Bellflower USD's Psychoeducational Assessment Upheld; Parent's IEE Request Denied

Bellflower Unified School District filed for due process after parents disagreed with its psychoeducational assessment of their 17-year-old daughter and demanded an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The ALJ found the district's assessment was thorough, legally compliant, and conducted by a qualified school psychologist. As a result, the student was not entitled to a publicly funded IEE.

What Happened

Student was a 17-year-old twelfth-grader at Mayfair High School in Bellflower Unified School District. She had never previously been identified as eligible for special education, but had a long history of low grades and high absenteeism. In May 2007, the district informed Student that she lacked five required math credits to graduate. Around the same time, Parents referred Student for an initial special education assessment, suspecting a learning disability — primarily in mathematics. Parents signed the assessment plan, and the district's school psychologist conducted a psychoeducational assessment in June and July 2007.

At an IEP meeting on July 26, 2007, the district presented the assessment results and concluded that Student did not have a learning disability. Parents and their advocate attended the meeting and disagreed with the assessment. They immediately requested an IEE — an independent educational evaluation conducted by someone outside the district — at public expense. The district declined, notified Parents in writing on August 1, 2007, and filed for a due process hearing to defend the appropriateness of its assessment. Parents did not appear at the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the district on both issues. The school psychologist, Mr. Avalos, was a credentialed professional with ten years of experience who administered a comprehensive battery of standardized tests: the WAIS-III (cognitive ability), the CAS (planning and attention), the WJ-III and KTEA-2 (academic achievement in reading, math, and writing), the TAPS-3 (auditory processing), and the VMI (visual-motor integration). He also reviewed school records, teacher reports, attendance and disciplinary history, and interviewed Student. The assessment was conducted in English, Student's primary daily language, and was completed and reviewed at an IEP meeting within the legally required 60-day window.

The results showed that Student's overall cognitive ability was in the average range (Full Scale IQ of 95), and her academic achievement was generally consistent with her cognitive ability — meaning there was no significant discrepancy that would indicate a specific learning disability. Student's low math scores were noted, but the ALJ found these were better explained by her significant absenteeism (missing at least 25% of school time, including most days of her Algebra I class) and frustration with multi-step problems, rather than a disability. Because the district proved its assessment was appropriate and legally compliant, the student was not entitled to a publicly funded IEE.

What Was Ordered

The district's 2007 psychoeducational assessment was found to be appropriate.
Student's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can go to hearing to defend its assessment rather than pay for an IEE. When a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the district has a choice: fund the IEE, or file for due process and prove its assessment was appropriate. In this case, the district chose to go to hearing — and won. Parents should be aware that requesting an IEE does not automatically guarantee one.
Assessment quality is judged by process, not just outcome. The ALJ focused on whether the district followed the legal rules: Was the assessor qualified? Were multiple tests used? Was Student assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability? Was it done on time? The district checked every box, which is why the assessment held up. When reviewing your child's assessment, look critically at these same factors.
Attendance and other non-disability factors can explain low academic performance. The ALJ noted that Student's significant absenteeism — missing 25% or more of school — was a major factor in her academic struggles, and that this was not evidence of a disability. If your child has chronic absences, the district may use this to argue that poor grades are not disability-related. It is important to address attendance issues separately and document any underlying reasons for absences.
If you disagree with an assessment, show up to the hearing. Parents in this case did not appear at the due process hearing, did not file required paperwork, and did not present any competing evidence. A hearing is the only formal opportunity to challenge a district's assessment. If you believe your child's evaluation was inadequate, consult with an advocate or attorney before the hearing — and attend.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district's 2007 psychoeducational assessment was found to be appropriate.
Student's request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense was denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can go to hearing to defend its assessment rather than pay for an IEE. When a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the district has a choice: fund the IEE, or file for due process and prove its assessment was appropriate. In this case, the district chose to go to hearing — and won. Parents should be aware that requesting an IEE does not automatically guarantee one.
Assessment quality is judged by process, not just outcome. The ALJ focused on whether the district followed the legal rules: Was the assessor qualified? Were multiple tests used? Was Student assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability? Was it done on time? The district checked every box, which is why the assessment held up. When reviewing your child's assessment, look critically at these same factors.
Attendance and other non-disability factors can explain low academic performance. The ALJ noted that Student's significant absenteeism — missing 25% or more of school — was a major factor in her academic struggles, and that this was not evidence of a disability. If your child has chronic absences, the district may use this to argue that poor grades are not disability-related. It is important to address attendance issues separately and document any underlying reasons for absences.
If you disagree with an assessment, show up to the hearing. Parents in this case did not appear at the due process hearing, did not file required paperwork, and did not present any competing evidence. A hearing is the only formal opportunity to challenge a district's assessment. If you believe your child's evaluation was inadequate, consult with an advocate or attorney before the hearing — and attend.