Tehachapi USD Failed to Assess Student for OT and Delayed Defending Its Psych Evaluation

An 8-year-old student with ADHD in Tehachapi Unified School District won his due process case after the district failed to conduct an occupational therapy assessment despite clear warning signs, and then waited months before defending its flawed psychoeducational evaluation. The ALJ found the district's psychoeducational assessment was conducted improperly, the written report was missing critical information, and the district unreasonably delayed responding to the family's request for an independent evaluation. As a remedy, the district was ordered to fund both an independent psychoeducational evaluation and an independent occupational therapy evaluation, up to $7,000 total, and to provide six hours of mandatory special education training to all district administrative and special education staff.

What Happened

Student was an 8-year-old boy diagnosed with ADHD and eligible for special education under the category of "other health impairment." He attended a special day class at Tehachapi Unified School District, with some time mainstreamed into a general education classroom. In October 2015, the district's school psychologist conducted a psychoeducational evaluation of Student. The evaluation was troubled from the start: Student was highly distractible during testing, the psychologist administered four tests in a single day despite Student's inability to focus, and she failed to get reliable scores on most of the cognitive tests. Even so, the psychologist wrote a report that called the results "highly suspect" — and then still used those results to drive the IEP team's decisions about Student's program.

In September 2016, after learning that Student was working at a kindergarten level despite a year in special education, Parent requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) because they disagreed with the district's assessment. The district stalled. Rather than promptly agreeing to fund the IEE or filing for due process to defend its assessment (as required by law), it spent months sending emails, offering to re-assess Student's IQ, and asking Parents to explain their objections. The district did not formally refuse the IEE request until November 4, 2016 — missing a 15-day deadline — and then waited another three months before finally filing for due process in February 2017. Separately, Student's second grade teacher flagged concerns about his fine motor skills and handwriting in November 2016, prompting a referral for an occupational therapy assessment. The district never sent an assessment plan or completed that assessment.

What the District Did Wrong

Failed to assess for occupational therapy. The district's own psychoeducational evaluation included a note that Student's hands were shaking during testing. His kindergarten teacher also flagged fine motor concerns. Despite these red flags, the district never conducted an occupational therapy assessment after the October 2015 evaluation. When Student's second grade teacher formally referred him for occupational therapy assessment in November 2016, the district again failed to send Parents an assessment plan within the required timeline or complete the assessment. The ALJ found this was a procedural violation that blocked Parents from getting critical information they needed to meaningfully participate in IEP decisions.

Conducted a flawed psychoeducational evaluation. The school psychologist administered four cognitive tests on the same day even though Student's inattention was preventing valid results. She failed to note in the report that Student did not achieve a valid starting point ("basal") on several subtests, did not write Student's name on test record forms, omitted observations she relied upon in forming her conclusions, and copy-pasted the entire interpretation of one assessment from a computer-generated program rather than providing her own analysis. She also failed to assess whether Student had anxiety, even though the evidence pointed to possible anxiety as a contributing factor. Both an independent evaluator and even the district's own expert agreed the subtest scores and basal failures should have been reported.

Unreasonably delayed defending its assessment. When Parents requested an IEE in October 2016, the law required the district to either fund the evaluation or quickly file for due process to defend its assessment. Instead, the district stalled for months, sent confusing emails, and offered to re-assess Student as a way to avoid the issue. The ALJ found that Parents had made their request clearly and repeatedly, a final impasse was reached by November 4, 2016, and the district had no valid justification for waiting until February 2017 to file. This unreasonable delay was itself enough to entitle Student to a publicly funded IEE.

