District's Incomplete Behavioral Assessment Earns Parent the Right to Independent Evaluation

Kern High School District assessed a 14-year-old student with ADHD, suspected emotional disturbance, and hearing loss, then concluded he did not qualify for special education. The parents disagreed and requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The ALJ found the district's psychoeducational assessment inadequate because it failed to follow up on multiple clinically significant red flags identified by its own testing tool, and ordered the district to fund an independent evaluation of the student's mental health, behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.

What Happened

The student is an African-American boy who was nearly 15 years old at the time of the hearing. He had been diagnosed with ADHD, hearing loss, and a behavior disorder, and had previously received special education services as a young child before being found ineligible in 2009. Since then, he had been managed under a Section 504 plan. He enrolled at Kern High School District's Centennial High School in August 2012 with a well-documented history of behavioral incidents — including aggression, harassment, and multiple suspensions — and was taking three psychotropic medications for attention, depression, and aggression.

In August 2012, parents requested a new psychoeducational assessment because they were concerned about their son's escalating behavioral problems and potential eligibility for special education under the categories of Other Health Impairment (OHI) and Emotional Disturbance (ED). The district conducted the assessment between September and October 2012 using multiple tools, including the BASC-2 behavioral rating scales. Despite the BASC-2 returning numerous "at-risk" and "clinically significant" findings across domains such as depression, aggression, withdrawal, anxiety, and social stress — reported by the student's mother, teachers, and the student himself — the district's school psychologist concluded the student was "socially maladjusted" rather than emotionally disturbed, and not eligible for special education. Parents disagreed at the November 2012 IEP meeting and immediately requested an IEE at public expense. The district filed for due process to defend its assessment.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to follow up on its own alarming test results. The district administered the BASC-2, which produced multiple "at-risk" and "clinically significant" scores across nearly every behavioral and emotional domain — including hyperactivity, aggression, depression, withdrawal, anxiety, social stress, and self-esteem. Despite these findings, the district did not administer any additional tests to investigate, clarify, or confirm what the BASC-2 revealed. Tools such as depression inventories, maladjustment scales, or adaptive behavior measures were available and appropriate but were never used.
Provided an inadequate explanation for dismissing the findings. The school psychologist concluded the student was "socially maladjusted" rather than emotionally disturbed without adequately explaining why the many clinically significant scores had no educational impact. The ALJ found her reasoning unpersuasive and unsupported — she simply labeled the behaviors as intentional and moved on, without reconciling the data with her conclusions.
Improperly relied on the Section 504 plan to deny special education eligibility. The school psychologist cited the student's existing 504 plan as evidence his needs could be met without special education. The ALJ rejected this reasoning: a 504 plan is itself a disability-based accommodation program, not a modification of regular education. Using it to deny IDEA eligibility sets an improper standard.
Ignored the impact of psychotropic medications on test results. The student was taking three psychotropic medications — for attention, depression, and aggression — at the time of testing. The assessment report never addressed how these medications may have affected his test performance or what his functioning might look like without them, leaving a critical gap in the IEP team's ability to make an informed eligibility decision.
Failed to connect observed behaviors to educational impact. Multiple teachers, the student's football coach, and his mother reported behaviors in school settings — aggression, poor peer interactions, emotional dysregulation, and academic inconsistency — that the school psychologist dismissed as educationally insignificant. The ALJ found this conclusion unsupported, especially given the student's history of suspensions, which by definition interrupted his education.

What Was Ordered

The district's October 2012 psychoeducational evaluation was found to have failed all legal requirements with respect to assessing the student's mental health, behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.
The district was ordered to fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation specifically addressing the student's mental health needs and behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.

