evaluate and determine eligibility.

(Reg. 300.301 – 300.311.)

Consent to initial evaluation is NOT consent for initial provision of services.

Reg. 300.300(a)(1)(ii).

WHAT IS“INFORMED CONSENT”?

• Parent has been fully informed of all information relevant to the activity.

• Parent understands and agrees in writing to carry out the activity.

• Parent understands consent is voluntary and can be revoked.

Reg. 300.9

WHAT ARE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO OBTAIN

INFORMED CONSENT?

• Telephone calls made/attempted and result.

• Correspondence sent and response.

• Visits to home/place of employment and results.

Reg. 300.322(d)

Consent?

Yes No

__ X School has explained evaluation procedures.

__ X I understand the evaluation process.

X __ I consent for my child to be evaluated immediately.

------ NO ----

Downey Unified School District, 112 LRP 1261 (SEA CA 2011)

Attorney representing mother and special education student could not by letter consent to assessment. Assessment was not a contract. Unambiguous parental consent was required.

G.J. v. Muscogee County School District, 58 IDELR 61 (11th Cir. 2012)

Parents of student with autism refused to consent to 3 year reevaluation unless school would consent to their terms such as:

• By a person of their choice;• Parents to get results before the

school;• Evaluation could not be used by

school in litigation.

• School claimed there was no consent.

• Three years of litigation.

• School prevailed.

Circuit Court:

• Parental conditions on reevaluation were really a refusal to consent.

• School was entitled to reevaluate using persons of its choosing.

• Parents cannot force school to rely on their private evaluation.

• Upheld District Court’s order for parents to consent to the reevaluation.

• Because the school had never been able to do a 3 year reevaluation, there was no evaluation to disagree with and no right to an IEE.

San Juan Board of Cooperative Educational Services, 56 IDELR 29 (SEA CO 2010)

District proposed initial evaluation for learning disability, including an AT and OT evaluation. Parent refused to sign consent and demanded the evaluation include aptitude assessments, cognitive assessments, written language assessments and FBA.

Parents communication to district concerning evaluation did not constitute consent and district could not conduct assessment.

Panama – Buena Vista Union School District, 111 LRP 67764 (SEA CA 2011)

Three year old student had been receiving private speech therapy. Referred to district for IDEA evaluation. During screening for speech and language skills (consented to by parents), student’s hyperactivity and family history of autism and learning disabilities was revealed. Student scored very low on all screening instruments.

District proposed IDEA evaluation in all areas, not just speech and language. Details of plan and procedural rights explained to parent. Parent would consent only to a speech and language assessment.

District has a duty to assess in all areas of disability. Parents must permit the district to conduct necessary and appropriate assessments if student is to receive IDEA services.

If parent does not consent to an initial assessment, district may but is not required to request a due process hearing to override lack of consent.

Court ruled district could evaluate without parent consent

• District has reason to suspect a disability and need for special education• There was reason to suspect more than a speech and language disability• District had given proper notice to parent• Parent sought special education services and so had to comply with district’s reasonable and necessary requests to assess.

Letter to Johnson, 56 IDELR 51 (OSEP June 2010)

Informed consent DOES NOT mean the school is asking the parent to signify that the parent understands the precise nature of all of the services or activities that would be included in the IEP or every aspect of a proposed evaluation. The parent needs a general understanding to what he or she is being requested to consent.

Gwinnett County School District, 111 LRP 68498 (SEA GA 2011)

After several years of speech therapy, district thought student no longer qualified for services. District sought to evaluate before determining student was no longer a child with a disability (Reg. 300.305 (e)(1)). Parent refused to consent.

District used abundant and comprehensive informal assessment data to make determination including observations by speech pathologist. Parent provided no evidence of continuing educational need. Dismissal from special education was appropriate.

Can a parent refuse consent for a reevaluation, revoke consent for IDEA services and then claim the student is entitled to 504 services?

Letter to McKethan, 25 IDELR 295 (OCR 1996)

“… by rejecting the services developed under the IDEA, the parent would essentially be rejecting what would be offered under Section 504. The parent could not compel the district to develop an IEP under Section 504 as that effectively happened when the school followed the IDEA requirements.”

