District Wins: Psychoeducational Assessment Upheld, No IEE Required for Student with Complex Diagnoses

Oak Grove School District filed for due process to defend its psychoeducational assessment of a 10-year-old girl adopted from Russia who had diagnoses including Reactive Attachment Disorder, PTSD, and suspected Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. The parents disagreed with the assessment and requested a publicly funded Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). The ALJ found the District's assessment was appropriate in all respects and ruled the District was not required to fund an IEE.

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old girl adopted from a Russian orphanage in 2004. She carried diagnoses of Reactive Attachment Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Cognitive Disorder (Not Otherwise Specified), and a suspected Alcohol Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND), a type of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD). Her parents had obtained a private psychoeducational evaluation in 2006 from Dr. Melody London, which identified significant cognitive, behavioral, and social-emotional weaknesses. In October 2006, the parents asked Oak Grove School District to assess Student for special education eligibility. The District conducted its own psychoeducational assessment between late 2006 and early 2007, covering cognitive development, academic achievement, speech and language, and social/adaptive functioning.

After reviewing the assessment results at an April 2007 IEP meeting, the District's team concluded that Student was not eligible for special education. The parents disagreed with both that conclusion and with how the assessment was conducted. In August 2007, they requested a publicly funded Independent Educational Evaluation. Rather than pay for the IEE, the District filed for a due process hearing to defend the adequacy of its assessment. The hearing focused solely on whether the District's psychoeducational assessment met legal standards — the question of Student's eligibility for special education was not decided in this case.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the District, finding that the psychoeducational assessment was appropriate in every contested area:

Assessment covered all areas of suspected disability. Although the parents argued that the school psychologist should have administered additional memory subtests (the Atlantis Delayed and Rebus Delayed subtests of the KABC-II), those subtests were optional. The District had already assessed memory through multiple other subtests, and an expert witness confirmed no area of suspected disability was left untested.
Skipping the BASC-2 self-report was appropriate. The parents argued that the behavioral rating tool (BASC-2) was improperly administered because Student never filled out a self-report form. The ALJ found that the BASC-2 instructions did not require a self-report, that self-reports are not typically given to children Student's age, and that Student's documented history of frequent lying further supported the assessor's decision to omit it.
Re-administration of the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale was proper. The teacher initially had uncertainty about how to fill out the behavior rating form and completed it a second time after receiving clarification. The parents argued the second, less severe set of ratings masked Student's behavioral problems. The ALJ found the CTRS manual explicitly allows re-administration, and that some variation between administrations is normal and does not invalidate the results.
The Vineland was not culturally discriminatory. The parents argued the Vineland adaptive behavior scale was biased because it was not normed on children raised in Russian orphanages. The ALJ found no evidence to support this claim, noting the Vineland does not test cultural knowledge and allows "not applicable" responses for questions that don't fit a child's circumstances.
The school psychologist did not need expertise in FASDs. The parents argued the assessor was unqualified because she lacked specific training in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. The ALJ held that the legal requirement is only that assessors be knowledgeable about the student's potential special education disability categories (such as emotional disturbance) — not about every medical diagnosis a student may carry. FASDs are not listed as a special education disability category under California or federal law.
The assessment adequately considered information from parents. The parents argued the assessor "largely ignored" Dr. London's private evaluation. The ALJ found the assessor had reviewed, referenced, and documented Dr. London's report in the psychoeducational assessment. Disagreement about how much weight to give Dr. London's findings was not sufficient to invalidate the District's assessment.

What Was Ordered

The District's psychoeducational assessment was found to be appropriate and in compliance with all legal requirements.
The District was not required to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense.
No compensatory services, additional assessments, or other remedies were ordered. The parents' requests were denied in full.

Why This Matters for Parents

Requesting an IEE triggers a District's right to defend its assessment in court. When a parent disagrees with a District assessment and requests a publicly funded IEE, the District can respond by filing for due process to prove its assessment was adequate. If the District wins, it owes no IEE. Before requesting an IEE, parents should consult with an advocate or attorney to evaluate whether the District's assessment has clear, documentable flaws.
"All areas of suspected disability" does not mean every possible subtest. The law requires assessment in all areas related to a suspected disability, but Districts have discretion in choosing which specific tools and subtests to use within those areas. If you believe an important area was missed entirely, document why in writing — that is stronger grounds for challenging an assessment than arguing about which optional subtests were chosen.
A medical diagnosis alone does not create a legal obligation for the District. The ALJ made clear that the District's assessor only needed to know about special education disability categories (like emotional disturbance), not medical diagnoses like FASD. If your child has a complex medical condition, it may be worth requesting that the IEP team invite a specialist, or commissioning a private assessment by someone trained in that condition before the District's assessment is completed.
Rating scale re-administration can be legally defensible. If a teacher fills out a behavioral rating form and the results seem to shift after re-administration, this can be hard to challenge legally if the test manual permits it. If you have concerns about how a rating scale was filled out, ask in writing — before the IEP meeting — for the original completed form and any notes from the assessor about the administration process.
Private evaluations carry limited weight if the District formally disagrees. Although the parents had a detailed private evaluation from Dr. London, the District was only required to review and consider it — not to adopt its conclusions. If you rely on a private evaluation to drive an IEP, it is more powerful to bring that evaluator to the IEP meeting in person, where their findings can be directly discussed and harder to set aside.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the District, finding that the psychoeducational assessment was appropriate in every contested area:

