LAUSD's Triennial Assessments Upheld: Parent's IEE Requests Denied

What Happened

Student was an eight-year-old boy with autism enrolled in a special day class at an LAUSD elementary school. His triennial reassessments were due in spring 2017. The district sent an assessment plan in Spanish — Student's home language — and Parent signed consent in February 2017. The district then conducted a comprehensive set of assessments, including psychoeducational testing, an occupational therapy evaluation, and a functional behavior assessment (FBA). A bilingual supplemental assessment was also conducted to determine Student's dominant language, which was found to be English. All results pointed to Student functioning well below average in cognitive, academic, motor, and adaptive skill areas.

At the May 4, 2017 IEP meeting, the district presented its findings and offered Student a special day class placement, a behavior support plan, speech/language and occupational therapy services, extended school year, and other supports. Parent and their educational advocate disagreed with the IEP in its entirety and requested publicly funded independent evaluations in the areas of psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and functional behavior. They also requested Applied Behavior Analysis services from a non-public agency. When the district declined to fund the independent evaluations, it filed for due process to defend its assessments. Neither Student nor Parent's advocate attended the hearing.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that all three district assessments — psychoeducational, occupational therapy, and functional behavior — were appropriate, and that Student was therefore not entitled to independent evaluations at public expense.

The psychoeducational assessment was conducted by a credentialed school psychologist with a decade of experience, supported by a bilingual school psychologist and the special education teacher. They used multiple standardized tests, classroom observations, parent and teacher interviews, and records review. Results were consistent across all tools and evaluators, validating that Student's below-average functioning was not caused by limited English proficiency or cultural factors, but by his autism and related disabilities.

The occupational therapy assessment used a well-recognized standardized test (the Beery-Buktenica), along with direct observation of Student performing real-world tasks — writing, stair navigation, self-care, and fine motor activities. The assessor had 19 years of experience and her findings directly informed the IEP team's decision to provide OT services.

The functional behavior assessment was conducted by Student's special education teacher, who was trained in FBA methodology. She collected data across five consecutive school days in all of Student's classes, identified the function of each problem behavior, and proposed individualized strategies. A second teacher independently evaluated the classroom environment, adding an extra layer of rigor. The ALJ found this process thorough and sufficient to develop a behavior support plan.

On procedural grounds, the ALJ noted that the IEP meeting was held 11 days late — but found this was not a significant violation because Parent had agreed to extend the timeline to accommodate their advocate's schedule, and the district made repeated good-faith efforts to schedule the meeting on time.

What Was Ordered

1. The student's requests for publicly funded independent evaluations in psychoeducation, occupational therapy, and functional behavior were denied.
2. The district was found to be the prevailing party on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. When a district files for due process to defend its assessments, it carries the burden of proof — but it can win. In this case, the district successfully demonstrated that its evaluators were qualified, used multiple tools, and produced consistent, valid results. Parents should carefully review assessment reports before requesting an IEE to understand what the district did and whether there are genuine gaps.

2. A bilingual student's dominant language matters for assessment decisions. Because Student was found to be English-dominant through a supplemental bilingual assessment, the district was justified in conducting standardized tests in English. If your child is bilingual, make sure the district conducts a proper language dominance evaluation before testing — and challenge the process if they skip this step.

3. A functional behavior assessment does not have to be conducted by a board-certified behavior analyst (BCBA). California law allows qualified special education teachers with FBA training to conduct these assessments. However, the assessment must be thorough — including multi-day data collection across settings, identification of each behavior's function, and individualized intervention recommendations.

4. Timeline violations don't automatically mean the district violated your child's rights. If you or your advocate agree to reschedule an IEP meeting, you may waive your right to object to a late meeting later. Be strategic about timeline extensions — put your agreement in writing and make sure it is limited in scope.