Dr. Jennifer Strong, Licensed Educational Psychologist

September 18, 2025

Introduction

Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs) are a vital safeguard under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Recently, some California districts have attempted to condition the approval of IEEs on evaluators carrying additional sexual abuse and molestation (SAM) insurance. Although framed as risk management, these requirements create barriers to access by imposing costs of over $4,000 annually that many independent practitioners cannot sustain. This article reviews the IDEA framework, guidance from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Ninth Circuit case law, and California due process decisions. The analysis concludes that SAM riders and other restrictive criteria exceed permissible limits, duplicate existing protections, and predictably delay or deter IEEs—thereby burdening families’ access to Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Background and Legal Framework

IDEA guarantees parents the right to request an IEE at public expense if they disagree with a district’s evaluation (34 C.F.R. § 300.502). When such a request is made, the district must either fund the IEE or file for due process “without unnecessary delay.” The Ninth Circuit has strictly enforced this requirement. In M.M. v. Lafayette School District (2012), the court emphasized that districts cannot drag their feet when responding to IEE requests. Similarly, in C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District (2015), the court reiterated that while districts may set reasonable timelines, they cannot create unnecessary barriers that prevent timely evaluations.

Federal rules state that any criteria a district applies to IEEs, such as cost caps, geographic location, or evaluator qualifications, must be the same criteria applied to its own staff when they conduct evaluations (34 C.F.R. § 300.502). OSEP’s Letter to Anonymous (2010) noted that districts sometimes reference “unique circumstances” when discussing exceptions to cost or location rules. In reality, this language has too often been twisted by districts into a tool for denial, with administrators insisting that nothing about a parent’s request is “unique.” But the law is clear: the very fact that a parent disagrees with a district evaluation entitles them to an IEE. Attempting to elevate “unique circumstances” as a hurdle is a distortion of IDEA’s intent and undermines families’ access to their rights.

Cost Caps

Districts frequently attempt to limit the expense of Independent Educational Evaluations by imposing cost caps, often tied to what they present as a “reasonable” market rate. Federal guidance does permit cost parameters, but only if those rates are consistent with what the district itself pays for its own evaluators. In practice, many districts respond to parent requests by pointing to an “approved list” of evaluators who have agreed to work at those rates. While those providers may choose to accept capped rates for a variety of reasons, such as establishing their practice, maintaining referral relationships, or ensuring access for families, the rates themselves are typically far below the fair market value of a psychologist’s time and expertise. As a result, the list does not represent the full range of qualified professionals available, but rather those willing or able to accept the district’s financial terms.

Courts have recognized that rigid cost caps unlawfully restrict parent choice. In Phillips v. District of Columbia (2013), the court ruled that parents must have meaningful access to evaluators even when costs exceed the district’s cap. California due process decisions have reached similar conclusions, finding violations when caps effectively eliminated qualified evaluators or caused undue delay (OAH Case No. 2015091115, 2015; OAH Case No. 2008030735–2008040702, 2009).

How LEPs can guide parents: If a district refuses to fund an evaluator because of cost, parents can demand documentation of what the district actually pays its own contractors. If the cap is inconsistent or too low to secure qualified providers, the parent may file — or threaten to file — for due process. Under IDEA, the district must either fund the requested evaluation or promptly defend its own evaluation in a hearing. Families frequently prevail when they demonstrate that caps are unreasonable, inconsistently applied, or rely on a restricted “approved list” rather than the full field of qualified evaluators.

Geographic Location

Districts also sometimes restrict IEEs by insisting that evaluators must be located within a set geographic boundary. IDEA’s regulations allow districts to apply location criteria, but only when they mirror what the district itself does for its own evaluations (34 C.F.R. § 300.502[e]). OSEP has long cautioned that geographic rules cannot be rigidly applied if no qualified evaluators are available within the set area (OSEP, 1990). In practice, districts often contract with providers who live far away but are willing to travel. California’s OAH Case No. 2013110032 (2014) found that a district could not deny a parent’s evaluator based on distance when the district itself relied on out-of-area contractors. Likewise, the Ninth Circuit in N.D. v. Hawaii Department of Education (2010) stressed that procedural rules cannot be used in ways that undermine families’ meaningful access to IDEA rights. In that case, the court emphasized that while districts may rely on procedures to organize services, those procedures cannot be applied so rigidly that they delay or deny access to evaluations and supports. As commentators have noted in analyzing the case, “procedure cannot swallow substance”. Districts cannot hide behind technical compliance when the effect is to delay or deny access to evaluations and services.

How LEPs can guide parents: If a district denies an evaluator on the basis of distance, parents can point to the district’s own history of contracting with out-of-area psychologists as evidence that the location rule is inconsistent. Parents then have the right to file for due process, where hearing officers often side with families when districts apply stricter standards to parent-selected evaluators than to their own staff. Even before filing, a strongly worded letter threatening due process and citing these inconsistencies frequently prompts districts to approve the parent’s evaluator.

The Emerging Practice of SAM Insurance Requirements

I just want to be clear: Amwins, an insurance industry provider, has noted that SAM policies were designed for camps, afterschool programs, and residential settings—not for office-based evaluations where parents are present (Business Risk Partners, 2025).