Assessment covered all areas of suspected disability. Although the parents argued that the school psychologist should have administered additional memory subtests (the Atlantis Delayed and Rebus Delayed subtests of the KABC-II), those subtests were optional. The District had already assessed memory through multiple other subtests, and an expert witness confirmed no area of suspected disability was left untested.
Skipping the BASC-2 self-report was appropriate. The parents argued that the behavioral rating tool (BASC-2) was improperly administered because Student never filled out a self-report form. The ALJ found that the BASC-2 instructions did not require a self-report, that self-reports are not typically given to children Student's age, and that Student's documented history of frequent lying further supported the assessor's decision to omit it.
Re-administration of the Conners' Teacher Rating Scale was proper. The teacher initially had uncertainty about how to fill out the behavior rating form and completed it a second time after receiving clarification. The parents argued the second, less severe set of ratings masked Student's behavioral problems. The ALJ found the CTRS manual explicitly allows re-administration, and that some variation between administrations is normal and does not invalidate the results.
The Vineland was not culturally discriminatory. The parents argued the Vineland adaptive behavior scale was biased because it was not normed on children raised in Russian orphanages. The ALJ found no evidence to support this claim, noting the Vineland does not test cultural knowledge and allows "not applicable" responses for questions that don't fit a child's circumstances.
The school psychologist did not need expertise in FASDs. The parents argued the assessor was unqualified because she lacked specific training in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. The ALJ held that the legal requirement is only that assessors be knowledgeable about the student's potential special education disability categories (such as emotional disturbance) — not about every medical diagnosis a student may carry. FASDs are not listed as a special education disability category under California or federal law.
The assessment adequately considered information from parents. The parents argued the assessor "largely ignored" Dr. London's private evaluation. The ALJ found the assessor had reviewed, referenced, and documented Dr. London's report in the psychoeducational assessment. Disagreement about how much weight to give Dr. London's findings was not sufficient to invalidate the District's assessment.

What Was Ordered

The District's psychoeducational assessment was found to be appropriate and in compliance with all legal requirements.
The District was not required to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense.
No compensatory services, additional assessments, or other remedies were ordered. The parents' requests were denied in full.

Why This Matters for Parents

Requesting an IEE triggers a District's right to defend its assessment in court. When a parent disagrees with a District assessment and requests a publicly funded IEE, the District can respond by filing for due process to prove its assessment was adequate. If the District wins, it owes no IEE. Before requesting an IEE, parents should consult with an advocate or attorney to evaluate whether the District's assessment has clear, documentable flaws.
"All areas of suspected disability" does not mean every possible subtest. The law requires assessment in all areas related to a suspected disability, but Districts have discretion in choosing which specific tools and subtests to use within those areas. If you believe an important area was missed entirely, document why in writing — that is stronger grounds for challenging an assessment than arguing about which optional subtests were chosen.
A medical diagnosis alone does not create a legal obligation for the District. The ALJ made clear that the District's assessor only needed to know about special education disability categories (like emotional disturbance), not medical diagnoses like FASD. If your child has a complex medical condition, it may be worth requesting that the IEP team invite a specialist, or commissioning a private assessment by someone trained in that condition before the District's assessment is completed.
Rating scale re-administration can be legally defensible. If a teacher fills out a behavioral rating form and the results seem to shift after re-administration, this can be hard to challenge legally if the test manual permits it. If you have concerns about how a rating scale was filled out, ask in writing — before the IEP meeting — for the original completed form and any notes from the assessor about the administration process.
Private evaluations carry limited weight if the District formally disagrees. Although the parents had a detailed private evaluation from Dr. London, the District was only required to review and consider it — not to adopt its conclusions. If you rely on a private evaluation to drive an IEP, it is more powerful to bring that evaluator to the IEP meeting in person, where their findings can be directly discussed and harder to set aside.