District Must Fund Independent Eval When Academic Tester's Qualifications Are Unproven

Monterey Peninsula Unified School District filed for due process to defend its October 2019 psychoeducational assessment of a 16-year-old student, arguing the assessment was legally adequate and that the student was not entitled to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense. The ALJ found the district's assessment was legally deficient because the special education teacher who conducted the academic testing — a critical part of the evaluation — was not shown to be qualified or trained to administer the tests he used. Because the academic testing was inextricably tied to the psychoeducational report's conclusions about the student's eligibility for special education under specific learning disability, the entire assessment failed. The student was awarded an independent psychoeducational evaluation at the district's expense.

What Happened

Student was a 16-year-old 11th grader who had recently been found eligible for special education under the category of "other health impairment" in fall 2019. As part of determining Student's eligibility — including whether Student had a specific learning disability — Monterey Peninsula Unified School District conducted a psychoeducational assessment in October 2019. The assessment involved two district employees: a credentialed school psychologist who assessed Student's cognitive abilities, and a special education teacher who administered academic achievement testing using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement.

After the assessment was completed, Parent disagreed with it and requested an independent educational evaluation (IEE) — meaning an evaluation paid for by the district but conducted by someone outside the district. When a parent requests an IEE, the district must either fund it or go to a due process hearing to prove its own assessment was legally adequate. Monterey chose to file for due process to defend its assessment. Parent briefly appeared at the hearing but left before it concluded, and the hearing proceeded without them.

What the District Did Wrong

The central problem with Monterey's assessment was not the school psychologist's work — the ALJ found her cognitive testing to be appropriate, culturally sensitive, and properly administered. The problem was the academic testing conducted by the special education teacher, which the school psychologist relied on heavily in her final report.

The academic tester's qualifications were never established. California law requires that anyone conducting an assessment must be both knowledgeable about the student's suspected disability and competent to perform the specific assessment. The district presented no evidence about the special education teacher's education, credentials, training, or experience in administering standardized academic tests. He did not testify at the hearing. The district simply failed to show he was qualified to do what he did.

The academic testing tool itself was not proven valid for this student. The law also requires that tests be used for purposes for which they are valid and reliable, tailored to the student's specific educational needs, and not culturally or racially discriminatory. The district offered no evidence that the Woodcock-Johnson test was appropriate for this particular student — a student who had immigrated to the United States at age four and had been an English language learner. By contrast, the school psychologist explained in detail why she chose a culturally sensitive cognitive test. No such explanation was offered for the academic test.

Because the academic testing was an essential part of the eligibility analysis — specifically, comparing academic achievement scores against cognitive scores to determine whether Student had a specific learning disability — the entire psychoeducational report was tainted. The ALJ ruled that the school psychologist's report could not be separated from the flawed academic testing it depended on.

What Was Ordered

Monterey's October 30, 2019 psychoeducational assessment was found to be not legally compliant.
Student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation funded by Monterey Peninsula Unified School District.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's assessment is only as strong as every person who contributed to it. Even if the lead evaluator (like a school psychologist) does excellent work, if another staff member contributed testing that the district can't defend, the whole assessment can be invalidated. Ask the district to identify everyone who will conduct any part of your child's evaluation — and what their qualifications are.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden of proof is on the district — not you. The district must prove its evaluation was legally adequate. You don't have to prove it was bad. In this case, the district simply failed to bring in the academic tester to testify or provide any documentation of his qualifications, and that silence cost them.
You have the right to request an IEE whenever you disagree with a district evaluation. If the district believes its assessment was appropriate, it must go to a hearing to prove it. If the district can't prove that, you are entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense. Don't let a district talk you out of requesting an IEE if you have real concerns about how an evaluation was conducted.
Tests must be appropriate for your child specifically — not just generally valid. The law requires that assessment tools be tailored to a student's unique needs and not culturally discriminatory. If your child has an immigration history, is or was an English language learner, or has other background factors, ask the district to explain why each specific test they used was appropriate for your child in particular.

What Happened

What the District Did Wrong

What Was Ordered

Monterey's October 30, 2019 psychoeducational assessment was found to be not legally compliant.
Student is entitled to an independent psychoeducational evaluation funded by Monterey Peninsula Unified School District.

Why This Matters for Parents

A district's assessment is only as strong as every person who contributed to it. Even if the lead evaluator (like a school psychologist) does excellent work, if another staff member contributed testing that the district can't defend, the whole assessment can be invalidated. Ask the district to identify everyone who will conduct any part of your child's evaluation — and what their qualifications are.
When a district files for due process to defend its assessment, the burden of proof is on the district — not you. The district must prove its evaluation was legally adequate. You don't have to prove it was bad. In this case, the district simply failed to bring in the academic tester to testify or provide any documentation of his qualifications, and that silence cost them.
You have the right to request an IEE whenever you disagree with a district evaluation. If the district believes its assessment was appropriate, it must go to a hearing to prove it. If the district can't prove that, you are entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense. Don't let a district talk you out of requesting an IEE if you have real concerns about how an evaluation was conducted.
Tests must be appropriate for your child specifically — not just generally valid. The law requires that assessment tools be tailored to a student's unique needs and not culturally discriminatory. If your child has an immigration history, is or was an English language learner, or has other background factors, ask the district to explain why each specific test they used was appropriate for your child in particular.