Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parent alleges Valley View failed to evaluate son under IDEA and Section 504; board hears allegation
Summary
At the Aug. 4 meeting, parent Albert Lopez alleged the district denied a documented request for special-education evaluation and did not provide procedural safeguards required under IDEA and Section 504; he said an appeal to Assistant Superintendent Paulson was denied.
A parent told the Valley View School Board on Aug. 4 that the district failed to evaluate his son for special‑education services after the family provided a professional neuropsychological evaluation and asserted that required procedural safeguards under federal law were not provided.
Albert Lopez, who identified himself as a parent of a newly enrolled student at John J. Lukantic Middle School, said the family first disclosed the student’s ADHD diagnosis in writing on May 27, 2025, and later submitted a full neuropsychological report and a request for evaluation. “This is not a disagreement about grade level. This is a civil rights issue, and it's a procedural violation with legal and educational consequences,” Lopez said during public comment. He said the district never issued a request-for-evaluation form, never convened a multidisciplinary team, and did not provide prior written notice or procedural safeguards required under federal law.
Lopez said he filed an internal appeal that was denied by Assistant Superintendent Paulson. He cited the federal regulations that require prior written notice, referring specifically to 34 C.F.R. § 300.503, and told the board he intended to pursue the matter further if the district does not rectify the procedural steps.
Why it matters: allegations of failure to follow IDEA and Section 504 evaluation procedures raise legal and educational implications for a student’s access to special education and related services. The parent characterized the issue as a civil‑rights matter; the board did not take action during the public‑comment period.
What the meeting record shows: Lopez made the allegations during the public‑comment segment. The transcript records his claim that he offered the neuropsychological evaluation at an in‑person meeting on July 11, 2025, and that the district did not provide procedural safeguards until well after May 27, 2025. The board did not announce any immediate administrative response during the meeting record contained in the transcript.
Provenance: the parent’s public comment appears between roughly the 1579–1811 second marks of the transcript.
