LAUSD Prevails: District's Assessments and IEP Found Adequate Despite Parent Challenges

Parents challenged the Los Angeles Unified School District's June 2011 IEP for their 12-year-old son, arguing that assessments were inadequate, present levels were inaccurate, goals were unmeasurable, and that Student needed more behavioral support, additional speech services, assistive technology, and year-round instruction. The ALJ found in favor of the District on all seven issues, ruling that the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education. All of the student's requests for relief were denied.

What Happened

Student was a 12-year-old sixth grader eligible for special education as a student with a specific learning disability (SLD). He was also an English language learner who spoke Spanish at home. Student had attended eight different schools across two districts from kindergarten through fifth grade, with many of those changes initiated by his parents mid-year. In the 2010–2011 school year, the District placed Student in a small SLD special day class (SDC) at an elementary school, with speech and language services 30 minutes per week.

After the District completed a comprehensive triennial assessment in late 2010, Parents privately hired two clinical psychologists who reviewed Student and issued reports suggesting he might have mild mental retardation and autism. The District reviewed those reports but found them seriously flawed — one was based entirely on parent interviews with no school observation or standardized testing, and the other contained an internal contradiction listing scores for one test while discussing results from a different test entirely. Parents filed a due process complaint in October 2011, challenging the District's June 2011 IEP on seven grounds: inadequate assessment, inaccurate present levels of performance, unmeasurable goals, insufficient behavioral support, inadequate speech services, failure to provide assistive technology, and failure to offer year-round services.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in the District's favor on every issue. On assessments, the ALJ found that the District had properly evaluated Student in all areas of suspected disability using qualified professionals, appropriate tools, and multiple data sources including classroom observation, teacher interviews, and formal testing. The District was not required to conduct a fourth psychological assessment within one year simply because Parents obtained private reports — especially reports the ALJ found to be unreliable and lacking in school-based information.

On present levels of performance, goals, and behavioral support, the ALJ found that the District had accurately documented Student's academic and functional performance and developed measurable goals tied directly to those levels. The behavior support plan (BSP) developed by the District included positive behavioral interventions and was being implemented appropriately. Student's perception that he was being "punished" in the SDC classroom was found to reflect the contrast between a small, structured environment that noticed off-task behavior and the larger general education classroom that had not — not evidence of inappropriate discipline.

On speech and language services, the ALJ found that 30 minutes per week of direct services from a District speech pathologist was sufficient, noting that Student had already met his prior language goal in less than five months at that service level. There was no evidence that an outside provider (non-public agency) was necessary. On assistive technology, the ALJ found that Student was fully verbal and able to communicate his needs, and that Parents offered no evidence showing what specific technology Student needed or why. On extended school year (ESY), the ALJ found that Parents presented no evidence of regression during prior school breaks, while the District showed Student was making meaningful academic progress on the regular school calendar.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all seven issues presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Private assessments must address school-based functioning to carry weight. The ALJ gave little value to the two privately obtained psychological reports because they were based almost entirely on parent interviews, included no school observations, and failed to address Student's academic performance or behavior in the classroom. If you obtain a private evaluation to challenge a district's IEP, make sure your evaluator reviews school records, observes the student at school, and speaks with teachers — otherwise the IEP team can reasonably set it aside.
The District does not have to conduct a new assessment every time parents disagree. The law requires reassessment when new information suggests the existing assessment is no longer valid or complete. Here, because the District's triennial assessment was only seven months old and the private reports were found to be unreliable, the ALJ found no obligation to assess again. Parents should understand that disagreement alone — without credible new information — is not enough to trigger a new evaluation.
To win an ESY (extended school year) claim, you need evidence of actual regression. Parents asked for 50 weeks of instruction per year, but presented no evidence that Student had ever regressed during school breaks. The District, by contrast, showed consistent progress. Courts and ALJs require concrete evidence that breaks in instruction will significantly set back a child's progress before ordering year-round services.
If you believe your child needs assistive technology or more intensive related services, bring specific evidence. The ALJ denied both the assistive technology and the increased speech services claims largely because Parents did not present evidence explaining what specific technology was needed or why more than 30 minutes of speech services per week was required. Bringing expert testimony or an independent evaluation that makes concrete, school-based recommendations greatly strengthens these types of claims.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
The District prevailed on all seven issues presented at hearing.

Why This Matters for Parents

Private assessments must address school-based functioning to carry weight. The ALJ gave little value to the two privately obtained psychological reports because they were based almost entirely on parent interviews, included no school observations, and failed to address Student's academic performance or behavior in the classroom. If you obtain a private evaluation to challenge a district's IEP, make sure your evaluator reviews school records, observes the student at school, and speaks with teachers — otherwise the IEP team can reasonably set it aside.
The District does not have to conduct a new assessment every time parents disagree. The law requires reassessment when new information suggests the existing assessment is no longer valid or complete. Here, because the District's triennial assessment was only seven months old and the private reports were found to be unreliable, the ALJ found no obligation to assess again. Parents should understand that disagreement alone — without credible new information — is not enough to trigger a new evaluation.
To win an ESY (extended school year) claim, you need evidence of actual regression. Parents asked for 50 weeks of instruction per year, but presented no evidence that Student had ever regressed during school breaks. The District, by contrast, showed consistent progress. Courts and ALJs require concrete evidence that breaks in instruction will significantly set back a child's progress before ordering year-round services.
If you believe your child needs assistive technology or more intensive related services, bring specific evidence. The ALJ denied both the assistive technology and the increased speech services claims largely because Parents did not present evidence explaining what specific technology was needed or why more than 30 minutes of speech services per week was required. Bringing expert testimony or an independent evaluation that makes concrete, school-based recommendations greatly strengthens these types of claims.