Long Beach Unified Defends Speech and OT Assessments; Parent's IEE Requests Denied

Long Beach Unified School District filed for due process to defend its October 2019 speech-language and occupational therapy assessments of a 15-year-old student with autism, ADHD, and generalized anxiety disorder. The parent had requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in both areas at public expense after disagreeing with the district's triennial assessments. The ALJ found both assessments were thorough, legally compliant, and conducted by qualified professionals, and denied the parent's requests for publicly funded IEEs.

What Happened

Student was a 15-year-old ninth grader eligible for special education under the primary category of autism, with secondary disabilities of ADHD and generalized anxiety disorder. Student had received speech and language services from Long Beach Unified since qualifying for special education, and had also been receiving occupational therapy, assistive technology support, and educationally related mental health services. In May 2018, the district's audiologist found evidence of an auditory processing disorder, which led to additional accommodations including a Hearing Assistive Technology System device.

As part of Student's triennial reassessment, Long Beach completed a speech-language evaluation on October 17, 2019, and an occupational therapy evaluation on October 18, 2019. Both evaluations were reviewed at a triennial IEP meeting on October 21, 2019. The day after that meeting, Parent requested that the district fund independent evaluations in both areas, disagreeing with the district's assessments. Long Beach declined to fund the IEEs and instead filed a due process complaint — which is the district's legal right — to prove its own assessments were appropriate.

What the ALJ Found

On the speech-language assessment: The ALJ found that Long Beach's speech pathologist, who had 13 years of experience and had conducted hundreds of assessments including many students with autism and auditory deficits, conducted a thorough and legally compliant evaluation. She used multiple standardized tools, completed classroom observations, reviewed prior records including the audiologist's report, and obtained input from Parent. The ALJ rejected Parent's argument that the assessor lacked sufficient experience with auditory processing disorder, noting she had assessed 40 to 60 students with auditory deficits and had directly incorporated the audiologist's findings into her evaluation. The district's own audiologist also testified that the speech-language assessment adequately addressed Student's auditory processing needs. The ALJ noted that Parent's real disagreement was with the services offered in the IEP — not the assessment itself — but FAPE was not at issue in this hearing.

On the occupational therapy assessment: The ALJ found that the occupational therapist, who had 15 years of experience and had conducted approximately 600 educational assessments, used a comprehensive battery of standardized and observational tools. She observed Student on three occasions, interviewed Parent and all seven of Student's teachers, and reviewed records. Parent argued the district should have re-administered a gross motor test used when Student was in seventh grade, but the ALJ ruled that test selection is left to the district's discretion as long as the legal requirements are met. The ALJ found the district was already aware of Student's gross motor deficiencies from prior testing, and that the assessor credibly explained why reassessing gross motor skills was unnecessary given Student's functional performance in physical education.

What Was Ordered

Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in speech and language was denied.
Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in occupational therapy was denied.
Long Beach Unified prevailed on both issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with IEP services is not the same as challenging an assessment. In this case, the ALJ made clear that Parent's real concern was whether the district was offering enough services — but that question was not on the table. If you want to challenge what was offered in the IEP, you need to file your own complaint about FAPE, not just request an IEE. An IEE only addresses whether the assessment itself was adequate.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden is on the district to prove its evaluation was appropriate. Because Long Beach filed the complaint, it had to prove its assessments were legally sound — not the parent. This is an important procedural protection: districts cannot simply refuse an IEE request without taking legal action to justify that refusal.
Parents can challenge assessor qualifications, but must be specific. Parent raised a legitimate concern about whether the speech pathologist had enough experience with auditory processing disorder. The ALJ took that argument seriously but found the assessor had relevant experience and had incorporated the audiologist's findings. If you challenge an assessor's qualifications, document specifically why their background is inadequate for your child's particular disability profile.
Districts have discretion over which specific tests to use, as long as the overall assessment is comprehensive. The ALJ confirmed that parents cannot require a district to use a specific test. What matters is whether the full assessment adequately evaluated all areas of need — not whether the exact tool you preferred was used.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in speech and language was denied.
Student's request for a publicly funded independent educational evaluation in occupational therapy was denied.
Long Beach Unified prevailed on both issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with IEP services is not the same as challenging an assessment. In this case, the ALJ made clear that Parent's real concern was whether the district was offering enough services — but that question was not on the table. If you want to challenge what was offered in the IEP, you need to file your own complaint about FAPE, not just request an IEE. An IEE only addresses whether the assessment itself was adequate.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden is on the district to prove its evaluation was appropriate. Because Long Beach filed the complaint, it had to prove its assessments were legally sound — not the parent. This is an important procedural protection: districts cannot simply refuse an IEE request without taking legal action to justify that refusal.
Parents can challenge assessor qualifications, but must be specific. Parent raised a legitimate concern about whether the speech pathologist had enough experience with auditory processing disorder. The ALJ took that argument seriously but found the assessor had relevant experience and had incorporated the audiologist's findings. If you challenge an assessor's qualifications, document specifically why their background is inadequate for your child's particular disability profile.
Districts have discretion over which specific tests to use, as long as the overall assessment is comprehensive. The ALJ confirmed that parents cannot require a district to use a specific test. What matters is whether the full assessment adequately evaluated all areas of need — not whether the exact tool you preferred was used.