San Marcos Missed Assessment Deadline, Owes Tuition Reimbursement and Independent Eval

A 14-year-old student with autism, ADHD, OCD, and anxiety had been privately placed at the Winston School in Del Mar when his parents sought a full IEP and FAPE offer from San Marcos Unified. After San Marcos agreed to conduct its own comprehensive assessments in June 2018, it failed to complete and review those assessments within the required 60-day statutory deadline—finishing nearly 90 school days late. The ALJ found that the delay denied the student educational benefit and significantly interfered with parental participation, ordering reimbursement of Winston tuition and transportation for the period of delay, plus an independent psychoeducational evaluation at public expense.

What Happened

The student was 14 years old at the time of the hearing and had diagnoses of autism, ADHD, obsessive compulsive disorder, and anxiety. He had previously received special education services in Texas and was privately placed by his parents at the Winston School, a small certified nonpublic school in Del Mar, starting in 2015. In fall 2017, his mother contacted San Marcos Unified—the family's district of residence—to request an assessment. San Marcos improperly redirected the family to San Dieguito Union High School District (the district where Winston was physically located) without clearly explaining that San Marcos had its own independent duty to assess. San Dieguito ultimately assessed the student and found him eligible for special education in January 2018, at which point San Marcos became responsible for offering a full IEP and FAPE.

After a series of IEP meetings in spring and summer 2018, San Marcos developed an IEP on June 27, 2018, and simultaneously issued a comprehensive assessment plan that the mother signed on July 16, 2018. San Marcos was required to complete all assessments and convene an IEP team meeting to review them by October 19, 2018. Instead, the district dragged its feet: it didn't even begin scheduling standardized testing until 30 days into the 60-day window, the psychoeducational assessor waited until two days before the deadline to gather key parent input, and the final IEP team review of all assessments didn't happen until January 16, 2019—approximately 71 school days past the deadline (excluding winter recess). That delayed review ultimately resulted in the student receiving a one-on-one behavioral aide and mental health services he should have been offered months earlier.

What the District Did Wrong

Improper deflection of the initial assessment request (Issue 1a): When the mother emailed San Marcos in October 2017 requesting an assessment, San Marcos told her that San Dieguito—the district of location—was responsible for assessing the student. This was a procedural violation. As the district of residence, San Marcos had an independent obligation under IDEA to assess the student upon a direct parental request, regardless of where the private school was located. San Marcos's offer to assess only "if Parent preferred" did not cure this error. However, because San Dieguito ultimately assessed the student just as promptly as San Marcos could have, and because parents no longer sought a FAPE offer for the 2017–2018 school year by the time the assessment was complete, no remedy was awarded for this violation.
Failure to timely complete assessments after the June 2018 assessment plan (Issue 1b): San Marcos did not complete the assessments identified in the June 27, 2018 assessment plan by the October 19, 2018 statutory deadline. The district made its first attempt to schedule standardized testing 30 days into the 60-day window. The school psychologist gathered critical parent rating scales only two days before the deadline. The functional behavior analysis and special circumstances aide assessment were not reviewed at an IEP meeting until January 16, 2019—approximately 71 school days late. The ALJ rejected San Marcos's argument that parents and Winston caused the delay, finding that any scheduling back-and-forth cost only a handful of days and did not excuse the district's overall lack of urgency.
Harm from the delay: The untimely assessment review directly deprived the student of educational benefit. When the assessments were finally reviewed on January 16, 2019, the IEP team added a full-time one-on-one behavioral aide and weekly mental health services—supports the student needed and should have received starting in October 2018. Parents were also denied their right to timely participate in IEP decision-making for nearly three months.
Untimely psychoeducational assessment (Issue 2): Although the content of San Marcos's psychoeducational evaluation by school psychologist Brett Klepacki was otherwise thorough and legally compliant, the district could not prove the assessment met all legal requirements because it was not completed and reviewed within the statutory timeframe. Under California law, an untimely assessment is a procedural defect that entitles the student to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

What Was Ordered

Tuition reimbursement: San Marcos must reimburse parents for the cost of Winston tuition for each actual school day the student attended from October 20, 2018, through January 16, 2019, excluding the winter recess period of December 21, 2018 through January 11, 2019. Payment is due within 45 days of parents providing reasonable proof of attendance and tuition paid.
Transportation reimbursement: San Marcos must reimburse parents for mileage for actual trips driven by the mother between home and Winston during the same period (October 20, 2018–January 16, 2019, excluding winter recess), at the federal mileage reimbursement rate, limited to one round-trip per school day and conditioned on parents providing documentation of actual trips driven.
Independent psychoeducational evaluation (IEE) at public expense: Because the psychoeducational assessment was not completed and reviewed within the statutory timeline, the student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation funded by San Marcos, conducted in accordance with SELPA guidelines.
No reimbursement for 2017–2018 school year: The ALJ denied reimbursement for Winston tuition prior to October 20, 2018, and for the entire 2017–2018 school year. Parents had placed the student at Winston before ever requesting an assessment, had stopped seeking a FAPE for 2017–2018 by January 2018, and did not request a 2017–2018 FAPE offer from San Marcos.

