The student had been given three different labels in three years based on only one evaluation.  He was initially identified as having mental retardation even though the testing was done in English and the student’s primary language was Spanish.  The next year the student was retained in Kindergarten and eligibility was changed to learning disabled.  The following year, again with no additional testing, he was designated as having communication disorder.  As with the evaluation, none of the IEP meetings had been conducted in Spanish or with a translator.

I was an intern and assigned to do the triennial evaluation.  I wanted to destroy the file.  I didn’t want anyone to look at those first three IEPs as representative of the student.  Over twenty years later, this triennial assessment remains one of the top 5 “fixes” of my career.

In the IEP process, there are two safeguards in place for erroneous evaluations – the triennial evaluation and the IEE (independent educational evaluation).   At least every three years, children with disabilities are assessed to determine present levels of functioning and eligibility for services. This is the triennial evaluation.  However, parents are also allowed to get a second opinion, without cost to them, if they don’t agree with the results or diagnosis of any evaluation. This is the IEE.

While the triennial is accepted for its value to the IEP process by special educators, the IEE is not. Requesting an IEE can be considered controversial or even disrespectful. The resistance to providing this second opinion, a practice that is accepted in health care and even professional sports, can be extreme in education. I believe this attitude needs to change because sometimes mistakes are made.  Sometimes an assessment is explained poorly.  And sometimes, parents need a second voice to be able to hear what the test results are saying.  

Both the triennial and the IEE have the same purpose – to protect children.  There are too many stories like the one shared above.