District's Triennial Assessment of High Schooler with Speech/Language Disability Upheld as Appropriate

Sequoia Union High School District filed for due process to defend its triennial assessment of a 14-year-old student with a speech and language disability after the parent disagreed with the evaluation. The ALJ found the district's multi-disciplinary assessment — covering speech and language, psychoeducational, and academic areas — was thorough, properly conducted, and legally appropriate. Because the assessment was upheld, the parent was not entitled to a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE).

What Happened

A 14-year-old freshman at Woodside High School had been receiving special education services since kindergarten under a speech and language eligibility category. When she transitioned from Menlo Park City School District to Sequoia Union High School District, concerns arose about her academic progress, behavior, and social functioning. The district's last signed IEP was from 2004, so it needed an updated triennial evaluation to understand her current needs and develop a new IEP. After the parent consented to an assessment plan in November 2005, the district conducted a multi-disciplinary evaluation — including speech and language testing, a psychoeducational evaluation, and an academic assessment — completed in January 2006.

The parent disagreed with the district's assessment and sought a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE). Under federal and California law, a district must either fund the IEE or file for due process to prove its own assessment was appropriate. The district chose to go to hearing. The student's mother represented her at the hearing; the student herself did not attend.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding the triennial assessment was appropriate in every respect. Key findings included:

Qualified assessors: Each evaluator — the school psychologist, speech and language therapist, and resource teacher — held the required credentials and had extensive experience in their fields. The school psychologist was also a nationally certified school psychologist and doctoral candidate.
Thorough background review: All three evaluators reviewed Student's prior IEPs, school records, teacher reports, and behavioral observations before choosing assessment tools. They also communicated with each other and with the parent about areas of concern.
Validated, appropriate testing instruments: The district used well-recognized, valid testing tools — including the WISC-IV, CELF-IV, Woodcock-Johnson III, and Adolescent Test of Problem Solving — all administered in accordance with the test publishers' instructions.
Assessment covered all areas of suspected disability: The evaluation addressed speech and language, cognitive/intellectual functioning, academic achievement, social-emotional functioning, and behavior — covering the full range of concerns, including the possibility of a specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, and autism.
Results were credible and informative: Student's scores generally showed average to above-average language skills, average cognitive processing, and on-grade-level math ability, with noted weaknesses in writing and passage comprehension. These findings were sufficient to guide IEP development.

What Was Ordered

The district's triennial assessment of the student was declared appropriate.
The parent's implicit request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) was effectively denied — because the district proved its assessment was appropriate, it was not required to fund an outside evaluation.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an assessment gives you IEE rights — but the district can challenge them. If you disagree with your child's district evaluation, you have the right to request an IEE at public expense. However, the district can respond by filing for due process to defend its assessment. If the district wins, you would have to pay for an independent evaluation yourself.
What makes an assessment "appropriate" under the law? The ALJ looked at whether assessors were credentialed, whether they reviewed background records, whether they used valid and properly administered tests, and whether they covered all areas of suspected disability. When districts check all these boxes, their assessments are likely to be upheld.
Document your concerns early and in writing. The mother in this case raised concerns about behavior and academic progress during phone calls. Putting those concerns in writing — in emails or letters — creates a clearer record of what the district knew and what areas it was obligated to assess.
You can cross out items on an assessment plan — but be strategic. The parent in this case crossed out certain assessment areas on the consent form. While that is your right, removing areas of evaluation can limit what the district looks at, and may later prevent you from arguing the assessment was incomplete.
If you want an IEE, act quickly and be specific about your objections. If you believe the district's assessment missed something — a particular disability area, an inappropriate test, or an unqualified evaluator — document those objections specifically. Vague disagreement is harder to sustain at a hearing than a targeted critique of the assessment's methods or scope.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding the triennial assessment was appropriate in every respect. Key findings included:

Qualified assessors: Each evaluator — the school psychologist, speech and language therapist, and resource teacher — held the required credentials and had extensive experience in their fields. The school psychologist was also a nationally certified school psychologist and doctoral candidate.
Thorough background review: All three evaluators reviewed Student's prior IEPs, school records, teacher reports, and behavioral observations before choosing assessment tools. They also communicated with each other and with the parent about areas of concern.
Validated, appropriate testing instruments: The district used well-recognized, valid testing tools — including the WISC-IV, CELF-IV, Woodcock-Johnson III, and Adolescent Test of Problem Solving — all administered in accordance with the test publishers' instructions.
Assessment covered all areas of suspected disability: The evaluation addressed speech and language, cognitive/intellectual functioning, academic achievement, social-emotional functioning, and behavior — covering the full range of concerns, including the possibility of a specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, and autism.
Results were credible and informative: Student's scores generally showed average to above-average language skills, average cognitive processing, and on-grade-level math ability, with noted weaknesses in writing and passage comprehension. These findings were sufficient to guide IEP development.

What Was Ordered

The district's triennial assessment of the student was declared appropriate.
The parent's implicit request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation (IEE) was effectively denied — because the district proved its assessment was appropriate, it was not required to fund an outside evaluation.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an assessment gives you IEE rights — but the district can challenge them. If you disagree with your child's district evaluation, you have the right to request an IEE at public expense. However, the district can respond by filing for due process to defend its assessment. If the district wins, you would have to pay for an independent evaluation yourself.
What makes an assessment "appropriate" under the law? The ALJ looked at whether assessors were credentialed, whether they reviewed background records, whether they used valid and properly administered tests, and whether they covered all areas of suspected disability. When districts check all these boxes, their assessments are likely to be upheld.
Document your concerns early and in writing. The mother in this case raised concerns about behavior and academic progress during phone calls. Putting those concerns in writing — in emails or letters — creates a clearer record of what the district knew and what areas it was obligated to assess.
You can cross out items on an assessment plan — but be strategic. The parent in this case crossed out certain assessment areas on the consent form. While that is your right, removing areas of evaluation can limit what the district looks at, and may later prevent you from arguing the assessment was incomplete.
If you want an IEE, act quickly and be specific about your objections. If you believe the district's assessment missed something — a particular disability area, an inappropriate test, or an unqualified evaluator — document those objections specifically. Vague disagreement is harder to sustain at a hearing than a targeted critique of the assessment's methods or scope.