LAUSD's OT and Psychoeducational Assessments Upheld; IEEs Denied

A mother challenged Los Angeles Unified School District's occupational therapy and psychoeducational assessments of her 10-year-old daughter, arguing the OT lacked sufficient sensory processing experience and the psychoeducational assessment failed to address low subtest scores and home behaviors. The ALJ found both assessments appropriate and ruled the student was not entitled to independent educational evaluations at public expense. The district prevailed on all issues.

What Happened

Student is a 10-year-old girl attending a private Hebrew Academy within the boundaries of Los Angeles Unified School District. Her mother requested that the district assess Student for special education eligibility because of concerns about inattention and distractibility at home. The district conducted both an occupational therapy (OT) assessment and a psychoeducational assessment. After reviewing the results, Mother disagreed with both assessments and requested Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs) — meaning she wanted the district to pay for outside experts to re-evaluate Student.

The district refused to fund the IEEs and instead filed for a due process hearing to defend its assessments. Mother argued that the OT who conducted the sensory evaluation lacked sufficient experience in sensory processing and integration, and that the school psychologist's report failed to account for Student's low scores on several academic subtests and the behavioral concerns she observed at home. The ALJ heard testimony from the district's occupational therapist, resource specialist, and school psychologist, and ultimately sided with the district on every issue.

What the ALJ Found

The OT Assessment Was Appropriate. The occupational therapist held a bachelor's degree in OT and Psychology, was board certified, and had been licensed since 2002. She used a parent interview, clinical observation, a structured sensory observation protocol, and the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration. She evaluated Student's fine motor skills, sensory modulation, sensory processing, postural stability, and other areas using hands-on activities. Student performed at average or above-average levels in every area tested. The ALJ concluded that while the OT did not have extensive experience specifically in sensory integration, she had sufficient education and professional experience to conduct the assessment competently. The instruments used were validated and appropriate.

The Psychoeducational Assessment Was Appropriate. The resource specialist administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement and found Student performing at or above average in 29 of 34 subtests. Although Student scored below grade level on five subtests — including a notably low score on spelling of sounds — the examiner credibly explained that the low spelling score likely reflected fatigue, as it was the last subtest administered. The school psychologist used an extensive battery of tools and found Student functioning in the average-to-superior range cognitively, academically, and socially. The ALJ acknowledged that Mother's home-based rating scales showed elevated concern for inattention and hyperactivity, but noted that teacher reports and school-based ratings showed no such concerns. Student was earning all A's at her private school, and her teacher saw no need for testing. Because the concerns did not appear in the school environment and were not affecting academic performance, the assessment was found to be thorough and appropriate.

No IEEs Were Warranted. Because both assessments were found appropriate, the student had no legal right to independent evaluations at public expense.

What Was Ordered

The district's occupational therapy assessment was found appropriate.
The district's psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate.
Student's request for independent educational evaluations at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's assessor does not need to be a specialist — just competent. The law requires assessors to be knowledgeable about the student's disability and competent to perform the evaluation. "Competent" does not mean the most experienced specialist available. If you believe the district's evaluator lacked critical expertise, you will need specific evidence that the assessment was actually flawed — not just that someone with more experience might have done it differently.
Home-based concerns alone may not be enough to challenge an assessment. This case shows that when a student performs well at school and teachers report no concerns, an ALJ is likely to give significant weight to school-based data over parent-reported home behaviors. If your child's struggles are primarily visible at home, consider gathering documentation from other settings — therapists, tutors, or outside observers — before a hearing.
Low scores on individual subtests don't automatically make an assessment deficient. The district's examiner explained away a very low spelling score by pointing to fatigue. If you believe a low subtest score reflects a real problem, come prepared with an alternative explanation backed by outside data or expert opinion.
To win an IEE, you must first show the district's assessment was flawed. A parent's disagreement alone is not enough — the district can file for a hearing to defend its assessment, and if it succeeds, it owes nothing. Before requesting an IEE, consider consulting with an independent expert who can review the district's report and identify specific technical deficiencies.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

No IEEs Were Warranted. Because both assessments were found appropriate, the student had no legal right to independent evaluations at public expense.

What Was Ordered

The district's occupational therapy assessment was found appropriate.
The district's psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate.
Student's request for independent educational evaluations at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's assessor does not need to be a specialist — just competent. The law requires assessors to be knowledgeable about the student's disability and competent to perform the evaluation. "Competent" does not mean the most experienced specialist available. If you believe the district's evaluator lacked critical expertise, you will need specific evidence that the assessment was actually flawed — not just that someone with more experience might have done it differently.
Home-based concerns alone may not be enough to challenge an assessment. This case shows that when a student performs well at school and teachers report no concerns, an ALJ is likely to give significant weight to school-based data over parent-reported home behaviors. If your child's struggles are primarily visible at home, consider gathering documentation from other settings — therapists, tutors, or outside observers — before a hearing.
Low scores on individual subtests don't automatically make an assessment deficient. The district's examiner explained away a very low spelling score by pointing to fatigue. If you believe a low subtest score reflects a real problem, come prepared with an alternative explanation backed by outside data or expert opinion.
To win an IEE, you must first show the district's assessment was flawed. A parent's disagreement alone is not enough — the district can file for a hearing to defend its assessment, and if it succeeds, it owes nothing. Before requesting an IEE, consider consulting with an independent expert who can review the district's report and identify specific technical deficiencies.