A.M. v. Lone Jack C-6 School District, No. 11-CV-1072-DW-W (W.D. MO. 2012) (Order of March 1, 2012)

“The Court finds Letter to McKethan persuasive, and finds that the Plaintiffs’ revocation of services under IDEA was tantamount to revocation under §504 and the ADA.”

B.K. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 60 IDELR 221 (D.C. Colorado 2013)

Parent rejected IEP and withdrew consent for IDEA services. District could defend itself from a disability discrimination claim under 504 and the ADA because it had convened a 504 meeting and developed a 504 plan basically the same as the IEP

Northampton Area Sch. Dist., 63 IDELR 89 (SEA PA 2014)

District’s duties under 504 are independent from its IDEA obligations.

Parent consent not required before review of existing data (initial or reevaluation).Reg. 300.300

Parent consent not required to administer test or evaluation administered to all students (example: TAKS).Reg. 300.300

Letter to Baumtrog, 39 IDELR 159 (OSEP 2002)

Evaluation includes a review of existing evaluation data:

• Evaluations/information from parent;

• Staff observations;• Classroom, local and state

assessments and classroom observations.

To determine:

• Disability;• Educational needs;• Present levels of performance;• Educational services.

Who chooses evaluation, instruments & strategies?

District chooses.

Reg. 300.305(c)

WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN

EVALUATION?

• A variety of assessment tools and strategies.

• That gather relevant functional, developmental and academic information about the student.

• Includes information from the parent.

• May NOT consist of a single measure or instrument only;

• Technically sound;

• Not racially or culturally biased;

• Provided and administered in native language/mode of communication unless clearly not feasible to do so . . . so the results

• Will most likely provide accurate information on what student knows and can do academically, developmentally and functionally;

• Valid and reliable instruments;• Administered by trained/

knowledgeable personnel;• Include information related to

involvement and progress in the general curriculum.

• Administered in accordance with producer’s instructions.

• Not just cognitive assessment.

• Evaluates what it is meant to evaluate rather than being skewed by sensory, manual or speaking problems.

• Assessed in all areas of suspected disability.

• Health, vision, hearing, social & emotional, general intelligence, academic performance, communication and motor abilities.

• Sufficiently comprehensive to identify all special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to student’s disability.

• Provide relevant information to determine educational needs of student.

Reg. 300.304.

Even an incorrect disability diagnosis may be excused if the evaluation identifies educational needs and they are addressed in the IEP.

Fort Osage R-1 School District v. B.S., 56 IDELR 282 (8th Cir 2011)

Student diagnosed at birth with Down’s Syndrome. At 3 years old, district evaluated and qualified as OHI. Private evaluation at 9 years old identified student autistic. Then district evaluation identified as OHI and autistic. Parent sued claiming lack of FAPE because of incorrect eligibility.

Focus at every level was not whether he should have been labeled autistic, but the nature of his IEP.

Each year, IEP focused on current educational status, had meaningful goals and many resources to help student. He had progressed. Negative behaviors had stopped after first FBA & BIP.

“Given the IDEA’s strong emphasis on identifying a disabled child’s specific needs and addressing them, we believe that the particular disability diagnosis affixed to a child in an IEP will, in many cases, be substantially immaterial because the IEP will be tailored to the child’s specific needs.

Consequently, while the IDEA intends that the IEPs contain accurate disability diagnoses, we will not automatically set aside an IEP for failing to include a specific disability diagnosis or containing an incorrect diagnosis.

Instead, as with an other purported procedural defect, the party challenging the IEP must show that the failure to include a proper disability diagnosis compromised the pupil’s right to an appropriate education, seriously hampered the parent’s opportunity to participate in the formulation process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.”

Docket No. 048-SE-1010, 56 IDELR 307 (March 2011)

The parent of a student once classified as having autism could not show that a Texas district violated the IDEA by changing the student’s classification to speech impairment. Determining that the IEP goals and services were appropriate regardless of the student’s formal classification, an IHO denied the parent’s request for relief.

The IHO explained that an IEP should be based on the child’s unique special education needs, and not the child’s disability classification. Moreover, even if a child’s classification is erroneous, the parent is not entitled to relief unless the error resulted in substantive harm.

