Opinion ID: 3061485
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Educational and Psychological Assessments

Text: In order to assess Rance’s computer abilities, DVR’s Sapperstein asked Rance to take the Test of Adult Basic Education (“TABE”). TABE is a “norm- 3 based examination used extensively throughout the United States, especially in adult-education programs, to determine a person’s approximate grade level.” Although DVR’s Sapperstein told Rance the TABE was a prerequisite to his particular IPE being approved, Rance refused to take the test. Rance stated that he had already taken the TABE through another agency and would send Sapperstein the results within two weeks. DVR’s Sapperstein sent Rance a letter confirming their agreement. However, Sapperstein never received the TABE results. Rance later claimed that Sapperstein had excused him from taking the test, although Sapperstein disputed Rance’s claim. While the TABE process was unfolding, Rance had a series of interactions with other DVR personnel that led Sapperstein to ask Rance to undergo a psychological evaluation. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess Rance’s intellectual and emotional ability to complete the computer programming course. DVR’s procedures provided for such an evaluation in appropriate situations, such as when the applicant displayed volatile behavior jeopardizing his success under the proposed IPE. DVR’s Sapperstein decided Rance’s case was such a situation. For example, the case notes for Rance’s IPE describe an interaction with a DVR staff member in which Rance was “very angry and threaten[ed] to sue” because he was not furnished with copies of his records, “yelled that he wanted a 4 copy of his file,” and “did not want to set up an appointment” to discuss his situation. Fellman also indicated that Rance “had an attitude and was pushy.” At first, Rance appeared to cooperate by going to the psychologist’s office. Once there, however, Rance refused to sign the consent form and demanded changes to the form. The changes were not made, and due to Rance’s failure to cooperate, the psychologist refused to conduct the examination. Because Rance refused to comply with DVR’s assessment process, DVR closed his case and Rance’s proposed IPE was never approved. DVR sent Rance a letter informing him of the closure and of his available remedies.