Whittier District Wins Right to Deny IEE After Thorough Autism and AAC Assessments

Whittier Union High School District filed for due process to defend its multidisciplinary and assistive technology assessments of a 17-year-old student with multiple disabilities, including autism and intellectual disability. Parents had requested independent educational evaluations after disagreeing with the district's proposed placement and recommendation of a low-technology communication device. The ALJ found both assessments were thorough, legally compliant, and appropriate, ruling the district did not have to fund independent evaluations.

What Happened

Student is a 17-year-old 12th grader with multiple disabilities, including autism, intellectual disability, and orthopedic impairment. He has been receiving special education services since 2011. Due to the severity of his disabilities, Student is nonverbal — communicating through eye gaze, gestures, and vocalizations — and requires adult support for nearly all daily activities, including eating, bathing, and schoolwork. At the time of the dispute, Student was receiving instruction through a home program rather than at a school site.

As part of Student's required three-year reassessment, Whittier Union High School District conducted a comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation in the fall of 2024, completed on October 25, 2024. The district also conducted a separate assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication (AT/AAC) assessment, completed October 24, 2024. Based on these assessments, the district proposed at an April 30, 2025 IEP meeting to transition Student from his home program to a school-based placement and to provide a low-technology communication system rather than a high-technology eye-tracking device. Parents disagreed with the IEP offer and requested independent educational evaluations (IEEs) at public expense. When the district denied the IEE request, Parents did not identify specific flaws in the assessments — they simply disagreed with what the assessments led the district to recommend. The district filed for due process to defend its assessments, and the ALJ ruled in the district's favor on both issues.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ found that both of Whittier's assessments were legally sound and thoroughly conducted. On the multidisciplinary assessment, the team included a credentialed school psychologist with over 700 assessments of experience, a licensed speech-language pathologist with over 500 assessments, a special education teacher, and a school nurse. The team reviewed records, interviewed both parents and Student's teacher, observed Student, and conducted both formal and informal testing appropriately tailored to Student's severe disabilities. Where standardized testing could not be completed due to Student's motor and communication limitations, assessors appropriately substituted informal measures and documented their reasoning. Parents testified at the hearing but raised no specific objections to the assessment process or findings — their disagreement was with the IEP placement offer that followed, not the assessment itself.

On the AT/AAC assessment, the district hired a contracted assistive technology specialist with certification since 2016 and over 500 AT/AAC assessments of experience. She conducted the evaluation over four days, reviewed records, observed Student across multiple settings, and interviewed both parents extensively. When Parents requested that Student be trialed on a high-technology eye-tracking device (the Tobii Dynavox), the district went further and conducted additional trials in early 2025. Those trials confirmed Student performed better with low-technology tools. The ALJ found the October 2024 assessment was complete and legally sufficient on its own, and that the April 2025 trial report was simply an additional good-faith effort to address parents' concerns — not a sign of any deficiency in the original assessment. No evidence was presented at hearing to challenge either assessment's validity or findings.

What Was Ordered

Whittier Union High School District may deny Parents' request for an independent educational evaluation of the multidisciplinary assessment.
Whittier Union High School District may deny Parents' request for an independent educational evaluation of the assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication assessment.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an IEP offer is not the same as disagreeing with an assessment. In this case, Parents' real concern was the district's proposed placement and device recommendation — but the IEE right is triggered by disagreement with the assessment itself, not with what the district decides to do with the results. If you want to challenge an IEP offer, that is a separate legal issue from challenging the quality of the evaluation.
When requesting an IEE, be specific about what was wrong with the district's assessment. Parents here twice failed to identify any specific flaws in the district's evaluations. Courts and ALJs look for concrete concerns — such as missing areas of evaluation, unqualified assessors, or improper testing methods. Vague disagreement is unlikely to be enough to win an IEE at public expense.
Districts can strengthen their position by going the extra mile. When Parents asked for trials of a high-tech device, the district conducted them. That good-faith responsiveness actually helped the district's case by showing the recommendation was not arbitrary but based on real, updated evidence.
Qualified assessors and appropriate informal testing matter, especially for students with severe disabilities. For students who cannot complete standardized tests, the law allows — and sometimes requires — informal and criterion-referenced measures. This case shows that well-documented informal assessments by experienced professionals can fully satisfy legal requirements.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Whittier Union High School District may deny Parents' request for an independent educational evaluation of the multidisciplinary assessment.
Whittier Union High School District may deny Parents' request for an independent educational evaluation of the assistive technology and augmentative and alternative communication assessment.

Why This Matters for Parents

Disagreeing with an IEP offer is not the same as disagreeing with an assessment. In this case, Parents' real concern was the district's proposed placement and device recommendation — but the IEE right is triggered by disagreement with the assessment itself, not with what the district decides to do with the results. If you want to challenge an IEP offer, that is a separate legal issue from challenging the quality of the evaluation.
When requesting an IEE, be specific about what was wrong with the district's assessment. Parents here twice failed to identify any specific flaws in the district's evaluations. Courts and ALJs look for concrete concerns — such as missing areas of evaluation, unqualified assessors, or improper testing methods. Vague disagreement is unlikely to be enough to win an IEE at public expense.
Districts can strengthen their position by going the extra mile. When Parents asked for trials of a high-tech device, the district conducted them. That good-faith responsiveness actually helped the district's case by showing the recommendation was not arbitrary but based on real, updated evidence.
Qualified assessors and appropriate informal testing matter, especially for students with severe disabilities. For students who cannot complete standardized tests, the law allows — and sometimes requires — informal and criterion-referenced measures. This case shows that well-documented informal assessments by experienced professionals can fully satisfy legal requirements.