District's Flawed Assessment Earns Student an Independent Evaluation at Public Expense

A 13-year-old student in Glendale Unified was assessed for special education eligibility after his parents raised concerns about his declining grades and a serious disciplinary incident. The district's psychologist and a special education teacher administered multiple tests, but the ALJ found the assessment was invalid due to protocol errors on key subtests and improper use of a behavior rating scale. Although the district filed to defend its assessment, the student prevailed and was awarded an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old boy who had never received special education services. He enrolled in Glendale Unified at the start of seventh grade, initially earning passing grades, but his academic performance dropped sharply in eighth grade. On March 4, 2008, Student was suspended after a teacher discovered he possessed firecrackers, a butterfly knife, brass knuckles, and a camera phone showing gang-related imagery. Student was arrested, and the district began expulsion proceedings. Parents asked the district to delay the disciplinary process and instead conduct a special education evaluation, concerned that Student's behavior and academic decline might be connected to an underlying disability — specifically ADHD, for which he had been taking Adderall each morning.

The district agreed to conduct an expedited assessment. A school psychologist administered cognitive, visual-motor, and social-emotional tests, while a special education teacher administered an academic achievement test (the Woodcock-Johnson III, or WJIII). At an IEP meeting on April 30, 2008, the team concluded Student was not eligible for special education. Parents disagreed and requested an IEE — an evaluation by an outside expert at the district's expense. The district refused and filed a due process complaint asking an ALJ to confirm that its assessment was appropriate. Student filed his own complaint. The cases were consolidated and heard together.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Student, finding that the district's assessment was not valid or reliable enough to support the conclusion that Student was ineligible for special education.

The academic testing contained multiple significant errors. The special education teacher who administered the WJIII failed to establish required "basal" and "ceiling" points on two subtests — passage comprehension and applied math problems. These starting and stopping points exist to ensure the test is scored accurately for each student's level. Without them, the results on those subtests cannot be considered reliable. The same evaluator also mis-scored three items on the writing samples subtest, awarding full credit for sentences that were grammatically incorrect, when the test protocol required correct punctuation for full marks. The district argued these errors were minor, but its own expert could not explain why the results were still trustworthy even if the tests were administered incorrectly — and admitted she would have recommended the same outcome even if the tests were proven invalid.

The social-emotional testing also had problems. The psychologist used the short form of the Conners' behavior rating scale — a tool used to assess ADHD symptoms — rather than the longer form, which provides more reliable and detailed information. When one teacher and Student's mother both rated Student as "markedly atypical" for ADHD-related behaviors, the psychologist simply averaged all teacher scores together, which obscured those significant ratings. Student's expert credibly testified that averaging scores this way is not appropriate and that the concerns raised by Mother and that teacher deserved serious consideration. Mother's input was particularly important because she assisted Student with homework and directly observed the behaviors most relevant to an ADHD evaluation.

The ALJ also found that the district failed to adequately consider Student's history of early head injuries, a consistent pattern of impulse-control problems across multiple schools, and the possibility that ADHD can first become apparent in middle or high school — not just in early childhood.

What Was Ordered

The district's request to have its assessment declared appropriate was denied.
Student is entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) conducted by the outside expert Dr. McCulloch, at the district's expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Test protocols exist for a reason — errors matter. When a district evaluator skips required steps in a standardized test (like basal and ceiling points), the results may not accurately reflect your child's abilities. If you suspect the assessment was not administered correctly, you have the right to ask how each test was given and whether the evaluator followed the publisher's instructions.
You have the right to an IEE if you disagree with the district's assessment. If the district evaluates your child and you believe the assessment was inadequate, you can formally request an Independent Educational Evaluation. The district must either pay for it or file for a due process hearing to defend its assessment. In this case, the district tried to defend its work — and lost.
Your input on behavior rating scales is legally meaningful. This case confirms that a parent's observations — especially about homework behavior and attention — are important data for ADHD evaluations. An evaluator cannot simply discount or average away a parent's "markedly atypical" rating without explanation.
ADHD does not always show up in kindergarten. The district's expert claimed ADHD must appear in early childhood. The ALJ rejected that argument. If your child's attention or behavior problems emerged later, that does not automatically disqualify them from an ADHD-related special education eligibility category.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of Student, finding that the district's assessment was not valid or reliable enough to support the conclusion that Student was ineligible for special education.

What Was Ordered

The district's request to have its assessment declared appropriate was denied.
Student is entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) conducted by the outside expert Dr. McCulloch, at the district's expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Test protocols exist for a reason — errors matter. When a district evaluator skips required steps in a standardized test (like basal and ceiling points), the results may not accurately reflect your child's abilities. If you suspect the assessment was not administered correctly, you have the right to ask how each test was given and whether the evaluator followed the publisher's instructions.
You have the right to an IEE if you disagree with the district's assessment. If the district evaluates your child and you believe the assessment was inadequate, you can formally request an Independent Educational Evaluation. The district must either pay for it or file for a due process hearing to defend its assessment. In this case, the district tried to defend its work — and lost.
Your input on behavior rating scales is legally meaningful. This case confirms that a parent's observations — especially about homework behavior and attention — are important data for ADHD evaluations. An evaluator cannot simply discount or average away a parent's "markedly atypical" rating without explanation.
ADHD does not always show up in kindergarten. The district's expert claimed ADHD must appear in early childhood. The ALJ rejected that argument. If your child's attention or behavior problems emerged later, that does not automatically disqualify them from an ADHD-related special education eligibility category.