Poway USD Wins Right to Administer IQ Test Over Parent Objection

What Happened

Student is a ten-year-old boy with autism who attended a general education fourth grade class at Stone Ranch Elementary School in Poway Unified School District, supported by a full-time one-on-one instructional assistant and resource specialist pullout services. He had been receiving special education services since preschool, with cognitive assessments conducted in 2007 and 2010 using the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition (KABC-II). Both prior assessments produced scores in the low average to average range, with some subtest scores flagged as uninterpretable.

When the district prepared a triennial assessment plan in fall 2012, Parent — acting on the advice of her special education advocate — refused to consent to another KABC-II cognitive assessment. Parent's advocate argued that IQ testing was unreliable for children with autism, that the prior scores had harmed Student by keeping him out of a preferred smaller-class placement (the Poway Academy of Learning, or PAL), and that the same information could be obtained through other means. Parent also requested that the district administer the Test of Auditory Processing Skills (TAPS-3) to assess for auditory processing disorder, a request the district denied. The district filed for due process to compel the cognitive assessment; Student filed separately claiming the district failed to assess in all suspected areas of disability by not conducting auditory processing testing. The cases were consolidated.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district on both issues.

On the cognitive testing dispute, the ALJ found that a parent cannot veto a district's choice of assessment instrument simply by withholding consent. Under federal law and Ninth Circuit precedent, if a family wants their child to receive special education services under the IDEA, they must permit the school district to conduct its own assessments — including reassessments. The district's school psychologist, who had administered the KABC-II more than 200 times and had specialized training in evaluating students with autism, gave persuasive testimony about the specific information the KABC-II would provide that other instruments could not — including the ability to compare results across three administrations and examine how Student's processing had changed with age and maturation. The ALJ found the advocate's objections were undermined by her own admission that she strategically opposed IQ testing not on principled educational grounds, but because she feared low scores would hurt her campaign to get Student placed in the PAL program. The ALJ also noted that the advocate had allowed IQ testing in other cases when it suited her strategic goals.

On the auditory processing issue, the ALJ found that even if the district's failure to administer a dedicated auditory processing test was a procedural violation, it could not constitute a denial of FAPE because Parent had already stipulated at hearing that Student was receiving a FAPE. Under California law, a procedural violation only rises to a FAPE denial if it impedes the child's right to FAPE, significantly impedes parental participation, or causes a deprivation of educational benefit — and none of those conditions were met here.

What Was Ordered

1. The district is entitled to cognitively assess Student using the KABC-II without parental consent.
2. The district must complete the assessment within 60 days of the order and schedule an IEP meeting to discuss the results.
3. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Parents cannot pick and choose which assessment instruments the district uses. Under federal law, once a district follows proper procedural steps to seek assessment consent, it has the right to select its own evaluation tools. A parent can raise concerns, but cannot legally force the district to substitute a different test — or refuse consent to block a specific instrument — without risking a due process loss.

2. Stipulating that your child is receiving a FAPE can close the door on other claims. In this case, agreeing at hearing that Student was receiving appropriate services made it legally impossible to argue that any procedural violation (like missing an auditory processing test) had caused real harm. Be very careful about what you agree to during settlement discussions or at hearing.

3. An advocate's strategic motivations can hurt your case. The ALJ specifically noted that the advocate's credibility was damaged because she admitted she was blocking IQ testing for strategic placement reasons, not purely educational ones. When presenting concerns to an ALJ, the reasoning behind your position matters as much as the position itself.

4. Cognitive testing of autistic children is legally permissible and educationally recognized. Despite research about IQ score misuse, the ALJ found that a well-qualified school psychologist with extensive experience can legitimately use cognitive assessments to understand how an autistic student learns — and that potential misuse of scores is not a sufficient reason to prohibit testing altogether.