District Wins IEE Dispute: Narrow Follow-Up Assessments Can Be Appropriate

Capistrano Unified School District filed for due process to defend its January 2010 functional analysis assessment (FAA) and social/emotional evaluation against a parent's request for publicly funded independent educational evaluations (IEEs). The ALJ found both District assessments were appropriate and properly conducted, and ruled the District was not required to pay for any IEEs. This case clarifies that a narrowly focused follow-up assessment does not need to cover every possible area of a child's functioning to be considered legally sufficient.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old boy eligible for special education with a specific learning disability (SLD). In late 2009, his IEP team grew concerned about escalating behavioral problems — particularly leaving class without permission (called "eloping"), defiance, profanity, and destroying classroom materials. With Parent's consent, the District conducted a functional analysis assessment (FAA) to identify the causes of these behaviors, and separately, a social/emotional evaluation to determine whether Student also qualified under the category of emotional disturbance (ED). Both assessments were completed in early January 2010 and were conducted by the District's school psychologist, who held a master's degree in educational psychology, a school psychology credential, and specialized training in behavior analysis.

About ten months after the January 2010 IEP meeting where those assessments were reviewed, Parent disagreed with the findings and requested two IEEs at District expense — one from an occupational therapist and one from a licensed psychologist. The District refused to fund the IEEs and filed for due process, asking an ALJ to confirm that its assessments were appropriate. Parent's privately hired experts conducted their own evaluations of Student, but neither expert criticized the District's assessments, and both reached similar conclusions about Student's eligibility. The ALJ sided with the District.

What the ALJ Found

Because the District prevailed, there were no findings against the District. Instead, the ALJ carefully examined whether the District's two assessments met legal standards — and concluded they did.

The school psychologist was found qualified and followed all required procedures. She used validated, reliable tools, administered them in Student's primary language (English), gathered data from multiple sources (observations, interviews, and records), and did not rely on any single test score. Her FAA tracked Student's behaviors across different settings over nearly two months, which allowed her to identify the trigger for the behaviors (being asked to do written work) and recommend replacement behaviors and IEP goals.

Parent argued the assessments were flawed because they didn't cover sensory deficits, fine motor skills, executive functioning, or whether Student was a danger to himself or others. The ALJ rejected these arguments, noting that fine motor skills had already been addressed in a comprehensive triennial assessment just eight months earlier, and that the two assessments at issue were intentionally narrow in scope — focused only on behavior and social/emotional functioning. The ALJ also noted that Parent provided no expert testimony or evidence criticizing the District's assessments. The two privately hired experts, whose reports were entered into evidence, actually agreed with the District's eligibility conclusions. The ALJ further held that an assessment is not required to "guarantee positive results" — the fact that Student's behavior worsened afterward does not by itself prove the assessments were inadequate.

What Was Ordered

The District's January 5, 2010 amended psycho-educational evaluation and functional analysis assessment were found to be appropriate.
The District is not required to fund any independent educational evaluations based on those two assessments.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can conduct a narrow, focused assessment instead of a comprehensive one — if the situation calls for it. When a full triennial assessment has recently been completed, the District may lawfully conduct a follow-up assessment that addresses only the specific concern at hand (in this case, behavior and emotional functioning). Parents should review whether a recent comprehensive assessment already covered the areas they are concerned about before requesting an IEE.
To win an IEE dispute, parents generally need expert evidence that criticizes the District's assessment. The ALJ repeatedly noted that Parent brought in no expert witness and no evidence showing what the District's assessments got wrong. Even strong written arguments are unlikely to succeed without credible expert support. If you believe a District assessment was inadequate, consider having your own expert specifically analyze and critique it — not just conduct a separate evaluation.
Your privately hired evaluator's conclusions can be used against you if they agree with the District. In this case, Parent's hired psychologist reached the same eligibility conclusion as the District's school psychologist. When independent evaluators validate the District's findings, it weakens the argument that the District's assessment was flawed.
Waiting a long time to object to an assessment can hurt your case. Parent did not raise concerns about the January 2010 assessments until October 2010 — ten months later. The ALJ noted this delay repeatedly and also pointed out that Student's behavior and circumstances had changed significantly in those ten months, making it harder to use later evaluations as evidence that the earlier ones were inadequate.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

Because the District prevailed, there were no findings against the District. Instead, the ALJ carefully examined whether the District's two assessments met legal standards — and concluded they did.

What Was Ordered

The District's January 5, 2010 amended psycho-educational evaluation and functional analysis assessment were found to be appropriate.
The District is not required to fund any independent educational evaluations based on those two assessments.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district can conduct a narrow, focused assessment instead of a comprehensive one — if the situation calls for it. When a full triennial assessment has recently been completed, the District may lawfully conduct a follow-up assessment that addresses only the specific concern at hand (in this case, behavior and emotional functioning). Parents should review whether a recent comprehensive assessment already covered the areas they are concerned about before requesting an IEE.
To win an IEE dispute, parents generally need expert evidence that criticizes the District's assessment. The ALJ repeatedly noted that Parent brought in no expert witness and no evidence showing what the District's assessments got wrong. Even strong written arguments are unlikely to succeed without credible expert support. If you believe a District assessment was inadequate, consider having your own expert specifically analyze and critique it — not just conduct a separate evaluation.
Your privately hired evaluator's conclusions can be used against you if they agree with the District. In this case, Parent's hired psychologist reached the same eligibility conclusion as the District's school psychologist. When independent evaluators validate the District's findings, it weakens the argument that the District's assessment was flawed.
Waiting a long time to object to an assessment can hurt your case. Parent did not raise concerns about the January 2010 assessments until October 2010 — ten months later. The ALJ noted this delay repeatedly and also pointed out that Student's behavior and circumstances had changed significantly in those ten months, making it harder to use later evaluations as evidence that the earlier ones were inadequate.