Classifying the student as a child with autism was not appropriate in this case. According to the student’s teacher, the student responded well to the classroom structure and engaged socially with other children. While the student had some problem behaviors, such as acting out and not following rules, the teacher said those behaviors were not persistent and the student was redirected easily. The student’s IEP included sufficient speech services to address the student’s articulation and phonological processing difficulties.

Goal for every initial evaluation/reevaluation

should be that it is sufficient to withstand an

IEE challenge.

Docket No. 074-SE-1210 (Rubinett 2011)

District not able to prove its evaluation was appropriate in response to IEE request, in part, because it did not accurately and fully report the data collected in the assessment.

• Conner’s rating scale was reported to rule out ADHD when, in fact, results were inclusive and pointed to increased importance of looking at other data.

• District report discounted scores on another strong measure of attention.

• District report deprived IEP Team of important information when considering eligibility.

• Data and Conner’s rating scale pointed to possible ED.

• District should have reported to IEP Team and parent and proceeded with further testing for ED.

• Failure to do so meant district did not assess in all areas of suspected disability in violation of IDEA.

Docket No. 026-SE-1009 (Aleman 2010)

District’s attempt to prove its evaluation was appropriate in response to a request for an IEE failed, in part, because one assessment instrument was not to be used with students who are hearing impaired. Its use was contrary to producer’s instructions. Also, evaluation was not in the student’s mode of communication when those who administered evaluation instruments could not sign.

Docket No. 197-SE-0410 (Rubinett 2011)

District proved its evaluation was appropriate. District had no reason to suspect autism in the initial evaluation. Student’s behaviors were consistent with ED. After parent raised possibility of autism, parent refused district’s offer of further evaluation.

• Knowing student was diagnosed with ADHD, district should have evaluated for OHI in the initial evaluation.

• Procedural violation not to do so.• Procedural violation did not

result in harm to student. IEP specifically addressed ADHD and attention issues.

• Because ED was suspected, initial evaluation should have included a counseling evaluation.

• Failure to do so was procedural violation.

• Procedural violation did not result in harm to the student. Parents rejected counseling services based on later appropriate evaluation and student was provided FAPE through IEP.

Procedural violation not to do FBA as part of initial evaluation.

Completion of FBA at IEP Team meeting rather than by observations over time in a variety of settings was not in accordance with best practices.

Any procedural violation was not actionable because BIP, behavioral IEP and accommodations and strategies were appropriate – no harm to the student.

Access to test protocols

Letter to McDonald, 20 IDELR 1159 (OSEP 1993)

Parent is not entitled to a copy of test protocols that are not identifiable to the student. They are not education records of the student.

Parent has right to explanation/ interpretation of evaluation or other educational records related to testing that constitutes basis for educational decisions.

Reg. 300.613(b)(1).

Docket No. 026-SE-1009 (Aleman 2010)

District’s reevaluation of student done by team of persons including outside evaluator. Outside evaluator not instructed to retain test protocols (defined as test booklets with responses and scores recorded). Parents not informed of destruction. Parent’s expert would have reviewed if they had been available.

Destruction of protocols by outside evaluator impeded parent’s opportunity to participate in decision-making process to provide FAPE, and violated requirement that they be notified when personally identifiable information is no longer needed. (Reg. 300.624).

Federal District Court

Destruction not a per se violation of requirement to document

information under IDEA.In this case, destruction impeded

parents’ opportunity to participate in decision- making process.

REEVALUATIONS

Reevaluation addresses changing needs:• Every 3 years, unless district and

school agree it is unnecessary; and

• Parent/teacher requests reevaluation;

• District determines reevaluation is needed.

• Not more than 1 per year, unless parent and district agree.

Reg. 300.303

Three Phases of a reevaluation

1. An initial review of existing assessment data;

2. Administration of any needed assessments;

3. Interpretation of results and determination of eligibility and education needs.

Same requirements for procedures, test instruments and administration apply but:

• Individualized to address current needs.• Review of existing evaluation data may

indicate no additional data is needed to determine whether student continues to have a disability and to determine educational needs;

• If so, notify parent of right to request an assessment.

Reg. 300.305

Does a special education student who withdraws

from public school to go to a private school have a right to a reevaluation?

