Redlands USD Wins: All Seven 2013 Assessments Upheld, No IEEs Required

What Happened

Student is a 17-year-old young man eligible for special education under the categories of autistic-like behaviors and intellectual disability. Although enrolled at Redlands High School, his parents withdrew him from school and declined special education services in June 2013, arranging private services at home and through outside providers instead. Then, in August 2013, parents requested an initial assessment from the district to re-establish eligibility. The district sent an assessment plan, revised it after parents requested additional areas, obtained signed consent, and conducted a full battery of seven assessments in October and November 2013: adapted physical education (APE), Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP), psycho-educational, health update, language/speech/hearing, assistive technology (AT), and a functional behavior assessment (FBA). An initial IEP meeting was held on November 15, 2013, with continuation meetings in December 2013 and January 2014.

Shortly after receiving the assessment reports, parents requested IEEs at public expense in all seven areas, disputing the adequacy of each assessment. The district denied those requests and filed for due process to defend its assessments. Parents argued the assessments were flawed because they were not conducted at home or at the private providers where Student received services, that certain tests were inappropriate for Student's age, that assessors failed to review all prior reports, and that Student's anxiety and a second language spoken at home were not adequately considered.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district, finding that all seven assessments were properly conducted and that parents were not entitled to any publicly funded IEEs.

A central theme across all seven issues was that parents' decision to withdraw Student from school significantly limited the district's assessment options — and the ALJ held that the district could not be penalized for those limitations. Because Student was not attending school, assessors could not observe him in a classroom, on a playground, or with peers. The ALJ found it was reasonable for the district to conduct assessments in district trailers and during other assessment sessions, which most closely approximated a school environment given the circumstances. Parents could not demand that assessments be conducted at home or at private providers like Hope, Inc. or Loma Linda University.

On the VB-MAPP, the ALJ rejected parents' expert witness, who argued that all five components of the VB-MAPP must always be administered and that the test should only be given to students within its chronological age norms. The ALJ found this impractical for a student whose developmental abilities were far below his chronological age, and noted that the three components Ms. Vogt did not administer were addressed through the district's other assessments. On the speech and language assessment, the ALJ found that the district was only required to assess in the student's primary language (English), and that the second language spoken at home (Konkani) did not create an obligation to assess in that language or at home with familiar adults. On the health update, the ALJ noted that Mother herself had declined a meeting and provided information by phone, undermining her later complaint that the district failed to meet with Student. On the FBA, minor typos and errors in the report did not render it substantively inadequate, and the ALJ found that observing Student during other assessments was a reasonable substitute for classroom observation when parents had removed him from school.

What Was Ordered

1. The district's 2013 assessments in all seven areas — APE, VB-MAPP, psycho-educational, health update, language/speech/hearing, assistive technology, and functional behavior — were found to be appropriately completed.
2. The district is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in any of the seven assessment areas.
3. The district was the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Withdrawing your child from school can limit the district's assessment options — and that limitation may be used against you. When parents kept Student at home, the district was unable to observe him in a classroom, with peers, or in typical school settings. The ALJ repeatedly cited this as a reason why assessments conducted in district offices or during other testing sessions were acceptable. If you are dissatisfied with district services, there may be better ways to protect your child's rights than full withdrawal.

2. A district's assessment does not have to be perfect — it just has to be adequate. Parents pointed to many specific flaws: missing questionnaire reviews, typos in reports, failure to assess running ability, failure to observe interactions with siblings. The ALJ found that minor deviations from what parents preferred did not make the assessments legally inadequate as long as the assessments used appropriate tools, trained assessors, and yielded useful information for the IEP team.

3. If you request an IEE, the district can file for due process to defend its assessments — and if it wins, you get nothing. When a parent requests an IEE, the district must either fund it or promptly file for a hearing to prove its assessment was appropriate. Here, the district chose to fight and prevailed on every issue. Before requesting IEEs across multiple areas, parents should carefully evaluate whether there is strong evidence that each specific assessment was conducted improperly.

4. The district is only required to assess in the student's primary language, not every language spoken at home. The ALJ confirmed that because Student's primary language was English, the district had no obligation to factor in the second language (Konkani) spoken at home or to conduct assessments in that language. If your child's primary language is not English, that is a different situation — but a secondary home language does not automatically create additional assessment obligations.