District's Incomplete Assessment of African-American Girl Earns Parent an IEE

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old African-American girl in sixth grade who began struggling academically and socially during the 2008-2009 school year. Her teachers noticed she was withdrawn, rarely spoke to peers or staff, had difficulty completing written work and homework, and her grades dropped significantly. Parent requested a special education assessment, and the district conducted a psychoeducational evaluation in May and June 2009. The district's psychologist concluded that Student did not qualify for special education because her cognitive ability and academic achievement scores were both in the average range, with no significant discrepancy between them. When Parent received the draft report, she objected that key information had been left out and requested corrections. After the IEP meeting, Parent requested an IEE at public expense. The district refused and filed for due process to defend its assessment.

The district's psychologist had used a range of tests to evaluate Student's cognitive processing, visual-motor skills, academic achievement, and social-emotional functioning. However, Parent's expert — a licensed clinical psychologist — identified several significant gaps. The ALJ agreed with some of those criticisms, finding that the district had not fully assessed Student in all areas of suspected disability, as required by law.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the parent's favor, finding the district's psychoeducational assessment was not appropriate for three main reasons.

First, the assessment failed to thoroughly evaluate Student's memory. Test results revealed weaknesses in number memory and sequential memory, and the district's own psychologist attributed some results to "lack of focus" — which itself could suggest attention-deficit disorder (ADD). Despite these red flags, the district did not conduct further memory testing. Memory difficulties can be relevant to eligibility under categories like Specific Learning Disability (SLD), Speech-Language Impairment (SLI), and Other Health Impaired (OHI), which can include students with ADD or ADHD.

Second, the assessment did not fully examine Student's social-emotional status or how her apparent language difficulties might be connected to it. Multiple sources — Parent, teachers, and Student's own self-report — indicated that Student was withdrawn, had trouble forming friendships, refused to speak to teachers at times, and rated her attitude toward school as "Clinically Significant" on the behavior rating scale. The district's psychologist noted that Student often took extra time to respond verbally, yet never observed her outside the classroom, never assessed her pragmatic language skills (how she uses language in social situations), and never explained why her verbal responses were so delayed. These gaps left important questions about possible emotional disturbance or speech-language impairment unanswered.

Third, the district provided no evidence about the qualifications of the special education teacher who administered the Woodcock-Johnson academic achievement test, or how she administered it. Because that teacher did not testify, the district could not meet its legal burden of proving the test was properly given.

The ALJ also noted that because Student is African-American, California law — stemming from the Larry P. v. Riles case — prohibits the use of standardized IQ tests to assess her for special education eligibility. The district correctly followed this restriction, and the parent's expert lost credibility with the ALJ by being unfamiliar with these legal constraints.

What Was Ordered

1. The district's request to have its assessment declared appropriate was denied.
2. Student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation (IEE) conducted by an assessor chosen by the student and family, at the district's expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. An assessment must cover every area where a disability might exist — not just the most obvious ones. If test results reveal unexpected weaknesses (like low memory scores), the district is legally required to investigate further, even if the initial referral didn't specifically mention that area. Gaps in follow-up can make an entire assessment legally inadequate.

2. Districts must explain their findings, not just report scores. When a district's own psychologist observes something concerning — like a student consistently taking a long time to respond verbally — the assessment must explore what is causing it. Simply noting the behavior without analyzing it is not enough.

3. If an evaluator doesn't testify, the district may not be able to prove a test was properly given. In this case, because the teacher who administered the academic achievement test didn't appear at the hearing, the district had no way to prove the test was valid. Parents should pay attention to who administered each test and whether that person has the right credentials.

4. Parents of African-American students should know that California law restricts which cognitive tests can be used. Under Larry P. v. Riles, standard IQ tests cannot be used to assess African-American children for special education eligibility in California. If a private expert you hire is unfamiliar with this rule, their criticisms of the district's testing choices may carry less weight with a judge.