When "We Looked at the Data" Isn't Enough. Why Assessment Quality Is Now the Front Line of Special Education Risk

For years, special education compliance conversations focused on whether districts followed procedures: Were timelines met? Were forms completed? Were meetings held?

That era is ending.

Across states, hearing officers, complaint investigators, and courts are increasingly focused on a harder question: Did the district meaningfully evaluate the student in a way that could reasonably support the decisions it made?

This shift matters because assessment is no longer viewed as a preliminary step. It is now treated as the evidentiary foundation for nearly everything that follows:

• eligibility determinations,
• service intensity,
• placement decisions,
• progress monitoring,
• discipline analyses,
• and compensatory education awards.

When assessment is thin, narrow, or outdated, every downstream decision becomes vulnerable—no matter how carefully documented.

This article is written for special education directors who already know IDEA basics and want fewer findings, fewer hearings, and fewer surprises. It draws directly from recent assessment-related cases and uses speech-language evaluation as a concrete example of what defensible assessment actually looks like in practice.

The Emerging Pattern: Compliance Is No Longer Enough

Recent cases involving Child Find, reevaluations, and Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs) reveal a consistent pattern:

• Screenings are being rejected as substitutes for evaluations
• Minimal data is no longer treated as professional judgment
• Failure to respond to assessment concerns is interpreted as notice
• Delays around IEEs are treated as decisions, not neutral pauses

Importantly, districts are rarely faulted for acting in bad faith. They are faulted for acting incompletely—for stopping short of what the data demanded.

In effect, decision-makers are asking:

"Given what the district knew, was what it did reasonable?"

That question cannot be answered with paperwork alone.

Why Assessment Has Become the Pressure Point

Assessment is uniquely vulnerable because it sits at the intersection of:

• professional judgment
• parent participation
• instructional planning
• and legal accountability.

Unlike placement or services, assessment decisions are often made behind the scenes, with little external scrutiny—until a dispute arises. When that happens, the evaluation becomes the record.

And that record must now show:

• why specific tools were chosen
• why certain domains were included or excluded
• how parent input was gathered and used
• and how the results logically support the team's conclusions.

When those explanations are missing—or thin—the district's credibility erodes quickly.

A Concrete Example: What a Defensible Evaluation Actually Looks Like

To understand the difference between activity and evaluation, consider speech-language assessment.

A legally defensible speech-language evaluation rarely relies on a single test or score. Instead, it uses multiple tools, each selected to answer specific questions about how a student communicates and accesses instruction.

Commonly used tools include:

• Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5, CELF-Preschool, CELF-4 Spanish, CELF Metalinguistics) for core and higher-order language skills
• Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language–2 (CASL-2) for detailed expressive and receptive language analysis
• Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–3 (GFTA-3) to evaluate speech sound production
• Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–5 (PPVT-5) and Expressive Vocabulary Test–3 (EVT-3) to differentiate receptive and expressive vocabulary
• Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics (CAPs) to assess social communication
• Functional Communication Profile–Revised (FCP-R) to connect skills to real-world functioning
• Stuttering Severity Instrument–4 (SSI-4) for fluency
• Spanish-bilingual measures (ROWPVT-4 SBE; EOWPVT-4 SBE) where language background requires it
• Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing–2 (CTOPP-2) and Test of Auditory Processing Skills–4 (TAPS-4) when processing concerns are suspected
• Khan-Lewis Phonological Analysis–3 (KLPA-3) to analyze articulation patterns
• AAC profile tools when expressive language is limited

The list itself is not the point. The point is coverage.

A defensible evaluation:

• uses multiple tools
• across relevant domains
• selected based on suspected disability-related needs
• interpreted in relation to educational impact
• and integrated with parent input, observations, and instructional data.

Now contrast that with what many districts attempt to defend:

• a dyslexia screener
• a brief checklist
• or a records review.

That gap—between what assessment should be and what was actually done—is where districts are increasingly losing.

Screeners Are Not a Shortcut

Tangipahoa Parish School System (LA)

In Tangipahoa Parish School System, the district attempted to treat a dyslexia screening as a triennial reevaluation.

The state education agency rejected that approach outright.

The holding was clear: a screening is not a reevaluation. Reviewing records or administering a narrow screener does not meet IDEA's requirement to use a variety of assessment tools when concerns persist or evolve (Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Sys., 125 LRP 21756 [SEA LA June 30, 2025]).

This case matters because it reflects a broader rejection of "good enough" assessment practices.

Director implications:

• Screeners may flag concerns.
• Screeners may inform decisions.
• Screeners may not replace comprehensive evaluation.

When districts rely on narrow tools to satisfy reevaluation obligations, they create a record that is easy to dismantle.

RTI Can Inform—but Not Delay—Evaluation

Arlington Public Schools (MA)

In Arlington Public Schools, the district avoided a Child Find violation because it acted when suspicion became clear.

