Tustin USD's Assessments Upheld; Parent's IEE Request and NPS Placement Denied

Parents of a nine-year-old student with autism and speech-language impairment challenged Tustin Unified School District's 2017 multidisciplinary assessment, requesting an independent educational evaluation at public expense and a nonpublic school placement. The ALJ found the district's assessments were thorough and properly conducted, and that the student's general education placement with specialized supports was appropriate. All of the parent's claims were denied and the district was not required to fund an independent evaluation.

What Happened

Student was a nine-year-old boy eligible for special education under the categories of autism and speech or language impairment, attending school in the Tustin Unified School District. Parents requested an early triennial assessment in September 2017, asking for evaluations across a wide range of areas including academic achievement, cognitive ability, auditory processing, ADHD, visual and motor skills, and behavioral functioning. The district developed and carried out a multidisciplinary assessment, completing it in November 2017. At the November 30, 2017 IEP team meeting, the district presented its findings and offered continued placement in a general education classroom with pullout specialized academic instruction, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and aide support, plus an additional 40 minutes per week of push-in reading support.

Parents disagreed with the assessment and, in December 2017, requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense — meaning they wanted the district to pay for an outside expert to reassess Student. The district refused and filed for a due process hearing to defend its assessment. Parents also filed a separate complaint, arguing the assessment was inadequate and that Student's IEP goals and placement failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The two cases were consolidated and heard together. Parents believed Student needed a nonpublic school placement, and visited several options, ultimately identifying a school called New Vista as a potential fit.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor. On the assessment, the ALJ found that every assessor was properly credentialed and experienced, that a wide variety of valid and reliable tests were used across all areas of suspected need, and that the results were properly documented and shared with Parents at the IEP meeting. Parents participated fully in that meeting. The ALJ specifically rejected the parents' arguments that: (1) the district's observations of Student were inadequate (assessors observed Student multiple times in multiple settings and most knew him personally from providing direct services); (2) the district should have conducted more extensive auditory processing testing (the assessor explained that Student's auditory processing scores were in line with his overall cognitive ability, so further testing was not warranted); (3) the district should have analyzed whether Student had an intellectual disability (this had never been a concern raised before and was not an area of suspected need); and (4) the functional behavioral assessment was improper (Student's behavioral difficulties were found to be temporary and improving, and did not rise to the level requiring a formal behavior intervention plan).

On the goals, the ALJ found that the IEP included measurable annual goals in every area of Student's identified need, and Parents offered no evidence that any specific goal was inappropriate. On placement, the ALJ found that Student was making meaningful educational progress in his current setting — he had met six of his seven prior annual goals — and benefited from socializing with nondisabled peers. The ALJ found that Parents offered no credible evidence that Student required a more restrictive nonpublic school setting to make appropriate progress. Notably, no one from New Vista testified at the hearing, and Parents did not submit the school's assessment of Student into evidence, leaving their placement argument unsupported.

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims were denied.
The district's November 2017 multidisciplinary assessment was found appropriate.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation for Student.

Why This Matters for Parents

If you want an IEE at public expense, the district can challenge it — and you may need to defend your disagreement with evidence. When a district denies an IEE request, it must file for a due process hearing to justify its assessment. But at that hearing, the district only has to show its assessment was appropriate. Simply disagreeing with the results is not enough; parents should be prepared to explain specifically what was wrong or missing.
To win a placement dispute, you need more than a parent's preference — you need expert testimony and documentation. Parents visited New Vista and believed it was the right fit, but no one from that school testified and no outside evaluation was submitted. Without that evidence, the ALJ had no basis to conclude Student needed a more restrictive setting. If you are seeking a nonpublic school placement, bring witnesses and written reports to support your position.
A district's assessors can use professional judgment in testing — but their reasoning must be explained and documented. The ALJ accepted the district's explanation for testing Student at lower grade levels and for pausing and resuming one subtest, because the assessor clearly explained her reasoning and Student offered no evidence contradicting it. When you disagree with how a district assessed your child, identifying a specific methodological flaw with expert support will carry more weight than a general objection.
Behavioral concerns must be significant and ongoing to require a formal behavior intervention plan. The ALJ found that because Student's tantrums had decreased after supports were put in place and were not seriously disrupting his learning, a behavior intervention plan was not required. If you believe your child's behavior warrants a BIP, document the frequency, intensity, and impact of those behaviors carefully over time — and be prepared to show they are not temporary or improving.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

All of Student's claims were denied.
The district's November 2017 multidisciplinary assessment was found appropriate.
The district was not required to fund an independent educational evaluation for Student.

Why This Matters for Parents

If you want an IEE at public expense, the district can challenge it — and you may need to defend your disagreement with evidence. When a district denies an IEE request, it must file for a due process hearing to justify its assessment. But at that hearing, the district only has to show its assessment was appropriate. Simply disagreeing with the results is not enough; parents should be prepared to explain specifically what was wrong or missing.
To win a placement dispute, you need more than a parent's preference — you need expert testimony and documentation. Parents visited New Vista and believed it was the right fit, but no one from that school testified and no outside evaluation was submitted. Without that evidence, the ALJ had no basis to conclude Student needed a more restrictive setting. If you are seeking a nonpublic school placement, bring witnesses and written reports to support your position.
A district's assessors can use professional judgment in testing — but their reasoning must be explained and documented. The ALJ accepted the district's explanation for testing Student at lower grade levels and for pausing and resuming one subtest, because the assessor clearly explained her reasoning and Student offered no evidence contradicting it. When you disagree with how a district assessed your child, identifying a specific methodological flaw with expert support will carry more weight than a general objection.
Behavioral concerns must be significant and ongoing to require a formal behavior intervention plan. The ALJ found that because Student's tantrums had decreased after supports were put in place and were not seriously disrupting his learning, a behavior intervention plan was not required. If you believe your child's behavior warrants a BIP, document the frequency, intensity, and impact of those behaviors carefully over time — and be prepared to show they are not temporary or improving.