District's OT Assessment Upheld; Parent Denied Independent Evaluation at Public Expense

Garvey School District filed for due process to defend its May 2008 occupational therapy assessment of a preschool-aged student with Down syndrome. The parent disagreed with the assessment and sought an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at district expense. The ALJ found the district's OT assessment was appropriate and denied the parent's request for a publicly funded IEE.

What Happened

Student was a four-and-a-half-year-old child with Down syndrome attending a preschool special day class in Garvey School District. She had severe global cognitive delays, was non-verbal, and received special education services including speech and language therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy (OT). In April 2008, the district prepared an assessment plan to conduct an OT evaluation, which the parent consented to. The district's OT — who had been providing services to the student for eight months — conducted the evaluation over several hours in May 2008, observing the student in both classroom and clinical settings, interviewing the teacher and an aide, reviewing records, and attempting (but ultimately abandoning) a standardized motor skills test because the student could not follow its instructions due to her cognitive delays.

The parent disagreed with the district's assessment, arguing it was incomplete and little more than a "screening." Just days before the district's assessment, the parent had obtained her own independent OT evaluation. The parent then requested that the district fund a new independent educational evaluation (IEE). Under federal and state law, when a parent disagrees with a district's assessment, the district must either fund an IEE or file for due process to defend its evaluation. Garvey School District chose to file for due process, and the ALJ ultimately sided with the district.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district's OT assessment was appropriate and that the parent's objections were not supported by the evidence.

On the assessor's qualifications: The parent and her independent evaluator argued that the district's OT was not qualified because he lacked certification in administering the Sensory Integration Praxis Test (SIPT). The ALJ rejected this argument, finding there is no California state law requiring SIPT certification for an OT to conduct assessments involving sensory processing. The district's OT held the required state license and registration, had a master's degree in occupational therapy, and had been working directly with the student for eight months — giving him substantial firsthand knowledge of her needs.

On the assessment methodology: The parent argued the assessment was incomplete because it lacked background developmental history, discussion of the causes of Student's deficits, treatment goals, oral motor evaluation, and a parent interview. The ALJ found these criticisms unpersuasive. The assessment appropriately focused on sensory processing, motor skills, and safety awareness — the specific areas of concern. Oral motor evaluation is properly the domain of speech-language therapy, not OT. Goals and objectives are not part of an assessment report; they are developed at the IEP meeting. While a parent interview would have been appropriate, the ALJ found its absence did not invalidate the assessment given its narrowly focused purpose.

On language and communication: The parent argued the assessment was flawed because the evaluator did not use American Sign Language with the student. The ALJ found no evidence that the student required ASL to access her education; she used only a few inconsistent signs and had no documented hearing impairment. The assessment was conducted in the student's native language with appropriate non-verbal support.

The independent evaluator retained by the parent — though critical of the district's methods — agreed with the district's core recommendation that OT services be provided in both classroom and clinical settings, which further undermined her overall criticism.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for an independent educational evaluation at district expense was denied.
The district's May 8, 2008 OT assessment was found appropriate in all respects.
No additional remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

When a district files due process to defend its assessment, it carries the burden of proof. In this case, the district had to prove its assessment was appropriate — the parent did not have to prove it was bad. This is an important protection: if a district wants to deny you an IEE, it has to convince a judge its own evaluation meets the legal standard.
An assessor's lack of advanced specialty certification does not automatically make an assessment invalid. California law sets minimum qualifications for OT assessors; it does not require SIPT certification or other advanced credentials. Focus on whether the evaluator was licensed, knowledgeable about your child, and used appropriate tools — not just whether they hold a particular specialty certificate.
A narrowly focused assessment can still be legally appropriate. Districts are not required to assess every possible area in a single evaluation — only the areas related to the specific purpose of that assessment. If you believe additional areas need to be assessed (like oral motor skills), ask the district to include those areas in the assessment plan before you consent.
Failing to interview a parent is a procedural flaw, but not necessarily a fatal one. The ALJ acknowledged it would have been appropriate to interview the parent, but found that omission did not invalidate the assessment given its limited scope. If you want your input included, insist on a parent interview or questionnaire in writing before the assessment begins.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that the district's OT assessment was appropriate and that the parent's objections were not supported by the evidence.

What Was Ordered

The student's request for an independent educational evaluation at district expense was denied.
The district's May 8, 2008 OT assessment was found appropriate in all respects.
No additional remedies were ordered.

Why This Matters for Parents

When a district files due process to defend its assessment, it carries the burden of proof. In this case, the district had to prove its assessment was appropriate — the parent did not have to prove it was bad. This is an important protection: if a district wants to deny you an IEE, it has to convince a judge its own evaluation meets the legal standard.
An assessor's lack of advanced specialty certification does not automatically make an assessment invalid. California law sets minimum qualifications for OT assessors; it does not require SIPT certification or other advanced credentials. Focus on whether the evaluator was licensed, knowledgeable about your child, and used appropriate tools — not just whether they hold a particular specialty certificate.
A narrowly focused assessment can still be legally appropriate. Districts are not required to assess every possible area in a single evaluation — only the areas related to the specific purpose of that assessment. If you believe additional areas need to be assessed (like oral motor skills), ask the district to include those areas in the assessment plan before you consent.
Failing to interview a parent is a procedural flaw, but not necessarily a fatal one. The ALJ acknowledged it would have been appropriate to interview the parent, but found that omission did not invalidate the assessment given its limited scope. If you want your input included, insist on a parent interview or questionnaire in writing before the assessment begins.