Why This Matters for Parents

The 60-day assessment clock is firm—track it yourself. Once you sign an assessment plan, California law requires the district to complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting to review them within 60 days (excluding extended breaks). Mark that date on your calendar. If the district misses it, you have a strong procedural violation claim—and potentially an automatic right to an independent evaluation at public expense.
Districts of residence cannot pass the buck to districts of location. If your child attends a private school and you live in a different district than where the school sits, your home district (district of residence) still has an independent duty to assess your child if you directly ask for an IEP and FAPE offer. Don't let the district simply redirect you to another agency without getting that obligation in writing.
An untimely assessment can unlock a free independent evaluation. Even if the district's assessment is substantively thorough and accurate, California law requires it to be completed on time. A missed deadline can be enough to entitle you to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense—meaning an outside expert of your choosing evaluates your child at the district's cost.
Document the district's scheduling conduct carefully. In this case, the district tried to blame the delays on the parents and the private school. The ALJ rejected that argument because the evidence showed San Marcos waited 30 days to even attempt scheduling testing and its assessors lacked urgency throughout. Keep records of every email, call, and scheduling request—both yours and the district's—so that if a deadline is missed, you can show who was actually responsible.
Private placement tuition reimbursement covers the period of actual harm, not the whole year. Reimbursement is tied to the specific window during which the district's violation caused harm. Here, parents only received reimbursement from the day the assessment deadline passed (October 20) through the day the district finally completed its review (January 16)—not for the full school year. When evaluating whether to seek reimbursement, focus on what services or decisions were delayed and what that window of harm actually cost you.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

Improper deflection of the initial assessment request (Issue 1a): When the mother emailed San Marcos in October 2017 requesting an assessment, San Marcos told her that San Dieguito—the district of location—was responsible for assessing the student. This was a procedural violation. As the district of residence, San Marcos had an independent obligation under IDEA to assess the student upon a direct parental request, regardless of where the private school was located. San Marcos's offer to assess only "if Parent preferred" did not cure this error. However, because San Dieguito ultimately assessed the student just as promptly as San Marcos could have, and because parents no longer sought a FAPE offer for the 2017–2018 school year by the time the assessment was complete, no remedy was awarded for this violation.
Failure to timely complete assessments after the June 2018 assessment plan (Issue 1b): San Marcos did not complete the assessments identified in the June 27, 2018 assessment plan by the October 19, 2018 statutory deadline. The district made its first attempt to schedule standardized testing 30 days into the 60-day window. The school psychologist gathered critical parent rating scales only two days before the deadline. The functional behavior analysis and special circumstances aide assessment were not reviewed at an IEP meeting until January 16, 2019—approximately 71 school days late. The ALJ rejected San Marcos's argument that parents and Winston caused the delay, finding that any scheduling back-and-forth cost only a handful of days and did not excuse the district's overall lack of urgency.
Harm from the delay: The untimely assessment review directly deprived the student of educational benefit. When the assessments were finally reviewed on January 16, 2019, the IEP team added a full-time one-on-one behavioral aide and weekly mental health services—supports the student needed and should have received starting in October 2018. Parents were also denied their right to timely participate in IEP decision-making for nearly three months.
Untimely psychoeducational assessment (Issue 2): Although the content of San Marcos's psychoeducational evaluation by school psychologist Brett Klepacki was otherwise thorough and legally compliant, the district could not prove the assessment met all legal requirements because it was not completed and reviewed within the statutory timeframe. Under California law, an untimely assessment is a procedural defect that entitles the student to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense.

What Was Ordered

Tuition reimbursement: San Marcos must reimburse parents for the cost of Winston tuition for each actual school day the student attended from October 20, 2018, through January 16, 2019, excluding the winter recess period of December 21, 2018 through January 11, 2019. Payment is due within 45 days of parents providing reasonable proof of attendance and tuition paid.
Transportation reimbursement: San Marcos must reimburse parents for mileage for actual trips driven by the mother between home and Winston during the same period (October 20, 2018–January 16, 2019, excluding winter recess), at the federal mileage reimbursement rate, limited to one round-trip per school day and conditioned on parents providing documentation of actual trips driven.
Independent psychoeducational evaluation (IEE) at public expense: Because the psychoeducational assessment was not completed and reviewed within the statutory timeline, the student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation funded by San Marcos, conducted in accordance with SELPA guidelines.
No reimbursement for 2017–2018 school year: The ALJ denied reimbursement for Winston tuition prior to October 20, 2018, and for the entire 2017–2018 school year. Parents had placed the student at Winston before ever requesting an assessment, had stopped seeking a FAPE for 2017–2018 by January 2018, and did not request a 2017–2018 FAPE offer from San Marcos.

Why This Matters for Parents

The 60-day assessment clock is firm—track it yourself. Once you sign an assessment plan, California law requires the district to complete all assessments and hold an IEP team meeting to review them within 60 days (excluding extended breaks). Mark that date on your calendar. If the district misses it, you have a strong procedural violation claim—and potentially an automatic right to an independent evaluation at public expense.
Districts of residence cannot pass the buck to districts of location. If your child attends a private school and you live in a different district than where the school sits, your home district (district of residence) still has an independent duty to assess your child if you directly ask for an IEP and FAPE offer. Don't let the district simply redirect you to another agency without getting that obligation in writing.
An untimely assessment can unlock a free independent evaluation. Even if the district's assessment is substantively thorough and accurate, California law requires it to be completed on time. A missed deadline can be enough to entitle you to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense—meaning an outside expert of your choosing evaluates your child at the district's cost.
Document the district's scheduling conduct carefully. In this case, the district tried to blame the delays on the parents and the private school. The ALJ rejected that argument because the evidence showed San Marcos waited 30 days to even attempt scheduling testing and its assessors lacked urgency throughout. Keep records of every email, call, and scheduling request—both yours and the district's—so that if a deadline is missed, you can show who was actually responsible.
Private placement tuition reimbursement covers the period of actual harm, not the whole year. Reimbursement is tied to the specific window during which the district's violation caused harm. Here, parents only received reimbursement from the day the assessment deadline passed (October 20) through the day the district finally completed its review (January 16)—not for the full school year. When evaluating whether to seek reimbursement, focus on what services or decisions were delayed and what that window of harm actually cost you.