Docket No. 107-SE-110 (Ramage 2010)

• Parentally placed private school children have no right to FAPE, only to be considered for proportionate share services;

• School has Child Find duty to all children in its boundaries including those in private schools.

• District was required to reevaluate student at least every 3 years as part of its ongoing Child Find duties.

Similar HoldingDocket No. 076-SE-1209

(McElvaney 2010)

Who Chooses the Evaluators?

Andress v. Cleveland Independent School District, 64 F.3d 176 (5th Cir. 1995) A parent who wants student to continue to receive special education services must allow the district to reevaluate the student using its own personnel even if the parent claims the reevaluation will pose a mental health risk. District did not have to accept parent’s evaluation. If parent does not allow reevaluation, student will no longer be eligible for services after reevaluation is due.

Tustin Unified School District, 110 LRP 24125 (SEA CA April 2010)

Even though IEP documents stated the assessor who performed the three year reevaluations the last two times would also perform the next one, the district was free to choose another qualified person to perform the reevaluation. The district did not have to accept and rely on the parent’s evaluation.

Shelby S. v. Conroe Independent School District, 454 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2006)

District could require medically fragile student to be reevaluated by doctor of its choice to determine nature of her condition and the specific accommodations she required.

Evaluation was not a violation of her right to privacy. Student is free to decline special education rather than submit to evaluation.

EVALUATIONS TO END SERVICES

What if the District Suspects a Student no

longer has a Disability?

Before determining a child is no longer a child with a disability, the district must evaluate the student.

Reg. 300.305(e)

Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist., 113 LRP 33649 (May 23, 2013)

Parents refused to consent to a reevaluation to determine if student should be dismissed from special education. Hearing officer ruled that there was legitimate concern that student no longer qualified and a reevaluation was necessary

Under IDEA regulations, there is no requirement for an FIE before graduation.

BUT – Commissioner’s Rules REQUIRE an evaluation to be included as part of the summary of academic achievement and functional performance which the district must provide to students who are graduating.

19 Tex. Adm. Code § 89.1070(e)

LESSONS LEARNED

1. Train ALL staff to be sensitive to circumstances which may indicate a need for a special education evaluation:

• Struggling academically despite reasonable efforts on student’s part

• Student receiving RtI and having discipline problems

• RtI starts to look like specialized instruction

• Parent reports diagnosis of a disability whether there is a medical report or not

• Social isolation and withdrawal• Extreme emotional meltdowns and

outbursts• Student is placed in a mental health

facility

2. Be aware of two key issues:

a. When did district have reason to suspect student may have a disability and, because of it, need special education and related services?

b. Did district begin the evaluation process within a reasonable time after there is reason to suspect a disability and need for special education?

3. Once there is reason to suspect a disability and a need for special education, do not delay the evaluation process while student participates in RtI services.

4. Every evaluation and reevaluation should comply with IDEA requirements for evaluation procedures, evaluation instruments and evaluation administration. It may be cheaper to pay for an IEE but every evaluation should be good enough to give the district the option to ask for a hearing to show it is appropriate.

5. If district timely seeks consent for initial evaluation, this begins the evaluation process and satisfies the district’s child find duty.

6. If parent refuses consent for initial evaluation, should district request due process hearing to override lack of consent?- Yes - But parent may still refuse special education services after the evaluation.- No - District will not be out of compliance with Child Find and evaluation requirements of IDEA.- Must decide on a case-by-case

basis.- DOCUMENT

7. Parent cannot control the nature or extent of an initial evaluation, or the persons who perform it, through selective consent. Selective consent is not consent. District may request due process to override lack of consent to fully evaluate.

8. During any evaluation, if circumstances indicate additional areas that should be evaluated than originally planned, district should seek consent for more testing so that all areas of suspected disability are evaluated.

9. Parent refuses consent for reevaluation, or gives only selective consent, District may, but is not required to, use due process hearing to override lack of consent and fully evaluate.

10. District can refuse parent request for evaluation at any time, but district must provide full and complete prior written notice.

Janet L. HortonThompson & Horton LLP

Phoenix Tower, Suite 20003200 Southwest Freeway

Houston, Texas 77027-7554

© Thompson & Horton LLP

2014