What Was Ordered

District must fund an independent occupational therapy evaluation selected by Parents, consistent with SELPA guidelines.
District must fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation selected by Parents, consistent with SELPA guidelines.
Total funding for both independent evaluations is capped at $7,000, including written reports and up to three hours of participation by each assessor at an IEP meeting. Parents may allocate the $7,000 between the two evaluations as they choose.
District must convene an IEP team meeting within 30 school days of receiving each independent evaluation report.
District must provide six hours of mandatory special education training — conducted by an independent organization, not the district's own law firm — to all administrative and special education staff, including the Superintendent. Training must cover assessment obligations, legal timelines, report requirements, and IEE procedures. Training must be completed by January 1, 2018.
Student's request for compensatory education was denied because the evidence did not establish that Student was eligible for occupational therapy services or that he lost educational benefits.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to an independent evaluation when you disagree with the district's assessment — and the district must act quickly. Once you request an IEE in writing, the district must either agree to fund it or file for due process to defend its evaluation without unnecessary delay. In this case, stalling for months was itself enough for the ALJ to rule in favor of the family. You do not need to justify your disagreement or wait for the district to propose alternatives.
A flawed assessment can be successfully challenged even if the district followed some procedures correctly. The problems here were not just about which tests were used, but about how the tests were given, what was left out of the written report, and whether the results were reliable. Parents and advocates should scrutinize assessment reports for missing subtest scores, unexplained conclusions, and observations that are noted during testing but omitted from the final report.
If a school professional notices something unusual during testing — like a child's hands shaking — that observation must appear in the written report. In this case, the psychologist noted a hand tremor during testing but never included it in her report. The ALJ found this was a violation that also triggered the district's duty to assess for occupational therapy. Parents should ask for all raw test protocols and notes if they have questions about what was observed during an evaluation.
Districts cannot use offers to "re-assess" a student as a way to avoid funding an IEE. When Parents ask for an independent evaluation, the district cannot respond by simply proposing to do another evaluation itself. The law gives Parents the right to an independent outside evaluator when they disagree with the district's assessment — and the district cannot substitute its own re-evaluation for that right.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

District must fund an independent occupational therapy evaluation selected by Parents, consistent with SELPA guidelines.
District must fund an independent psychoeducational evaluation selected by Parents, consistent with SELPA guidelines.
Total funding for both independent evaluations is capped at $7,000, including written reports and up to three hours of participation by each assessor at an IEP meeting. Parents may allocate the $7,000 between the two evaluations as they choose.
District must convene an IEP team meeting within 30 school days of receiving each independent evaluation report.
District must provide six hours of mandatory special education training — conducted by an independent organization, not the district's own law firm — to all administrative and special education staff, including the Superintendent. Training must cover assessment obligations, legal timelines, report requirements, and IEE procedures. Training must be completed by January 1, 2018.
Student's request for compensatory education was denied because the evidence did not establish that Student was eligible for occupational therapy services or that he lost educational benefits.

Why This Matters for Parents

You have the right to an independent evaluation when you disagree with the district's assessment — and the district must act quickly. Once you request an IEE in writing, the district must either agree to fund it or file for due process to defend its evaluation without unnecessary delay. In this case, stalling for months was itself enough for the ALJ to rule in favor of the family. You do not need to justify your disagreement or wait for the district to propose alternatives.
A flawed assessment can be successfully challenged even if the district followed some procedures correctly. The problems here were not just about which tests were used, but about how the tests were given, what was left out of the written report, and whether the results were reliable. Parents and advocates should scrutinize assessment reports for missing subtest scores, unexplained conclusions, and observations that are noted during testing but omitted from the final report.
If a school professional notices something unusual during testing — like a child's hands shaking — that observation must appear in the written report. In this case, the psychologist noted a hand tremor during testing but never included it in her report. The ALJ found this was a violation that also triggered the district's duty to assess for occupational therapy. Parents should ask for all raw test protocols and notes if they have questions about what was observed during an evaluation.
Districts cannot use offers to "re-assess" a student as a way to avoid funding an IEE. When Parents ask for an independent evaluation, the district cannot respond by simply proposing to do another evaluation itself. The law gives Parents the right to an independent outside evaluator when they disagree with the district's assessment — and the district cannot substitute its own re-evaluation for that right.