The district used RTI data appropriately, monitored progress, and initiated an evaluation once dyslexia indicators and family history emerged. The state found no violation (Arlington Pub. Schs., 124 LRP 42380 [SEA MA Dec. 16, 2024]).

This case is often misunderstood. It does not endorse prolonged intervention without evaluation. It endorses responsiveness.

Director implications:

• RTI protects districts only when it is dynamic.
• Once suspicion is clear, delay becomes exposure.
• Intervention data stops being a shield once it signals need.

RTI is not a waiting room. It is an information-gathering process that must eventually lead somewhere.

Parent Input Must Be Substantive, Not Symbolic

San Diego Unified School District (CA)

In San Diego Unified School District, the district conducted a reevaluation that relied on minimal emailed parent input and failed to follow up on concerns related to speech, mental health, and medication.

The administrative law judge found the effort perfunctory and legally deficient (San Diego Unified Sch. Dist., 124 LRP 29276 [SEA CA July 22, 2024]). Importantly, the violation was not the use of email. The violation was the lack of depth and follow-through.

Director implications:

• Parent participation is not measured by method.
• It is measured by substance.
• Superficial engagement is increasingly treated as no engagement at all.

Hybrid and remote practices are permissible—but only when they result in meaningful information.

Self-Diagnosis Triggers Consideration—Not Capitulation

York County School District 4 (SC)

In York County School District 4, a parent requested an autism evaluation based on a student's self-diagnosis from social media. The state held that parents were not automatically entitled to an IEE at public expense (York Cnty. Sch. Dist. 4, 121 LRP 32035 [SEA SC May 6, 2021]).

This case is critical because it restores balance.

Director implications:

• Districts must take concerns seriously.
• Districts must not rubber-stamp diagnoses.
• Child Find requires investigation—not automatic agreement.

Self-diagnosis triggers inquiry, not entitlement.

Ambiguity Favors Parents

Minnesota Department of Education

Where parent communications reasonably signal disagreement with an evaluation, districts do not get the benefit of the doubt.

In Minnesota, the state ordered reconsideration in the parents' favor when the district failed to clarify an unclear IEE request (Vol. 41, Iss. 8, The Special Educator, June 5, 2025).

Director implications:

• Ambiguity does not protect districts.
• Failure to clarify is treated as inaction.
• Inaction leads to payment.

The safest move is almost always clarification—fast and in writing.

The Rule Districts Still Miss: Fund or File

The "fund or file" requirement remains one of the clearest—and most frequently violated—IDEA rules.

If a district disagrees with an IEE request and does not initiate due process, the district pays (Vol. 41, Iss. 20, The Special Educator, Dec. 17, 2025).

Director implications:

• Silence is not neutral.
• Delay is not strategic.
• Every day without action increases exposure.

This is not a judgment call. It is a procedural requirement.

Absences, Behavior, and the Duty to Assess

Attendance and behavior patterns are increasingly being treated as assessment triggers, not excuses.

Where absences are linked to anxiety, trauma, or disability-related needs, they may require:

• FBAs
• mental health evaluations
• or expanded reevaluation scope (Vol. 40, Iss. 17, The Special Educator, Oct. 25, 2024).

Director implications:

• Attendance data is evaluative data.
• "We didn't know" is less persuasive when patterns are documented.
• Off-campus or nontraditional FBAs may be required.

Good Grades Matter—But Don't End the Inquiry

In one case, strong academic performance supported deferral of a Section 504 evaluation, reinforcing that diagnosis alone does not trigger eligibility (Vol. 40, Iss. 20, The Special Educator, Jan. 9, 2025).

This case is important because it confirms that balanced, data-driven decisions remain defensible.

Director implications:

• Over-identification is not required.
• Under-identification remains risky.
• Multiple data points protect districts.

Stale Data Is Becoming a Liability

Across multiple decisions, reliance on outdated assessment data is increasingly viewed as indefensible—especially when behavior escalates or progress stalls (Vol. 40, Iss. 19, The Special Educator, Dec. 6, 2024).

Director implications:

• Old data weakens new decisions.
• Progress monitoring must inform action.
• Fresh data is now risk management.

What This Means for Special Education Directors

Taken together, these cases establish a new baseline for special education leadership. This is not a shift in statute. IDEA has not changed. What has changed is how decisively decision-makers are enforcing long-standing requirements when assessment quality is thin.

For directors, this means assessment is no longer a technical function delegated entirely to evaluators. It is a system-level compliance issue that requires leadership oversight, expectation-setting, and intervention when the data does not support the team's conclusions.

Each of the following points reflects a real inflection in how evaluation disputes are now decided.

1. Assessment Quality Is Now a Compliance Issue

Historically, districts treated assessment quality as a professional judgment zone—important for instruction, but rarely the basis of a legal violation by itself. That distinction is eroding.

Across recent decisions, evaluative quality is now being scrutinized in the same way timelines and procedural steps once were. Hearing officers are no longer satisfied with evidence that some assessment occurred. They are asking whether the assessment was sufficiently comprehensive to support the district's decisions.

