District Wins IEE Dispute: Limited Spanish S/L Assessment Found Appropriate

Santa Rita Union Elementary School District filed for due process to defend its supplemental Spanish-language speech and language assessment of an 11-year-old bilingual student. The parents had disagreed with the assessment and requested an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The ALJ ruled the district's assessment was appropriate and denied the IEE request, finding that the assessment was properly limited in scope to replicating an earlier English-only private evaluation in Spanish.

What Happened

Student is an 11-year-old girl whose primary language is Spanish, who was receiving special education services for a specific learning disability and a secondary eligibility of language impairment. She was placed in general education classes with pull-out resource support and weekly speech and language therapy. Concerned that Student might also be autistic or have other disabilities, Parents privately hired a psychologist, Dr. Moleski, who conducted a psychological and neuropsychological evaluation. Dr. Moleski found that Student had a severe mixed receptive/expressive language disorder and recommended placement in a special day class for students with severe communication disorders. However, Dr. Moleski mistakenly believed Student's primary language was English and conducted her entire evaluation in English only — a significant flaw that both parties agreed made her assessment professionally and legally inadequate.

At a November 2010 IEP meeting, the team — including Parents and their attorney — agreed that the district should conduct a follow-up assessment in Spanish to determine whether Student's low scores reflected a true language disorder or simply the fact that she was still learning English (called a "language difference"). Parents signed an assessment plan for this limited supplemental evaluation. The district's bilingual speech-language pathologist, Ms. DiPasquale, then administered Spanish-language versions of the same tests Dr. Moleski had used in English. The results showed Student performed significantly better in Spanish, suggesting her difficulties in English stemmed from language difference rather than a language disorder. When Parents disagreed with this supplemental assessment and requested an IEE at public expense, the district filed for due process to defend its evaluation.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district, finding that Ms. DiPasquale's supplemental assessment was appropriate given its clearly limited purpose. The key legal question was whether the assessment should be judged against the standards for a full speech and language eligibility evaluation, or against the narrower standards appropriate to its actual goal — replicating Dr. Moleski's English tests in Spanish to compare the results. The ALJ found it was the latter.

Parents argued that because Ms. DiPasquale's report included a conclusion about eligibility (stating Student did not qualify for speech/language services under state criteria), the assessment should be treated as a full eligibility evaluation. The ALJ rejected this argument, noting that state law requires every assessment report to include a statement about whether the student may need special education services — so including that language cannot automatically transform a limited assessment into a comprehensive one.

The ALJ also found that Parents and their attorney were fully aware of the limited scope of the assessment when they agreed to it and signed the assessment plan. Student did not challenge the accuracy of Ms. DiPasquale's test results — only that the assessment should have included more. The ALJ found that requiring a broader assessment would have exceeded what Parents had consented to. Finally, the ALJ noted that Ms. DiPasquale's eligibility opinion had no practical effect: Student remained eligible for speech and language services and continued to receive them.

What Was Ordered

The district's supplemental speech and language assessment was found to be appropriate.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) related to this assessment.
The ALJ noted that Parents retain the right to request a full speech and language eligibility assessment from the district, to obtain one privately, or to challenge perceived shortcomings in Student's ongoing speech and language services through a separate complaint.

Why This Matters for Parents

The scope of an assessment matters — and so does what you agree to in writing. When Parents signed the assessment plan for a limited supplemental evaluation, that agreement defined what the district was required to do. Before signing any assessment plan, make sure the document clearly describes what will and will not be assessed, and that it matches your understanding of what the team discussed.
A private evaluation conducted only in English may be legally inadequate for a bilingual child. If your child's primary language is not English, any assessment — whether done by the district or a private evaluator — must generally be conducted in that primary language if feasible. An English-only evaluation of a Spanish-speaking child can be challenged as professionally and legally flawed.
An IEE is tied to the specific assessment you disagree with. Parents can only request a publicly funded IEE to challenge a particular assessment the district conducted. If the district's assessment was narrow in scope, the IEE right is similarly limited. If you want a broader evaluation, you may need to separately request one from the district or pursue it independently.
An eligibility conclusion in an assessment report doesn't automatically make it a full evaluation. The law requires every assessment report to address eligibility — but that legal requirement doesn't expand the scope of what was actually assessed. If you believe your child needs a comprehensive speech and language eligibility evaluation, request one specifically and in writing.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district's supplemental speech and language assessment was found to be appropriate.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) related to this assessment.
The ALJ noted that Parents retain the right to request a full speech and language eligibility assessment from the district, to obtain one privately, or to challenge perceived shortcomings in Student's ongoing speech and language services through a separate complaint.

Why This Matters for Parents

The scope of an assessment matters — and so does what you agree to in writing. When Parents signed the assessment plan for a limited supplemental evaluation, that agreement defined what the district was required to do. Before signing any assessment plan, make sure the document clearly describes what will and will not be assessed, and that it matches your understanding of what the team discussed.
A private evaluation conducted only in English may be legally inadequate for a bilingual child. If your child's primary language is not English, any assessment — whether done by the district or a private evaluator — must generally be conducted in that primary language if feasible. An English-only evaluation of a Spanish-speaking child can be challenged as professionally and legally flawed.
An IEE is tied to the specific assessment you disagree with. Parents can only request a publicly funded IEE to challenge a particular assessment the district conducted. If the district's assessment was narrow in scope, the IEE right is similarly limited. If you want a broader evaluation, you may need to separately request one from the district or pursue it independently.
An eligibility conclusion in an assessment report doesn't automatically make it a full evaluation. The law requires every assessment report to address eligibility — but that legal requirement doesn't expand the scope of what was actually assessed. If you believe your child needs a comprehensive speech and language eligibility evaluation, request one specifically and in writing.