Why This Matters for Parents

Red flags in the district's own testing can win your case. If the district's evaluation tool returns "at-risk" or "clinically significant" findings and the evaluator dismisses them without explanation or follow-up testing, that alone can be grounds to challenge the assessment. Keep copies of all rating scale results and ask why concerning scores were not investigated further.
A 504 plan is not a substitute for special education. Districts sometimes argue that a student's needs are "being met" through a 504 plan to avoid an IDEA eligibility finding. As this case makes clear, a 504 plan is itself a disability-based program — a student receiving one has already been recognized as having a disability that affects a major life function. This cannot be used as a ceiling to block special education access.
Medications matter in assessments. If your child is taking psychotropic medications during testing, the evaluation must address how those medications affect the results. If the report is silent on this, raise it at the IEP meeting and in any written response to the assessment. This gap can render an assessment inadequate.
Suspensions are educational impact. If your child has been suspended multiple times due to behavioral issues, that disruption to schooling is itself evidence that the behavior is affecting educational performance. Push back if an evaluator claims behavior has "no educational impact" while your child is missing school due to that very behavior.
You have the right to an IEE when the district's assessment falls short. When parents disagree with a district's evaluation, they can request an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense. The district must either fund it or immediately file for due process to defend their assessment. If the district cannot adequately explain or support its findings at a hearing, you win the right to an independent evaluator of your choosing.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to follow up on its own alarming test results. The district administered the BASC-2, which produced multiple "at-risk" and "clinically significant" scores across nearly every behavioral and emotional domain — including hyperactivity, aggression, depression, withdrawal, anxiety, social stress, and self-esteem. Despite these findings, the district did not administer any additional tests to investigate, clarify, or confirm what the BASC-2 revealed. Tools such as depression inventories, maladjustment scales, or adaptive behavior measures were available and appropriate but were never used.
Provided an inadequate explanation for dismissing the findings. The school psychologist concluded the student was "socially maladjusted" rather than emotionally disturbed without adequately explaining why the many clinically significant scores had no educational impact. The ALJ found her reasoning unpersuasive and unsupported — she simply labeled the behaviors as intentional and moved on, without reconciling the data with her conclusions.
Improperly relied on the Section 504 plan to deny special education eligibility. The school psychologist cited the student's existing 504 plan as evidence his needs could be met without special education. The ALJ rejected this reasoning: a 504 plan is itself a disability-based accommodation program, not a modification of regular education. Using it to deny IDEA eligibility sets an improper standard.
Ignored the impact of psychotropic medications on test results. The student was taking three psychotropic medications — for attention, depression, and aggression — at the time of testing. The assessment report never addressed how these medications may have affected his test performance or what his functioning might look like without them, leaving a critical gap in the IEP team's ability to make an informed eligibility decision.
Failed to connect observed behaviors to educational impact. Multiple teachers, the student's football coach, and his mother reported behaviors in school settings — aggression, poor peer interactions, emotional dysregulation, and academic inconsistency — that the school psychologist dismissed as educationally insignificant. The ALJ found this conclusion unsupported, especially given the student's history of suspensions, which by definition interrupted his education.

What Was Ordered

The district's October 2012 psychoeducational evaluation was found to have failed all legal requirements with respect to assessing the student's mental health, behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.
The district was ordered to fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation specifically addressing the student's mental health needs and behavioral, social, and emotional functioning.

Why This Matters for Parents

Red flags in the district's own testing can win your case. If the district's evaluation tool returns "at-risk" or "clinically significant" findings and the evaluator dismisses them without explanation or follow-up testing, that alone can be grounds to challenge the assessment. Keep copies of all rating scale results and ask why concerning scores were not investigated further.
A 504 plan is not a substitute for special education. Districts sometimes argue that a student's needs are "being met" through a 504 plan to avoid an IDEA eligibility finding. As this case makes clear, a 504 plan is itself a disability-based program — a student receiving one has already been recognized as having a disability that affects a major life function. This cannot be used as a ceiling to block special education access.
Medications matter in assessments. If your child is taking psychotropic medications during testing, the evaluation must address how those medications affect the results. If the report is silent on this, raise it at the IEP meeting and in any written response to the assessment. This gap can render an assessment inadequate.
Suspensions are educational impact. If your child has been suspended multiple times due to behavioral issues, that disruption to schooling is itself evidence that the behavior is affecting educational performance. Push back if an evaluator claims behavior has "no educational impact" while your child is missing school due to that very behavior.
You have the right to an IEE when the district's assessment falls short. When parents disagree with a district's evaluation, they can request an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense. The district must either fund it or immediately file for due process to defend their assessment. If the district cannot adequately explain or support its findings at a hearing, you win the right to an independent evaluator of your choosing.