For directors, this creates a new responsibility:

• It is no longer enough to confirm that an evaluation was completed on time.
• It is no longer enough to confirm that a report exists.
• It is no longer enough to confirm that standardized scores are included.

The question has become whether the evaluation logically supports eligibility decisions, service intensity, placement choices, and refusals.

This means directors must:

• expect evaluators to explain why tools were selected
• intervene when reports omit suspected domains
• and require teams to reconcile conflicting data rather than ignoring it.

Operational reality:

If assessment quality is weak, the district—not the individual evaluator—bears the compliance risk.

2. Narrow Evaluations Create Exposure

One of the most consistent error patterns in recent cases is evaluation scope that mirrors convenience rather than need.

Examples include:

• academic evaluations that exclude executive functioning
• behavior referrals without FBAs
• speech evaluations that ignore pragmatics
• mental health concerns addressed only through attendance data.

These omissions are rarely intentional. They are usually the product of:

• limited staffing
• rigid evaluation templates
• or an assumption that "we can always test later."

The problem is that once a district knows—or reasonably should know—that a student may have needs in a particular area, failure to assess that area becomes the violation.

For directors, this requires a shift in mindset:

• Scope decisions must be defensible, not just expedient.
• Evaluation plans must be reviewed through a risk lens, not just a compliance checklist.

Operational reality:

Partial evaluations are often more dangerous than delayed evaluations, because they create a false sense of completeness.

3. Documentation Must Reflect Substance, Not Activity

Another clear trend is the rejection of documentation that records activity without analysis.

Examples that repeatedly fail under scrutiny:

• reports that list tests but do not explain conclusions
• parent input summarized but not acted upon
• eligibility statements that restate criteria without application
• "no adverse impact" conclusions unsupported by functional data.

Documentation is no longer evaluated by volume or formatting. It is evaluated by whether it demonstrates reasoned decision-making.

For directors, this has direct implications for:

• report review expectations
• staff training
• and quality control processes.

It is no longer sufficient for a report to say:

"Based on the evaluation, the student does not qualify."

The report must answer:

• What questions were we trying to answer?
• What did the data show?
• How did we weigh conflicting information?
• Why does this data support this conclusion?

Operational reality:

If the documentation cannot explain the district's reasoning to an outsider, it will not protect the district.

4. IEE Delays Compound Liability

IEEs remain one of the clearest areas of avoidable risk.

Despite longstanding guidance, districts continue to treat IEE requests as:

• negotiable
• informal
• or something that can wait until schedules align.

Recent cases make clear that delay is no longer tolerated, especially when parents have clearly expressed disagreement with an evaluation.

For directors, this means:

• IEE requests must trigger immediate administrative review.
• Decisions must be made quickly and documented clearly.
• Staff uncertainty must not translate into district inaction.

The binary nature of the obligation—fund or file—requires directors to establish internal protocols that remove ambiguity.

Operational reality:

Every day of delay increases the likelihood the district will pay without the benefit of defending its evaluation.

5. Breadth, Responsiveness, and Follow-Through Matter

Perhaps the most important takeaway is evaluation is no longer viewed as a single event. It is viewed as part of an ongoing data-to-decision process.

Decision-makers are increasingly attentive to whether districts:

• broadened assessment when concerns expanded
• revisited conclusions when data changed
• adjusted when interventions failed
• and followed through when progress stalled.

This places new demands on directors to ensure that:

• reevaluations are not treated as routine renewals
• progress monitoring data feeds back into assessment decisions
• and teams are empowered to revisit assumptions mid-cycle.

Operational reality:

Stagnant evaluations in dynamic situations are now interpreted as inaction.

The Question Directors Must Now Ask

For many years, the guiding compliance question was:

"Did we evaluate?"

That question is no longer sufficient.

The operative question is now:

"Would a neutral decision-maker agree that this evaluation answered the questions it needed to answer?"

That is a higher bar.

It requires:

• clarity about what the questions were
• intentional assessment design
• integration of multiple data sources
• and transparent reasoning.

But it is also a safer bar—because evaluations that meet it are far more likely to withstand scrutiny, even when parents disagree with the outcome.

Final Thought for Directors

None of this requires perfection. IDEA does not demand flawless assessment.

What it demands—and what decision-makers are now enforcing—is reasonableness in light of the information available at the time.

Directors who:

• insist on meaningful evaluation scope
• require substantive documentation
• act promptly on IEE requests
• and treat assessment as decision-relevant evidence rather than procedural paperwork,

are not just reducing legal risk. They are strengthening the integrity of the entire special education system.

Assessment is no longer just how decisions start.

‍

It is how decisions are judged.

‍

Parallel Learning Inc. partners with districts to strengthen evaluation practices, align data with defensible decision-making, and reduce special education risk without sacrificing instructional integrity.

‍