District Failed to Assess for Learning Disabilities, Owes Compensatory Therapy

What Happened

Student was a 12th-grade student at Palmdale High School in the Antelope Valley Union High School District, eligible for special education under the category of Other Health Impairment (OHI) due to attention-related difficulties. He was initially found eligible during middle school after his father raised concerns about worsening academic performance, particularly in math and reading. Throughout high school, Student struggled significantly — earning failing and near-failing grades in multiple subjects, scoring below basic on state tests in math and ELA, and reading at only a ninth-grade level despite being a high school junior. At each annual IEP meeting, Parent and the family's educational advocate raised concerns about Student's academic struggles, but the district never conducted additional assessments to investigate whether something beyond attention difficulties — such as a learning disability in reading or math, or a language disorder — was driving his poor performance.

Parent filed for due process in May 2012, challenging the district's February 2012 triennial psychoeducational assessment as inadequate and claiming the district had denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to properly assess him, develop accurate goals and present levels of performance, provide appropriate related services, and offer extended school year (ESY) services. The district filed its own due process complaint in September 2012, defending its assessment as appropriate. The two cases were consolidated and heard over six days in December 2012.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a mixed decision. Student prevailed on the most significant issues — assessment adequacy, present levels and goals, and related services — but did not prevail on placement, accommodations, ESY, or the broader substantive denial of FAPE claims.

Assessment failures: The district's March 2012 triennial assessment was found inappropriate. The school psychologist used a limited test battery, failed to follow up on a strikingly low and anomalous reading fluency score on the WJ-III, and relied on an Incomplete Sentences test — which experts testified was not a valid tool — to rule out a reading disorder. A scoring error by the resource teacher further undermined the reliability of the results. The district's assessment did not explore whether Student had a specific learning disability in reading or math, despite years of failing grades and below-basic scores that should have raised those questions. The ALJ also found the district should have suspected and assessed for language processing deficits, especially given an independent speech-language evaluation that identified expressive and receptive language weaknesses likely present since before the 2012 IEP.

Inadequate goals and present levels: Because the district never properly assessed Student, his IEP teams lacked an accurate picture of his needs in reading, math, and language. This meant his present levels of performance were incomplete and his annual goals did not adequately address his actual areas of deficit. The ALJ found this denied Parent the meaningful opportunity to participate in developing Student's program.

Related services: The district's failure to assess meant it could not determine whether Student needed more resource support time or speech-language therapy — services the independent experts concluded he needed. The district's procedural violations in failing to assess caused it to under-serve Student in related services across multiple school years.

Where Student did not prevail: The ALJ found the district's general education placement with resource support was appropriate under the LRE framework. The accommodations provided in Student's IEPs were also found adequate. The ESY claim failed because Student offered no evidence of regression or the need for extended year services.

What Was Ordered

1. The district's March 2012 triennial psychoeducational assessment was found inadequate, requiring it to fund an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.
2. District shall pay Dr. Gunn's neuropsychological IEE invoice directly in the amount of $4,800 within 30 days, satisfying its IEE obligation.
3. District shall pay the independent speech-language evaluation by Ms. Sandoval in the amount of $1,000 within 30 days.
4. District shall hold an IEP team meeting within 30 school days to develop new goals in reading, writing, and language consistent with the independent experts' recommendations.
5. District shall provide 200 hours of educational therapy in math and reading by a credentialed teacher.
6. District shall provide 100 hours of speech-language therapy by a licensed speech therapist.
7. These compensatory hours are available to Student until exhausted or until May 31, 2014, whichever comes first.
8. If services are provided by a non-public agency, the district must reimburse Student for round-trip mileage to the provider.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district cannot attribute every academic struggle to a known disability without investigating further. In this case, the district repeatedly blamed Student's poor grades and low test scores on his attention disorder — but never tested whether he also had a learning disability in reading or math. When a student's performance continues to decline despite supports, the district has an obligation to dig deeper and assess in all areas of suspected need, not just the already-identified one.

2. Parents do not waive their child's right to a FAPE by signing an IEP. The district argued that because Parent and the educational advocate had consented to the IEPs without requesting additional assessments, the district was off the hook. The ALJ rejected this. Districts have an independent, affirmative duty to assess students in all areas of suspected disability — that duty cannot be waived by parental consent.

3. An anomalous or unexplained test score is a red flag the district must follow up on. The district's psychologist noticed that Student's reading fluency score was strikingly low compared to his other scores, but did not administer follow-up tests or disclose her concern to the IEP team. The ALJ found this was a critical failure. If you see unusual test results in your child's assessment report that are not explained or followed up on, ask the district why and request additional testing if needed.

4. Parents who obtain their own independent evaluations may be reimbursed when the district's assessment is found inadequate. Because the district's 2012 triennial assessment was found inappropriate, the ALJ ordered the district to pay for the private neuropsychological and speech-language evaluations Parent had already obtained. If you believe your child's district evaluation is incomplete, getting your own evaluation — even before a due process hearing — may result in reimbursement if the district's assessment is later found deficient.