District Denied FAPE by Ignoring Assistive Tech Skills and Providing Inadequate IEPs

What Happened

Student is a young woman with cerebral palsy, moderate spastic quadriparesis, and significant developmental delays. She is non-verbal and relies on assistive technology — specifically a "touch talker" communication device and an "Intellikeys" interactive computer keyboard — to communicate and learn. Prior to enrolling at Rialto High School in November 2004 under the jurisdiction of Colton Joint Unified School District and the San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools, Student had developed meaningful skills on both devices: she could use multiple icon arrays on the touch talker to build phrases and answer questions, and she was practicing basic math and language skills on the Intellikeys for approximately 45 minutes a day. A March 2004 IEP from her prior district reflected these abilities in detail.

When Student transferred to Rialto High, the district held an IEP meeting in December 2004 but did not incorporate the findings of her recent triennial assessment or her prior IEP into the new plan. The same pattern repeated in December 2005. Parent attended IEP meetings, raised concerns, and ultimately filed for due process after Student was exited from special education in June 2006 with a certificate of completion — before Parent had a meaningful opportunity to obtain conservatorship and assert her rights on Student's behalf.

What the District Did Wrong

The ALJ found that both the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 IEPs denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in several significant ways.

Inadequate present levels and goals. The IEPs described Student's communication ability as essentially crying or smiling, completely omitting her documented ability to use the touch talker to build multi-word phrases, answer questions, and work at multiple icon levels. Because the present levels were inaccurate, the goals built on them were also inadequate — they did not address Student's real communication, math, or motor skills, and were not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

Failure to provide assistive technology. Both IEPs vaguely referenced "big button switches" and adaptive equipment but did not specifically identify the touch talker or Intellikeys, did not include goals tied to those devices, and did not provide for Student's use of the touch talker at the more advanced level she had previously achieved. In the classroom, staff used a far simpler three-button device instead of Student's touch talker. This failure to maintain and build on Student's existing assistive technology skills denied her a FAPE.

Inadequate transition plans. Student was over 20 years old during both school years, making a meaningful transition plan legally required. Both transition plans were nearly identical, vague, and failed to address Student's actual interests (music, church, shopping, socializing, bowling) or her specific communication and functional skills. The plans listed generic activities like campus walks without explaining how those activities would prepare Student for life after school.

Several other claims were denied. The ALJ found no obligation to reassess Student upon transfer because a triennial assessment had been completed just nine months earlier. The district was not required to conduct a functional analysis assessment because there was no evidence of serious classroom behavior problems. Claims about teacher credentials, progress reports, and the certificate of completion procedure were also denied — largely because Student held her own educational rights during both school years (she was 20–21 years old with no guardian or conservator), so Parent's lack of notice did not constitute a legal violation.

What Was Ordered

1. Respondents shall provide Student with 60 minutes per week of one-to-one training in the use of her Intellikeys device, for 52 weeks, delivered over 14 consecutive months.
2. Respondents shall provide Student with 60 minutes per week of one-to-one training in the use of her touch talker device, for 52 weeks, delivered over 14 consecutive months.
3. All services must be provided at a location convenient to Student, with the district responsible for transportation if needed.
4. All services must be delivered by qualified personnel, either district staff or a contracted qualified nonpublic agency.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. An IEP must reflect what your child can actually do — not a simplified version. The district's biggest error was writing IEPs that ignored documented skills. If your child's prior assessments or previous district's IEP show specific abilities, the new district is required to account for those in the present levels of performance and build goals from them. Bring copies of prior IEPs and assessments to every new IEP meeting.

2. Assistive technology must be specifically named and built into goals. A vague reference to "adaptive equipment" is not enough. If your child uses a communication device or specialized software, the IEP must identify those specific tools, explain how they will be used, and include goals that develop your child's skills on those devices. Generic language without goals or training plans can constitute a FAPE denial.

3. Transition plans must reflect your child's real life and real interests. A legally compliant transition plan isn't just a checkbox — it must address the student's specific strengths, preferences, and goals for after school. If the plan ignores what your child enjoys and is capable of, it may not meet the legal standard even if it contains the required headings.

4. When a student with disabilities turns 18, educational rights transfer to them — not the parent. Unless a conservatorship or guardianship is established, a parent loses the legal right to receive IEP copies, progress reports, or prior written notice. If your adult child has significant cognitive or communication limitations, consult with an attorney about pursuing conservatorship before your child turns 18, so you can continue to legally advocate on their behalf.