Garvey School District's Flawed Assessments Entitle Student to Independent Evaluations

What Happened

Student was eight years old and in second grade at the time of the hearing. Student was eligible for special education under the primary category of autism and a secondary category of speech and language impairment. In fall 2019, Garvey School District conducted Student's triennial reevaluation — the comprehensive reassessment that districts must complete every three years. Parents disagreed with the results of both the psychoeducational and speech and language assessments and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) — meaning they wanted outside experts, paid for by the district, to conduct their own assessments. Garvey refused to fund those IEEs and instead filed a due process complaint arguing its own assessments were appropriate. The ALJ sided with Student on both issues.

What the District Did Wrong

Psychoeducational Assessment — Unqualified Assessor and Unreliable Results

The academic achievement portion of the psychoeducational evaluation was administered by a special education intern teacher named Estrada, who held only a short-term staff permit. That permit explicitly authorized her to work only with students whose primary disability was specific learning disability, mild to moderate intellectual disability, other health impairment, or emotional disturbance — not autism. Because Student's primary disability category was autism, Estrada was not authorized to assess him at all. She also could not credibly demonstrate she had ever administered the Woodcock Johnson achievement test before assessing Student, and no one from the district observed or supervised her. Because the academic portion of the evaluation was invalid, the ALJ found the entire psychoeducational assessment was tainted.

Beyond the assessor problem, the school psychologist who conducted the rest of the evaluation produced a report riddled with inconsistencies. She observed Student on the very day he broke his arm and then administered a visual-motor test days later while his arm was in a cast — without noting how the cast may have affected his ability to copy geometric shapes. Her report listed conflicting testing dates, she could not recall which subtests she administered on which days, and she dismissed Parents' concerns entirely in favor of her own brief observations. Most significantly, she concluded Student no longer qualified under the autism category while misrepresenting a "below average" adaptive behavior score as "below average to average." An independent expert reviewed the report and found it lacked sufficient information to reach any reliable conclusion about Student's autism eligibility.

Speech and Language Assessment — No Parent Input, No Relevant History

The speech and language assessor, Nelson, waited until two days before the IEP meeting to attempt to contact Parents for their input — and made only two calls. She had nearly the entire month of September to arrange a time to speak with them. As a result, the report contained no parent input whatsoever. The report also omitted Student's entire history of speech and language concerns, did not reference his autism diagnosis, and did not review his prior assessments. Federal law requires districts to gather relevant functional and developmental information — including information from parents — to assist in determining a child's educational needs. Failing to do so, the ALJ found, made it impossible to develop an appropriate IEP for Student.

What Was Ordered

1. Garvey School District must fund independent educational evaluations in both psychoeducation and speech and language, conducted by providers of Parents' choice.
2. Within 15 days of the decision, Garvey must send Parents its guidelines and criteria for independent educational evaluations so Parents can select qualified assessors.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. The person who assesses your child must be qualified to assess students with your child's specific disability. In this case, the district used an intern whose permit did not cover students with autism — even though autism was the student's primary disability category. Parents can ask the district in writing to confirm the credentials and qualifications of every person who will assess their child before signing an assessment plan.

2. A cast, illness, or any unusual physical condition during testing can make results unreliable — and assessors must document it. The school psychologist failed to note how a freshly broken arm in a cast might have affected Student's performance on a hand-drawing test. If your child has any physical or emotional issue on a testing day, put it in writing and ask the assessor to document it in the report.

3. Districts must make genuine, timely efforts to get parent input before finalizing an assessment. Calling a parent twice, two days before the IEP meeting, does not count. If a district completes an assessment without ever speaking to you, that is a legal deficiency you can challenge.

4. If you disagree with a district assessment, you have the right to request an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The district must either fund it or immediately file for due process to defend its assessment. This case shows that when a district's assessment has serious flaws, the ALJ can order the district to pay for outside experts to re-evaluate your child.