District's Autism Assessments Upheld; Parent's Request for Independent Evaluation Denied

Poway Unified School District filed for due process to defend its April 2014 psychoeducational and academic assessments of a 10-year-old student with autism and multiple disabilities after Parents requested independent evaluations at public expense. The ALJ found both assessments were appropriately conducted by qualified professionals using valid, non-discriminatory tools, and ruled that the District was not required to fund independent educational evaluations.

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old boy with autism and multiple disabilities who had severe limitations in both receptive and expressive language. He had been receiving special education services from Poway Unified School District, including placement in a special day class with related services in speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and adapted physical education. As part of his triennial evaluation, the District conducted a psychoeducational assessment in April 2014 (performed by the school psychologist) and an academic skills assessment (performed by his special education teacher). These assessments were used to develop Student's April 23, 2014 IEP.

During the 2014–2015 school year, Parents grew concerned that Student was not making academic progress and appeared to be regressing behaviorally. Believing the 2014 assessments were flawed, Parents requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in psychoeducational functioning and academic skills — meaning they wanted outside evaluators, paid for by the District, to re-assess their child. The District refused to fund those evaluations and instead filed for a due process hearing to defend its assessments, which is the legally required step when a district declines to pay for an IEE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor, finding that both assessments were appropriate and legally sound.

For the psychoeducational assessment, school psychologist Ms. Klock was found fully qualified — credentialed, experienced, and knowledgeable about autism — and used a thoughtful combination of tools: a cognitive battery (the Kauffman Assessment Battery for Children), autism rating scales, an adaptive behavior checklist, and behavioral questionnaires completed by both the teacher and Mother. Because Student could not follow standardized test directions due to his language limitations, Ms. Klock used a technique called "testing the limits" — breaking from strict protocol to gather meaningful information. Importantly, she did not report invalid standardized scores; she used the modified testing only to describe Student's functioning for the IEP team. The ALJ found this approach appropriate and well-explained.

For the academic skills assessment, Student's teacher Ms. Felker used the Brigance Early Inventory with modifications, also due to Student's inability to access a standard assessment format. She administered portions of the test over three to four weeks in approximately 20 sittings and produced a detailed narrative report describing Student's specific strengths and areas of need. The ALJ found that the Brigance was a proper tool for this purpose and that Ms. Felker was qualified to administer it.

The ALJ acknowledged that Parents were genuinely concerned about Student's lack of progress in the following school year, but held that poor progress in a subsequent year does not, by itself, prove that earlier assessments were flawed. No evidence was presented showing the information obtained during assessment was inaccurate at the time it was gathered.

What Was Ordered

The District's April 23, 2014 psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate.
The District's April 11, 2014 academic skills assessment was found appropriate.
The District is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in either area.
All of Student's requested relief was denied. The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not the same as proving an assessment was defective. To win the right to a publicly funded IEE, parents must show that the District's assessment process itself was flawed — not just that they believe their child needs more testing or isn't making progress. Evidence of what happened in a later school year doesn't automatically invalidate an earlier evaluation.
Modifications during testing don't automatically make an assessment invalid — but assessors must handle them correctly. In this case, both evaluators broke from standardized protocols because Student couldn't access the tests otherwise. The key factor was that neither relied on invalid scores — they used modified testing only to gather descriptive information. Parents should ask assessors to clearly explain in writing why any modifications were made and how results were interpreted.
A district can file for due process to defend its assessments when a parent requests an IEE. Many parents don't realize that when they request an IEE, the district has two choices: fund the independent evaluation or go to a hearing to prove its assessment was appropriate. If the district wins that hearing, it owes nothing. Understanding this process helps parents decide when and how to pursue an IEE request.
The strength of your IEE request depends on identifying specific problems with the assessment, not just concerns about outcomes. If you believe a district assessment is inadequate, work with an advocate or attorney to identify concrete procedural or technical deficiencies — such as unqualified evaluators, biased instruments, failure to assess all areas of suspected disability, or failure to consider your input — before making a formal IEE request.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the District's favor, finding that both assessments were appropriate and legally sound.

What Was Ordered

The District's April 23, 2014 psychoeducational assessment was found appropriate.
The District's April 11, 2014 academic skills assessment was found appropriate.
The District is not required to fund independent educational evaluations in either area.
All of Student's requested relief was denied. The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not the same as proving an assessment was defective. To win the right to a publicly funded IEE, parents must show that the District's assessment process itself was flawed — not just that they believe their child needs more testing or isn't making progress. Evidence of what happened in a later school year doesn't automatically invalidate an earlier evaluation.
Modifications during testing don't automatically make an assessment invalid — but assessors must handle them correctly. In this case, both evaluators broke from standardized protocols because Student couldn't access the tests otherwise. The key factor was that neither relied on invalid scores — they used modified testing only to gather descriptive information. Parents should ask assessors to clearly explain in writing why any modifications were made and how results were interpreted.
A district can file for due process to defend its assessments when a parent requests an IEE. Many parents don't realize that when they request an IEE, the district has two choices: fund the independent evaluation or go to a hearing to prove its assessment was appropriate. If the district wins that hearing, it owes nothing. Understanding this process helps parents decide when and how to pursue an IEE request.
The strength of your IEE request depends on identifying specific problems with the assessment, not just concerns about outcomes. If you believe a district assessment is inadequate, work with an advocate or attorney to identify concrete procedural or technical deficiencies — such as unqualified evaluators, biased instruments, failure to assess all areas of suspected disability, or failure to consider your input — before making a formal IEE request.