LAUSD Wins Right to Deny IEE After Thorough Psychoeducational Assessment

Los Angeles Unified School District filed for due process to defend its September and October 2009 psychoeducational assessment of a 15-year-old student with a specific learning disability. Parents had disagreed with the assessment results and requested an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The ALJ found the District's assessment was thorough and properly conducted, and ruled that the District did not have to fund an IEE.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old enrolled at a private school who had been receiving special education services under the category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) since January 2004. In spring 2009, Parent requested a re-evaluation to determine whether Student still qualified for special education. The District sent an assessment plan, received signed consent, and conducted a psychoeducational assessment over two sessions in September and October 2009. The assessors — a highly experienced school psychologist and a special education teacher — administered a wide battery of standardized tests covering cognitive processing, academic achievement, visual-motor integration, memory, vocabulary, and social-emotional functioning.

The assessment concluded that Student no longer met the criteria for SLD eligibility. Although Student still had weaknesses in visual-spatial processing and fine visual-motor integration, the assessors found that these did not prevent Student from accessing the general education curriculum. Student had a 3.28 GPA, scored in the average-to-superior range on academic achievement tests, and showed strong motivation and study skills. At the IEP meeting, the District recommended placing Student at a general education high school without special education support. Parents disagreed with the assessment findings and requested an IEE at public expense. When the District declined to fund the IEE, it filed for due process to defend its assessment. Parents did not appear at the hearing despite multiple attempts by OAH to contact them.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the District, finding that the September and October 2009 psychoeducational assessment was properly conducted and met all legal requirements. The assessment used multiple tools — including record review, parent interviews, standardized cognitive and academic tests, and behavioral/emotional inventories — rather than relying on any single measure. The school psychologist had administered the key instruments hundreds of times over a 25-year career and was well-qualified to conduct the evaluation. The assessments were not racially or culturally biased, and the resulting written report clearly explained the basis for the eligibility determination.

The ALJ also found credible the assessors' conclusion that, while Student had real deficits in visual processing and visual-motor integration, these weaknesses did not prevent Student from accessing the curriculum. Student's academic performance — including very superior scores in written expression and high average scores across math and written language — demonstrated that Student was thriving despite those processing challenges. Because the District's assessment was appropriate under the law, it had no obligation to fund an IEE at public expense.

It is worth noting that the ALJ did not find any procedural violations. The District had promptly provided an assessment plan, obtained signed consent, and discussed the results with Parents at multiple IEP meetings.

What Was Ordered

The District's September and October 2009 psychoeducational assessment was found to be properly conducted.
The District was not required to provide Student with an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense.
The District prevailed on the only issue decided in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

When you disagree with a district assessment, you have the right to request an IEE — but the district can challenge that request in court. If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the district must either agree to fund it or immediately file for due process to defend its own assessment. This case shows that districts do exercise that option, and that a well-documented assessment can survive that challenge.
A district assessment is more likely to be upheld when it uses multiple tools and a qualified evaluator. The law requires assessments to use a variety of instruments — not just one test. In this case, the District used cognitive, academic, behavioral, and emotional measures administered by experienced professionals. Parents who believe an assessment is inadequate should look carefully at whether it covered all relevant areas of suspected disability.
Strong grades and test scores can be used to conclude a student no longer qualifies for special education, even if processing deficits remain. The ALJ accepted the District's conclusion that Student's visual processing weaknesses were real but did not interfere with curriculum access, based on Student's academic performance. Parents should be aware that eligibility is not just about having a disability — the disability must also negatively affect educational performance.
Participating in the hearing is critical. Parents in this case did not appear at the hearing despite multiple notices. When a parent does not show up to contest the district's evidence, the ALJ only hears one side of the story. If you disagree with your district's assessment, it is essential to participate in any due process proceedings — ideally with the help of an advocate or attorney.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The District's September and October 2009 psychoeducational assessment was found to be properly conducted.
The District was not required to provide Student with an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense.
The District prevailed on the only issue decided in the case.

Why This Matters for Parents

When you disagree with a district assessment, you have the right to request an IEE — but the district can challenge that request in court. If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the district must either agree to fund it or immediately file for due process to defend its own assessment. This case shows that districts do exercise that option, and that a well-documented assessment can survive that challenge.
A district assessment is more likely to be upheld when it uses multiple tools and a qualified evaluator. The law requires assessments to use a variety of instruments — not just one test. In this case, the District used cognitive, academic, behavioral, and emotional measures administered by experienced professionals. Parents who believe an assessment is inadequate should look carefully at whether it covered all relevant areas of suspected disability.
Strong grades and test scores can be used to conclude a student no longer qualifies for special education, even if processing deficits remain. The ALJ accepted the District's conclusion that Student's visual processing weaknesses were real but did not interfere with curriculum access, based on Student's academic performance. Parents should be aware that eligibility is not just about having a disability — the disability must also negatively affect educational performance.
Participating in the hearing is critical. Parents in this case did not appear at the hearing despite multiple notices. When a parent does not show up to contest the district's evidence, the ALJ only hears one side of the story. If you disagree with your district's assessment, it is essential to participate in any due process proceedings — ideally with the help of an advocate or attorney.