District's Vision Assessment Upheld; Parent's Request for Independent Evaluation Denied

Tustin Unified School District filed for due process after a parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of her daughter's vision, disagreeing with the district's assessment. ALJ Clara L. Slifkin found that the district's vision assessment was appropriate and legally compliant, and therefore the student was not entitled to a publicly funded IEE. The district prevailed on all issues.

What Happened

Student is a 16-year-old girl eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability. In May 2006, Parent requested that the district assess Student in the area of visual processing, citing concerns about Student's lack of educational progress and failing grades. The district agreed and sent an assessment plan, which Parent consented to in June 2006. The district referred Student to Jane Vogel, a vision specialist with over 35 years of experience in special education, to conduct a comprehensive vision assessment. Vogel completed the assessment on September 1, 2006.

After multiple IEP meetings in late 2006 and early 2007 where the assessment results were discussed, Parent disagreed with the district's findings and requested an IEE — meaning an independent evaluation paid for by the district — conducted specifically by a Doctor of Optometry. Parent also argued that Vogel lacked sufficient experience in sensory processing and sensory integration. The district denied the request, asserting its assessment was thorough and legally appropriate. The district then filed for due process to defend its assessment and prevent the IEE from being ordered at public expense.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on both issues. The hearing officer found that Vogel was fully qualified to conduct Student's vision assessment, even though she was not an optometrist. Vogel held six California teaching credentials in areas including visual impairment, had worked in special education since 1970, had conducted hundreds of vision assessments, attended courses at the College of Optometry, and had trained directly with optometrists. She even served on the California Board of Optometry. The ALJ concluded this background gave her the education and professional experience needed to competently assess Student.

The ALJ also found that the tests Vogel used — including the Snellen Acuity Test, the Ishihara Color Vision Test, the Piaget Right-Left Awareness Test, the Slosson Drawing Coordination Test, and the TVPS-R-UL — were all validated, appropriate, and administered correctly and without discrimination. Vogel assessed Student across multiple areas: visual acuity, color vision, visual motor integration, visual perceptual skills, reading behavior, basic eye functions, ocular alignment, and ocular motility. The ALJ found the assessment was comprehensive and did not rely on any single test. Importantly, the Parent presented no testimony or documentary evidence to challenge the district's findings.

Because the district's assessment was found to be appropriate, the ALJ concluded that Student had no legal right to a publicly funded IEE.

What Was Ordered

The district's vision assessment was found to be appropriate and legally compliant.
Student's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an IEE, but the district can challenge it in court. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment, the law gives parents the right to request an independent evaluation at the district's expense. However, the district does not have to automatically pay — it can file for due process to defend its assessment. If the district wins, it does not have to fund the IEE.
The assessor does not have to hold the most specialized credential available — they just need to be competent. The law requires that assessors be knowledgeable about the student's disability and competent to conduct the assessment. In this case, the ALJ found that a credentialed vision specialist with decades of experience was qualified even without a doctorate in optometry. Experience and training can matter as much as job title.
Bring your own evidence to the hearing. Parent's case was significantly weakened because no testimony or documents were presented to counter the district's evidence. If you disagree with a district assessment, gather your own expert opinions, outside evaluations, or records before the hearing — your disagreement alone is not enough to win.
A comprehensive assessment uses multiple tools, not just one test. The law requires districts to use a variety of assessment methods, not rely on a single measure. If you believe a district's assessment was narrow or incomplete, document specifically which areas were not evaluated — that is a stronger legal argument than questioning the assessor's credentials alone.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Because the district's assessment was found to be appropriate, the ALJ concluded that Student had no legal right to a publicly funded IEE.

What Was Ordered

The district's vision assessment was found to be appropriate and legally compliant.
Student's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to request an IEE, but the district can challenge it in court. When a parent disagrees with a district's assessment, the law gives parents the right to request an independent evaluation at the district's expense. However, the district does not have to automatically pay — it can file for due process to defend its assessment. If the district wins, it does not have to fund the IEE.
The assessor does not have to hold the most specialized credential available — they just need to be competent. The law requires that assessors be knowledgeable about the student's disability and competent to conduct the assessment. In this case, the ALJ found that a credentialed vision specialist with decades of experience was qualified even without a doctorate in optometry. Experience and training can matter as much as job title.
Bring your own evidence to the hearing. Parent's case was significantly weakened because no testimony or documents were presented to counter the district's evidence. If you disagree with a district assessment, gather your own expert opinions, outside evaluations, or records before the hearing — your disagreement alone is not enough to win.
A comprehensive assessment uses multiple tools, not just one test. The law requires districts to use a variety of assessment methods, not rely on a single measure. If you believe a district's assessment was narrow or incomplete, document specifically which areas were not evaluated — that is a stronger legal argument than questioning the assessor's credentials alone.