Deaf Student's Assessment Challenge Fails for Lack of Evidence

What Happened

Student was a 19-year-old with profound hearing loss who had attended the California School for the Deaf, Riverside since age six. She communicated primarily in American Sign Language, though Spanish was the language spoken at home. Student had significant academic delays, reading and writing at approximately a second to third grade level despite being a high school junior. She had been placed in the school's special needs program for years before transferring to the general education diploma track around 2012.

Parent filed for due process in March 2014, originally raising numerous claims about procedural violations, inadequate placement, and failure to provide a FAPE. By the time of the hearing, all issues had been withdrawn except one: whether the district denied Student a FAPE by failing to conduct a legally adequate triennial assessment in the areas of speech, language, and vocabulary — specifically around the October 2012 triennial due date. Student argued that the district should have conducted more thorough vocabulary testing and obtained a new writing sample, and that it failed to properly assess her American Sign Language abilities.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor, finding that Student failed to meet her burden of proof on every point.

On the 2012 triennial, the ALJ found the district properly followed the law. The district reviewed existing data, determined that a full reassessment was not warranted because Student was making expected progress, and sent written notice to Parents explaining its decision and their right to request additional assessment. Parents did not object or request further testing at the time. The ALJ found no evidence that Student's needs had changed between the February/May 2012 assessments and the October 2012 triennial review, and no evidence that any needed information was missing.

On the adequacy of the assessments that were conducted, the ALJ found that the combination of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, the Woodcock-Johnson academic battery, and the Measures of Academic Progress together addressed Student's language, vocabulary, reading, and writing abilities. Three district school psychologists — two of whom are themselves deaf — testified that the assessments were appropriate and complete. Student's own independent evaluator, Dr. Maki, did not testify that the district's assessments were deficient, did not review the district's assessments, and herself failed to conduct the standardized writing assessment she suggested was important. The ALJ noted this inconsistency directly.

On American Sign Language assessment, the ALJ found that no standardized ASL assessment instruments existed during 2012 or 2013, a fact acknowledged by both district staff and Student's expert. The district used the only available tools — informal rubrics and classroom-based observation — and Student passed her ASL class every year.

Critically, even setting aside whether there were any procedural gaps in assessments, the ALJ found that Student presented no evidence connecting any alleged assessment failure to an actual harm. No witness — including Student's own expert — testified that Student should have been making more progress, that the district was unaware of her needs, or that different assessments would have changed her IEP goals, placement, or services.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. The district prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Your expert witness must directly critique the district's assessments to be effective. In this case, Student's expert never reviewed the district's tests and never testified they were inadequate. If you hire an independent evaluator, make sure they review what the district actually did and explain specifically what was missing and why it mattered.

2. Pointing to academic struggles alone is not enough — you must show the struggles are caused by the district's failure. Student was significantly behind grade level, which was not disputed. But the ALJ required evidence that the assessment gaps caused that lack of progress. Without a witness connecting those dots, the argument fails.

3. When the district skips a full triennial and does a records review instead, parents have the right to request a full assessment — and should do so in writing if they disagree. In this case, Parents did not object when the district sent notice that it would not conduct a full triennial in 2012. That silence hurt Student's case. If you receive such notice and disagree, respond in writing and request a full assessment immediately.

4. When no standardized test exists for an area of need — like ASL fluency here — districts are not automatically violating the law. Courts and ALJs look at whether the district used the best available tools, not whether perfect tools existed. If you believe your child has needs in an emerging area, gather whatever informal data exists and present it at IEP meetings rather than waiting for a hearing.