In recent years, some California districts have nonetheless begun to add SAM liability insurance to their contract language for independent evaluators. For example, Santa Ana Unified School District lists SAM insurance among the requirements for consultants who have any contact with students. Similarly, statewide analyses of liability exposure, such as those from the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT, 2025), have noted that heightened insurance conditions reduce the pool of organizations able to serve districts.

For Licensed Educational Psychologists (LEPs) who primarily conduct evaluations in private offices, these requirements do not fit the realities of practice. Most LEPs already carry robust professional liability and malpractice insurance, and their evaluations occur in controlled settings where parents or guardians are typically present. In this context, requiring additional SAM coverage is not only duplicative but also financially prohibitive.

Why District-Imposed SAM Riders Conflict With IDEA

First, SAM insurance conditions violate IDEA’s requirement that IEE criteria mirror district practices. School psychologists employed by districts are not required to carry individual SAM riders, so demanding this of outside LEPs creates a double standard. As OSEP (2010) explained, unequal application of criteria is not permissible.

Second, the requirement is redundant. LEPs’ existing professional liability policies already cover misconduct allegations. Imposing SAM riders suggests a lack of trust in those protections while offering no additional benefit for student safety.

Third, the cost burden predictably narrows the field of available evaluators. California due process decisions have already made clear that when district-imposed criteria restrict parent choice or create delays, those actions violate IDEA. SAM riders operate in the same way: by imposing costs that many small practices cannot absorb, districts effectively shrink the evaluator pool and leave families with fewer or no viable options.

Finally, these requirements invite delay. As discussed earlier, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that districts must either fund an IEE or file for due process without unnecessary delay.  Negotiating over new insurance conditions creates the kind of unlawful stall tactics and “unnecessary delay” that IDEA prohibits.

Equity and Access Considerations

The equity implications of SAM riders are significant. Many families already face limited evaluator options, especially when bilingual or specialized assessments are needed. Although OSEP has mentioned “unique circumstances” in guidance, districts often misuse that language to justify denial rather than flexibility. The reality is that every parent’s request for an IEE is already a circumstance protected under IDEA, and attempts to hide behind this phrase contradict the purpose of the law. When districts impose SAM requirements, the evaluator pool shrinks further, and the families who most need flexibility are hit the hardest.

Practical Implications

For LEPs, the best defense is to maintain strong liability coverage, implement clear office safety policies, and communicate those protections to districts and families. These steps address real risk without unnecessary expense. Districts, on the other hand, should align IEE criteria with those applied internally and, if disagreement arises, pursue due process rather than erect barriers. FCMAT (2025) has already cautioned that rising insurance demands reduce service options for students; in the IEE context, this effect directly undermines IDEA’s guarantees.

Advocacy and Professional Responsibility

It is important to acknowledge that navigating contracts, paperwork, and district demands is practically a full-time job. Larger companies may have the administrative infrastructure to manage these burdens, but for many small practices or “mom-and-pop” providers, the sheer volume of administrative work can feel overwhelming. Districts know this. They weigh the pros and cons and often assume that independent evaluators will fold under the pressure of endless negotiations, low caps, and redundant contract requirements.

This is why a strong, united voice matters. The more Licensed Educational Psychologists stand their ground, the stronger our profession becomes. We cannot allow districts to bully us or bury us in paperwork as a strategy to limit parent choice. Nor should we feel compelled to join so-called “approved lists” of evaluators, since those lists often require agreement to cost caps that grossly undervalue our work. Accepting those terms only reinforces the district’s control and undermines the independence that is at the core of an IEE.

The best path forward is to stand firm. Place the responsibility back on parents to advocate for their right to choose the evaluator who is best for their child and support them with the knowledge and tools they need to prevail. LEPs provide highly specialized expertise, and our work is worth every penny. By refusing to compromise our standards and aligning ourselves with what is best for the child, we not only protect our profession but also ensure that children receive the evaluations they deserve.

References

Business Risk Partners. (2025). Understanding sexual misconduct and molestation insurance: What it is, why it’s required, and how to get it. Hartford, CT: Author.

California Office of Administrative Hearings. (2009). OAH 2008030735–2008040702 (decision finding delay and improper limitation on parents’ assessor choice).

California Office of Administrative Hearings. (2015). OAH 2015091115 (Amended) (decision finding procedural violation for undue delay in IEE funding).

C.W. v. Capistrano Unified School District, 784 F.3d 1237 (9th Cir. 2015).

Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT). (2025). Childhood sexual assault: Fiscal implications for California public agencies. Sacramento, CA: Author.

M.M. v. Lafayette School District, 681 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2012).

N.D. v. Hawaii Department of Education, 600 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2010).

Office of Special Education Programs. (2010). Letter to Anonymous, 56 IDELR 175. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Zirkel, P. A. (2022). Independent educational evaluations: The law as re-examined. West’s Education Law Reporter, 389, 457–471.

Santa Ana Unified School District. (n.d.). Insurance requirements for contractors/consultants. Retrieved from https://www.sausd.us