District's OT Assessment Was Incomplete, But Psych and Speech Evals Were Upheld

Garvey School District filed for due process after a parent requested independent assessments in psychoeducation, speech-language, and occupational therapy following the district's 2017 triennial evaluation of a 13-year-old student with Down syndrome. The ALJ ruled that the psychoeducational and speech-language assessments were appropriate, but found the occupational therapy assessment incomplete because it failed to evaluate key functional skills that were part of the student's school day. As a result, the student was entitled to a publicly funded independent occupational therapy assessment, while the district prevailed on the other two assessment areas.

What Happened

Student was a 13-year-old girl with Down syndrome who qualified for special education under the category of intellectual disability. She was enrolled in a severe disabilities classroom and had a full-time one-to-one aide. In late 2016, Garvey School District sent an assessment plan to Parent for a triennial reevaluation. Parent consented, and the district conducted psychoeducational, speech-language, and occupational therapy assessments in early 2017. At the March 2017 IEP team meeting, the district found Student eligible under intellectual disability and presented its assessment results. Parent strongly disagreed with the findings — particularly the conclusion that Student was not autistic — and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in all three areas at public expense. When the district refused, it filed for due process to defend the appropriateness of its assessments.

Parent believed the assessments underestimated Student's abilities and that Student should also qualify under autism. Parent based her objections primarily on personal observations of Student at home, internet research from sites like WebMD and the CDC, and Student's progress on IEP goals. Parent also argued that the occupational therapy assessment missed important functional skills Student needed during the school day, such as opening food containers, using a zipper, and wearing eyeglasses.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the district on the psychoeducational and speech-language assessments. Both assessors were properly credentialed, used multiple assessment tools, observed Student in various settings, and followed publisher protocols. The school psychologist explained why she did not ask Parent to complete the Gilliam Autism Rating Scale — she had already gathered Parent's input through two other questionnaires — and the ALJ found that decision reasonable. The speech-language pathologist's choice not to interview Parent directly was also upheld as a valid professional judgment. Parent's objections were not supported by any qualified expert, and the ALJ found that Parent's misunderstanding of standardized testing standards — particularly her attempt to equate IEP goal progress with assessment scoring — made her criticisms unpersuasive.

However, the ALJ ruled against the district on the occupational therapy assessment. The occupational therapist failed to assess several functional skills that were clearly part of Student's school day: Student's aversion to wearing eyeglasses (which directly affected her ability to see and learn), her ability to open food containers and condiment packets in the cafeteria, pour liquids, and use a zipper on garments. The therapist's explanations for these omissions — that an aide did those tasks for Student, or that they were "home-related" rather than school-related — were rejected. The ALJ held that a comprehensive occupational therapy assessment must cover all functional skills that are part of a student's school day, especially when that student's education is focused on functional academics and independence. Because the assessment left significant gaps, the IEP team could not develop appropriate goals or services from it.

What Was Ordered

The district is not required to fund an independent psychoeducational assessment. The district's evaluation in that area was found appropriate.
The district is not required to fund an independent speech-language assessment. The district's evaluation in that area was found appropriate.
The district must fund an independent occupational therapy assessment, conducted in accordance with the district's guidelines for independent OT assessments.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not enough — you need expert support. Parent raised many objections to the assessments, but because she had no qualified expert to back her claims, the ALJ gave little weight to her arguments. If you believe a district assessment is wrong, consider consulting an independent specialist before or during the hearing process.
An OT assessment must cover all functional skills that are part of your child's school day, not just academic ones. The district lost on the OT assessment precisely because the assessor skipped real-world skills — opening food containers, wearing glasses, using a zipper — that Student encountered every day at school. If your child's education focuses on life skills and functional independence, the occupational therapy assessment must reflect that focus fully.
Having an aide perform a task does not mean the district can skip assessing whether your child can learn to do it. The OT assessor argued she didn't need to evaluate certain tasks because Student's aide handled them. The ALJ rejected this reasoning: the point of assessment is to identify what skills a student needs to develop, not just to document what is already being done for them.
Meeting an IEP goal is not the same as performing at that level on a standardized assessment. Parent argued that because Student met certain IEP goals, the assessment scores must be wrong. The ALJ clarified that IEP goals use different standards and prompting levels than formal assessments. Understanding this distinction can help you ask better questions at IEP meetings and due process hearings.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The district is not required to fund an independent psychoeducational assessment. The district's evaluation in that area was found appropriate.
The district is not required to fund an independent speech-language assessment. The district's evaluation in that area was found appropriate.
The district must fund an independent occupational therapy assessment, conducted in accordance with the district's guidelines for independent OT assessments.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not enough — you need expert support. Parent raised many objections to the assessments, but because she had no qualified expert to back her claims, the ALJ gave little weight to her arguments. If you believe a district assessment is wrong, consider consulting an independent specialist before or during the hearing process.
An OT assessment must cover all functional skills that are part of your child's school day, not just academic ones. The district lost on the OT assessment precisely because the assessor skipped real-world skills — opening food containers, wearing glasses, using a zipper — that Student encountered every day at school. If your child's education focuses on life skills and functional independence, the occupational therapy assessment must reflect that focus fully.
Having an aide perform a task does not mean the district can skip assessing whether your child can learn to do it. The OT assessor argued she didn't need to evaluate certain tasks because Student's aide handled them. The ALJ rejected this reasoning: the point of assessment is to identify what skills a student needs to develop, not just to document what is already being done for them.
Meeting an IEP goal is not the same as performing at that level on a standardized assessment. Parent argued that because Student met certain IEP goals, the assessment scores must be wrong. The ALJ clarified that IEP goals use different standards and prompting levels than formal assessments. Understanding this distinction can help you ask better questions at IEP meetings and due process hearings.