Westminster District Wins: Triennial Assessment Found Adequate, IEEs Denied

Westminster School District filed for due process after parents disagreed with their six-year-old son's 2020 triennial special education assessment and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) in four areas. The ALJ found that all four district assessments — psychoeducational, functional behavioral, speech and language, and occupational therapy — met every legal requirement. As a result, Student was not entitled to publicly funded IEEs.

What Happened

Student was a six-year-old kindergartener eligible for special education under the category of speech and language impairment. He had also been medically diagnosed with autism. In late 2019, Westminster School District proposed a triennial reassessment — a comprehensive re-evaluation required every three years — and Mother signed the assessment plan on December 19, 2019. At Mother's request, the District added a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) to its plan. The District completed assessments in academics, intellectual development, speech and language, occupational therapy, adaptive behavior, social-emotional behavior, and physical education, and held an IEP meeting on March 2, 2020, to review the results.

Mother disagreed with the findings of the triennial assessment, particularly because Student showed very different behaviors and abilities at home than what the assessors observed at school. She believed Student should qualify under the autism eligibility category and felt his behavioral and sensory challenges were not adequately captured. On March 2, 2020 — the same day as the IEP meeting — Mother requested IEEs at public expense in psychoeducation, speech and language, occupational therapy, and functional behavior. Westminster declined to fund the IEEs and instead filed a due process complaint to defend its assessments. Westminster, as the party that filed the complaint, bore the burden of proving its assessments were legally appropriate.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of Westminster on every issue and concluded that all four assessments met legal requirements. Here is what the evidence showed:

Assessor qualifications were not in dispute. Each assessor held the appropriate credentials and had significant experience. The school psychologist had conducted 65 assessments, the speech-language pathologist over 200, and the occupational therapist over 500. The ALJ found all assessors were competent and qualified.

The parent's key argument — that Student's skills at home didn't match what assessors saw at school — was not enough to invalidate the assessments. Mother and a home-based behavior analyst (who began working with Student in May 2020, months after the district's assessments were completed) described concerning behaviors: aggression, self-injury, and academic struggles at home. However, the ALJ gave more weight to the school-based observations and data, because special education assessments focus on how a student functions in the educational environment. Importantly, the home behavior analyst herself acknowledged that Student had the communication skills to express his needs but appeared to mimic his siblings' behaviors at home — which actually supported the District's findings.

The FBA was conducted in the school setting, which the ALJ found appropriate. Lomeli observed Student six times across five days in different settings. Student did not display aggression or self-injury at school. Minor off-task behavior was present but Student was easily redirected. The ALJ found no behavioral intervention plan was needed based on what was observed in the school environment.

The autism eligibility finding was upheld. Although Student had a medical diagnosis of autism, the ALJ agreed with the District that autism did not adversely affect Student's ability to access his education in the school setting — which is the legal standard for special education eligibility.

What Was Ordered

Westminster's 2020 triennial assessment met all legal requirements.
Student is not entitled to independent educational evaluations at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts can file for due process to defend their own assessments. Most parents think of due process as something they initiate. But when a parent requests a publicly funded IEE, the district has the right to challenge that request in court or at a hearing. If the district files first, it takes on the burden of proving its assessment was appropriate — and if it succeeds, the parent may receive no IEE funding at all.
A medical diagnosis alone does not guarantee a special education eligibility category. Student had a medical diagnosis of autism, but the ALJ upheld the District's determination that he did not qualify under the autism eligibility category for special education purposes. Under special education law, the disability must adversely affect educational performance — a higher bar than a clinical diagnosis alone.
Assessors focus on school-based behavior, not home behavior. If your child behaves very differently at home versus school, document it carefully and share it in writing before and during the assessment. The ALJ here acknowledged the gap between home and school behavior but sided with the school-based observations. Getting a private evaluation before you disagree with the district's assessment — rather than after — may produce stronger, timelier evidence.
Timing matters for independent evaluators. The parent's private behavior analyst did not begin working with Student until two months after the district assessment was completed, and conducted her FBA entirely at home during COVID-19 distance learning. The ALJ found this made her findings less comparable and less persuasive. If you are gathering independent evidence to challenge a district assessment, try to have it conducted as close in time and in as similar a setting as possible.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found in favor of Westminster on every issue and concluded that all four assessments met legal requirements. Here is what the evidence showed:

What Was Ordered

Westminster's 2020 triennial assessment met all legal requirements.
Student is not entitled to independent educational evaluations at public expense.

Why This Matters for Parents

Districts can file for due process to defend their own assessments. Most parents think of due process as something they initiate. But when a parent requests a publicly funded IEE, the district has the right to challenge that request in court or at a hearing. If the district files first, it takes on the burden of proving its assessment was appropriate — and if it succeeds, the parent may receive no IEE funding at all.
A medical diagnosis alone does not guarantee a special education eligibility category. Student had a medical diagnosis of autism, but the ALJ upheld the District's determination that he did not qualify under the autism eligibility category for special education purposes. Under special education law, the disability must adversely affect educational performance — a higher bar than a clinical diagnosis alone.
Assessors focus on school-based behavior, not home behavior. If your child behaves very differently at home versus school, document it carefully and share it in writing before and during the assessment. The ALJ here acknowledged the gap between home and school behavior but sided with the school-based observations. Getting a private evaluation before you disagree with the district's assessment — rather than after — may produce stronger, timelier evidence.
Timing matters for independent evaluators. The parent's private behavior analyst did not begin working with Student until two months after the district assessment was completed, and conducted her FBA entirely at home during COVID-19 distance learning. The ALJ found this made her findings less comparable and less persuasive. If you are gathering independent evidence to challenge a district assessment, try to have it conducted as close in time and in as similar a setting as possible.