Reported / Citable
Background
Annie M., a three-year-old child with Down syndrome, sought special-education services from Aledo Independent School District. The district proposed a full and individual initial evaluation that included cognitive testing. Although the diagnostician expected to begin with the informal, play-based DAYC-2 assessment, the proposed evaluation also identified the formal WPPSI and ECAD tests because further cognitive data might be necessary.
Annie’s mother crossed the formal tests off the evaluation notice and consented to the remainder. The district treated that response as a refusal to consent to the proposed evaluation and declined to proceed unless the parents consented to the full evaluation. A hearing officer authorized the district to override the lack of consent and found the proposed tests appropriate. The parents then sued under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, and the parents appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The majority held that the WPPSI and ECAD were appropriately included in the proposed evaluation and that the IDEA does not permit parents to give “partial” consent to an otherwise valid initial evaluation. In the majority’s view, parents may consent to or refuse the proposed evaluation, but they may not require a district to evaluate a child using only the assessment tools they select.
The court also held that the district made reasonable efforts to obtain informed consent by repeatedly communicating with Annie’s mother, revising the evaluation notice, meeting with the parents, offering to let them observe the evaluation and revoke consent, and remaining willing to evaluate Annie. Because the parents never consented to the validly proposed evaluation, the district’s obligation to provide Annie a free appropriate public education was not triggered.
The court rejected the district court’s stated reasons for dismissing the ADA claim, explaining that IDEA-specific testing is not required to establish an ADA disability and that intentional discrimination is unnecessary when a plaintiff seeks only equitable relief. It nevertheless affirmed on the alternative ground that the parents’ ADA theory depended entirely on the same failed contention underlying their IDEA claim. Judge Oldham dissented, arguing that the IDEA permits consent to mutually agreeable assessments and that Annie’s ADA claims required independent consideration.
Key Takeaways
- The IDEA does not require a school district to accept partial parental consent to an otherwise validly proposed initial evaluation.
- Parents may refuse an initial evaluation, but that refusal prevents the district’s FAPE obligation from being triggered unless the lack of consent is overridden.
- An ADA claim that merely duplicates an unsuccessful IDEA claim may fail with it, although IDEA-specific testing is not required to establish disability under the ADA.
Why It Matters
The decision gives Fifth Circuit school districts substantial control over the design of initial IDEA evaluations, provided the proposed assessments comply with federal law and the district reasonably seeks informed parental consent. Parents retain the right to refuse, but cannot compel a district to conduct only selected portions of a valid evaluation while still demanding IDEA services.
The ruling also underscores that ADA and IDEA claims are legally distinct, even though a duplicative ADA theory may fail when its underlying IDEA premise is rejected.