Robert K. Crabtree

As informed and articulate as particular parents may be, they usually cannot make a case for particular services or programs for their child without the help of a competent and credible independent evaluator. In due process hearings there is usually no more important witness for the family. In this light, the most serious mistakes evaluators can make are the ones that undermine their credibility or which render their opinions powerless for lack of the evaluator's follow-through. Here are some serious mistakes independent evaluators should try to avoid:


(1) Failing to assess the student's testing performance in the larger context of his/her educational history, family situation, school setting, psychological make-up and other factors. An evaluation can only provide a snapshot of a student. A report that only describes current test scores explains nothing and provides little foundation for the evaluator's recommendations.

(2) Not contacting the student's teacher(s), special education administrator, or other school personnel involved with the student as key sources of information in the evaluation. Evaluators should not simply assume that the parents' perceptions are more accurate than the school's; sometimes the evaluator's most important role is to reassure parents that their child's public school program is essentially sound.

(3) Writing reports that are poorly organized, full of jargon, carelessly proofread, or in which the recommendations do not connect logically to the testing results; using boilerplate recommendations that are obviously not specifically geared to the student and his/her particular circumstances.

(4) Limiting program and service recommendations only to those the evaluator knows are available in the student's particular school system and/or taking the potential cost of providing recommended services into account. Worse, failing to make any educational recommendations at all on the misguided premise that only school employees can decide how to meet identified needs. Special education law entitles the student to services that will enable him/her to progress educationally. The evaluator's job is to recommend appropriate services, not to limit recommendations to those that are convenient for school systems.

(5) Failing to consider and report on the likely risks for a student if recommendations are not implemented.

(6) Not clarifying for parents that there is often a real difference between recommendations that are clinically desirable and recommendations that are legally mandated (e.g., the best educational program for Johnny may be at a private school catering to his specific needs, but the public school program, which offers less intensive special education services in the "least restrictive" setting may be what the law entitles Johnny to). Not referring parents to a competent special education attorney or advocate to evaluate and advocate for their legal rights.

(7) Refusing to leave the citadel: not following through after the report is written; e.g., not attending team meetings, observing programs, and/or testifying when those activities are necessary to ensure that the evaluator's recommendations will be understood, accepted, and implemented.

(8) Working exclusively as a parents' or as a school system's evaluator; this is a sure way to lose credibility as an evaluator over time.


Robert K. Crabtree is a partner at Kotin, Crabtree, and Strong, LLP, a general practice law firm in Boston, Massachusetts. Among other areas of practice, Mr. Crabtree concentrates in special education and disability law.

Copyright © 1998 Kotin, Crabtree, and Strong, LLP

This article is reprinted with permission. It first appeared, and is currently available, at Family Education Network, http://familyeducation.com/.