District Wins: OT and Psychoeducational Assessments Upheld, IEEs Denied

Capistrano Unified School District filed for due process after Parent requested publicly funded independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in occupational therapy and psychoeducational assessment areas. The district argued its assessments were legally appropriate, and ALJ Jackie C. Dai agreed, finding both assessments met all state and federal requirements. Parent's requests for IEEs were denied.

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old kindergartener eligible for special education with a speech and language impairment, who had attended a special day class at Capistrano Unified School District. Parent had concerns about Student's fine motor skills, sensory processing, and possible autism characteristics. In response to Parent's request, District conducted an occupational therapy (OT) assessment in October 2016 and, later, a comprehensive psychoeducational assessment in May 2017 as part of Student's triennial review.

After reviewing both assessments at IEP team meetings, Parent disagreed with the results — particularly because they differed from what Parent observed at home and from reports by private outside providers. Parent requested that the district fund independent educational evaluations (IEEs) by outside evaluators in both OT and psychoeducational areas. When the district declined to fund the IEEs, it was required by law to file for due process to defend its assessments. The district did so, and the hearing officer ultimately sided with the district on both issues.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that both of the district's assessments were legally appropriate and did not need to be replaced by IEEs at public expense.

For the occupational therapy assessment, the district's OT was a licensed therapist with over 11 years of experience and 250–300 assessments completed. She used multiple tools — the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales and the Sensory Processing Measure — conducted classroom and playground observations, gathered teacher and parent input, and reviewed private provider reports. Parent argued the assessment was done in a quiet room with no distractions and didn't reflect Student's current abilities. The ALJ rejected both arguments: the quiet-room setting was required by the publisher's instructions, and the fact that time had passed since the assessment did not make the original assessment invalid, especially since no one had formally requested further testing.

For the psychoeducational assessment, three qualified professionals administered a battery of tests covering cognitive functioning, pre-academic skills, social-emotional development, behavior, and autism screening. Student scored in the average to above-average range across all areas in the school setting. Parent pointed out that Student's behaviors at home looked very different — including concerns about personal space, eye contact, and social initiation — and that private providers had identified deficits. The ALJ acknowledged the discrepancy between home and school observations, but ruled that this inconsistency did not make the school-based assessments legally deficient. Parent's testimony at hearing focused on Student's current functioning, which the ALJ noted might support a request for reassessment, but did not prove the past assessments were conducted improperly.

What Was Ordered

District's occupational therapy assessment dated October 31, 2016, was found to meet all legal requirements.
District's psychoeducational assessment dated May 16, 2017, was found to meet all legal requirements.
Student is not entitled to publicly funded independent educational evaluations in occupational therapy or psychoeducational areas.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not enough to get a publicly funded IEE. To be entitled to an IEE at district expense, you must show that the district's assessment failed to meet legal standards — not just that you or your private providers reached different conclusions. The ALJ found the district followed all required procedures, used qualified evaluators, and used valid tools, so the IEE requests were denied.
Differences between home and school behavior do not automatically invalidate a school-based assessment. The ALJ recognized that Student behaved very differently at home versus at school, but ruled that this gap did not make the school's assessment wrong. If your child's needs show up primarily at home or in private evaluations, it may be harder to challenge a school assessment that shows average performance in the school setting.
If you believe your child's needs have changed since the last assessment, formally request a new assessment in writing. The ALJ noted that Parent's testimony about Student's current functioning "may indicate a need for reassessment." Asking for a new assessment in writing — rather than just challenging an old one — is often a stronger strategy when time has passed or circumstances have changed.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden of proof is on the district. In this case, the district had to prove its assessments were appropriate — and it succeeded. This means parents don't have to prove the assessments were bad; but it also means the district only needs to show it followed proper procedures, not that its conclusions were necessarily correct.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that both of the district's assessments were legally appropriate and did not need to be replaced by IEEs at public expense.

What Was Ordered

District's occupational therapy assessment dated October 31, 2016, was found to meet all legal requirements.
District's psychoeducational assessment dated May 16, 2017, was found to meet all legal requirements.
Student is not entitled to publicly funded independent educational evaluations in occupational therapy or psychoeducational areas.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with assessment results is not enough to get a publicly funded IEE. To be entitled to an IEE at district expense, you must show that the district's assessment failed to meet legal standards — not just that you or your private providers reached different conclusions. The ALJ found the district followed all required procedures, used qualified evaluators, and used valid tools, so the IEE requests were denied.
Differences between home and school behavior do not automatically invalidate a school-based assessment. The ALJ recognized that Student behaved very differently at home versus at school, but ruled that this gap did not make the school's assessment wrong. If your child's needs show up primarily at home or in private evaluations, it may be harder to challenge a school assessment that shows average performance in the school setting.
If you believe your child's needs have changed since the last assessment, formally request a new assessment in writing. The ALJ noted that Parent's testimony about Student's current functioning "may indicate a need for reassessment." Asking for a new assessment in writing — rather than just challenging an old one — is often a stronger strategy when time has passed or circumstances have changed.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden of proof is on the district. In this case, the district had to prove its assessments were appropriate — and it succeeded. This means parents don't have to prove the assessments were bad; but it also means the district only needs to show it followed proper procedures, not that its conclusions were necessarily correct.