The IEE Request: Delay, Repeat Testing, and a Parent Who Has Not Seen the Report

The district must act promptly; scheduling a discussion six weeks out is not a lawful response.

• When a parent disagrees with a district evaluation and requests an IEE at public expense, the district must, without unnecessary delay, either provide the IEE at public expense or file a due process complaint asking a hearing officer to find its own evaluation appropriate. Many states impose a short deadline for that filing (often around 15 calendar days); the team should check the state rule, but no state permits an open-ended delay.
• The district may give the parent information about its criteria for independent examiners and a list of qualified examiners, but it may not require the parent to use a district employee, improperly narrow the parent's choice, or condition funding on the examiner agreeing with the district.
• Re-running the district's own battery is not a response to the request. If the district believes its evaluation was appropriate, its remedy is the due process filing, not a repeat administration.
• Separate violation: the mother has asked twice for the evaluation report and has not received it. She is entitled to a copy before any meeting where the evaluation will be discussed, explained in language she understands. That should be corrected immediately and in writing.
• The private evaluation must be placed on the table and considered at the next meeting regardless of who paid for it.

A repeat administration would be technically weak and would not answer the eligibility question.

• Evaluation must be comprehensive, use a variety of tools and strategies, and not rest on a single measure. Administering the identical battery within months invites practice effects and inflated scores, and produces no new information about the disputed issues.
• The real questions are: (a) whether phonological processing is the processing deficit underlying her academic problems, (b) whether the hearing history and attendance explain the scores, and (c) whether she has received appropriate instruction. That calls for classroom observation, work samples, dynamic assessment, response-to-intervention data, and a phonological processing measure - not a rerun.
• Low-average scores do not end the analysis. Scores in the 85–88 range can coexist with a disability, especially when the profile is uneven and classroom performance is poor. Conversely, scores in that range do not automatically establish eligibility. The team must weigh the pattern, the adverse effect, and the need for specially designed instruction.
• A single teacher report that she is 'keeping up' is thin evidence, particularly when the parents' evaluation shows severe deficits.
• If the team still finds her ineligible, it must issue prior written notice explaining the basis and the data relied on, and should consider Section 504.

The private evaluation must be considered, not adopted automatically.

• IDEA requires the team to consider any evaluation the parents obtain, including an independent one. 'Consider' means reviewing the data, discussing the findings, and documenting that discussion in the eligibility report.
• The team is not bound by the private evaluator's conclusions. It may give more weight to its own data if it explains why - for example, questionable testing conditions, outdated norms, or stronger classroom data. That reasoning must appear in writing, not just in conversation.
• Where the reports conflict, the team should name the specific points of disagreement (phonological processing, adverse effect, need for SDI) and decide whether additional assessment resolves them. Inviting the independent examiner to attend or provide raw data is a reasonable step.
• Parental input about functioning at home and in the community is part of the review of existing data and should be recorded.
• Whatever the outcome, the meeting should end with prior written notice and a clear written explanation so the parents can decide whether to use the procedural safeguards.