Cupertino Prevails: District Properly Considered Private Autism Assessments at IEP

A parent filed a due process complaint against Cupertino Union School District, alleging that the district failed to consider private assessments from the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), predetermined Student's placement, and conducted a behavioral assessment without consent. The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on all issues, finding that CARD reports were meaningfully considered at IEP meetings, that placement was not predetermined, and that the parent had in fact signed consent for the behavioral assessment.

What Happened

Student is a 12-year-old boy with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who attended a special day class (SDC) at Cupertino Middle School during the 2013–2014 school year. In addition to his school program, Student received in-home Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy funded by his parents' private insurance through the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD). CARD had completed two assessments of Student — a psychological evaluation from May 2013 and a progress report from February 2014 — which the parents shared with the district shortly before and during a series of IEP meetings held in February and March 2014.

Parent filed a due process complaint alleging three violations: (1) that the district failed to meaningfully consider the CARD assessments when developing Student's IEP, (2) that the district predetermined Student's placement at Cupertino Middle School without genuinely involving parents, and (3) that the district conducted a behavioral observation of Student from March 4–11, 2014, without proper parental consent. The IEP meetings were held over three dates — February 25, March 11, and March 27, 2014 — and were recorded, producing nearly five hours of audio that was submitted as evidence.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue and denied all of Student's requests for relief.

On the CARD assessments: The ALJ found overwhelming evidence that the district did consider the CARD reports. The author of one CARD report attended the February 25 IEP meeting and gave input directly. The district's speech therapist explicitly referenced the CARD psychological report and noted it was consistent with his own findings. The district's behaviorist referenced the CARD progress report in her own written assessment. Goals were revised and an augmentative communication assessment was proposed — both directly in response to recommendations in the CARD reports. The ALJ noted that a district is not required to read a private report aloud during an IEP meeting in order to have "considered" it.

On predetermination: The ALJ found no evidence that the district came into the IEP meetings with a fixed, "take it or leave it" offer. To the contrary, the recordings showed that parents were invited to give input before the meetings even began, goals were reworded at parental request, and the district changed its speech services offer from group to individual therapy based solely on the parent's preference. When parents raised alternative placements (Miller Middle School and Lawson Middle School), the district explained why those placements were not appropriate at that time and offered a tour of the Lawson program. The ALJ also noted that parents had not expressed any dissatisfaction with the Cupertino Middle School placement during the meetings themselves.

On consent for behavioral assessment: Father admitted during his own rebuttal testimony that he believed the assessment plan he signed in January 2014 already covered the behavioral classroom observations. That admission resolved the issue entirely — there was no unauthorized assessment.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Cupertino Union School District was found to have prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Sharing a private report the day before an IEP meeting puts you at a disadvantage. The CARD psychological report was received by the district only the day before the first IEP meeting. While the district still considered it here, providing private assessments well in advance gives the team more time to integrate findings and gives you stronger grounds to insist on changes if they don't.
"They didn't read it aloud" is not enough to prove a district ignored your report. The ALJ rejected the argument that a report must be read aloud at the IEP meeting to be "considered." To successfully argue that a district ignored a private assessment, you need to show that its findings were not reflected anywhere in the IEP — in goals, services, or the district's own assessments.
Objecting to a placement during the meeting — on the record — is critical. Parents never expressed dissatisfaction with Cupertino Middle School during the IEP meetings. The ALJ specifically noted this. If you have concerns about a proposed placement, raise them clearly and specifically during the meeting so they are part of the recorded discussion.
Read every assessment plan carefully before signing it. Father's own admission that he believed the January consent form covered the behavioral observation ended the consent dispute entirely. Before signing any assessment plan, confirm exactly what assessments are authorized — in what settings and by whom — and ask for clarification in writing if anything is unclear.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on every issue and denied all of Student's requests for relief.

What Was Ordered

Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Cupertino Union School District was found to have prevailed on all issues heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

Sharing a private report the day before an IEP meeting puts you at a disadvantage. The CARD psychological report was received by the district only the day before the first IEP meeting. While the district still considered it here, providing private assessments well in advance gives the team more time to integrate findings and gives you stronger grounds to insist on changes if they don't.
"They didn't read it aloud" is not enough to prove a district ignored your report. The ALJ rejected the argument that a report must be read aloud at the IEP meeting to be "considered." To successfully argue that a district ignored a private assessment, you need to show that its findings were not reflected anywhere in the IEP — in goals, services, or the district's own assessments.
Objecting to a placement during the meeting — on the record — is critical. Parents never expressed dissatisfaction with Cupertino Middle School during the IEP meetings. The ALJ specifically noted this. If you have concerns about a proposed placement, raise them clearly and specifically during the meeting so they are part of the recorded discussion.
Read every assessment plan carefully before signing it. Father's own admission that he believed the January consent form covered the behavioral observation ended the consent dispute entirely. Before signing any assessment plan, confirm exactly what assessments are authorized — in what settings and by whom — and ask for clarification in writing if anything is unclear.