Encinitas USD Assessments Upheld; Parent's IEE Requests Denied

What Happened

Student is a six-year-old boy with autism who attended an inclusion preschool classroom through the Solana Beach School District's Child Development Center, a program within the same regional special education cooperative (SELPA) as Encinitas Union School District. At the parent's request and in preparation for Student's transition to kindergarten, the District conducted a speech-language assessment, a psycho-educational assessment, and a functional behavior assessment in early 2011. A separate occupational therapy (OT) assessment had been completed in September 2010. At Student's January 2012 IEP meeting, the parent requested that the District pay for independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in all four areas, stating she disagreed with the District's assessments.

When the parent declined to reconsider her IEE requests, the District did what the law requires: it filed for due process to defend its assessments rather than automatically paying for independent evaluations. The parent represented Student herself at hearing. She argued that District assessors had "cherry-picked" their testing tools, failed to capture behaviors she observed at home, and should have used different methodologies. However, the parent did not bring any expert witnesses, did not identify specific alternative assessment tools, and did not provide legal authority to support her claims. The District presented its three assessors as witnesses, each of whom described thorough, multi-tool assessment processes conducted over multiple days across multiple settings.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of the District on every issue. Each of the District's three assessments was found to satisfy all requirements under federal and California special education law. The speech-language assessment used 12 separate testing instruments, classroom observations across four days, language sampling, parent and teacher interviews, and a review of prior assessments — all conducted by an SLP with nearly 20 years of experience working with autistic children. The psycho-educational assessment used multiple standardized tools and included five separate observations of Student across two different school settings. The functional behavior assessment was conducted by a Board Certified Behavior Analyst who observed Student on seven days at both of his educational placements.

The parent's central argument — that assessors should have created artificial situations to trigger the behaviors she witnessed at home — was rejected. The ALJ noted that the parent provided no expert testimony, no alternative assessment instruments, and no legal authority to support this theory. Without any counter-evidence, the parent could not overcome the District's detailed showing that its assessments met all statutory standards.

On the OT IEE request, the ALJ found that the parent had already waived this right. In a February 2011 mediation settlement, the parent had agreed in writing to rescind her OT IEE request in exchange for the District agreeing to maintain Student's educational placement and services for another year and a half. The ALJ applied standard contract law: a clear, unambiguous written agreement binds the parties, and "buyer's remorse" is not a legal basis to undo a settlement. The District had fulfilled its side of the agreement; the parent's change of mind did not invalidate the contract.

What Was Ordered

1. The District's January/February 2011 speech-language assessment was found appropriate.
2. The District's March 2011 psycho-educational assessment was found appropriate.
3. The District's March 2011 functional behavior assessment was found appropriate.
4. The parent was found to have waived her right to an OT IEE through the February 17, 2011 settlement agreement; alternatively, the September 2010 OT assessment was also found appropriate.
5. Student's requests for IEEs at public expense in all four areas — speech-language, psycho-educational, functional behavior, and occupational therapy — were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. If you request an IEE, come prepared with expert evidence. The parent in this case lost primarily because she had no expert witnesses and could not identify specific flaws in the District's assessments. If you believe a district assessment missed something important, you need a qualified professional — not just a parent's observations — to explain what went wrong and what should have been done differently.

2. Settlement agreements are binding contracts. When you sign a mediation agreement waiving a right (like an IEE request), that waiver is legally enforceable even if you later change your mind. Before signing any settlement, make sure you fully understand what rights you are giving up — consider consulting a special education attorney before signing.

3. A district assessment that uses many tools across multiple settings is harder to challenge. The assessments upheld here involved 12 testing instruments, multi-day observations across different environments, and teacher and parent interviews. Parents should document specific concerns in writing before an assessment so that assessors must address them — and so there is a record if they do not.

4. You cannot expand a hearing filed by the district to cover your own separate complaints. The parent repeatedly tried to add her own FAPE claims and challenges to other assessments to the District's due process case. The ALJ rejected this every time. If you have your own complaints, you must file your own separate due process request — you cannot piggyback on a case the district filed.