Deaf Student Denied CART and Assistive Tech Assessment — District Ordered to Provide Both

What Happened

Student is a 15-year-old boy with profound bilateral hearing loss who received a cochlear implant in his right ear at age three. He communicates orally — using his voice and residual hearing from the implant — rather than sign language, a choice made deliberately by him and his family. His older model implant connects to an FM system that lets him hear only the teacher's voice through a microphone; he cannot hear classmates speaking or even his own voice during class discussions. Student had previously attended a middle school in the Covina Valley Unified School District, which had significant experience and staffing for deaf and hard-of-hearing students, but transferred to Glendora High School for ninth grade to attend a school closer to home with higher test scores.

When Student transitioned to Glendora High School, his parent — herself a credentialed special education teacher with specialized training in oral-deaf education — requested that the district conduct an assistive technology assessment to determine whether Communication Access Real-Time Translation (CART) would help Student. CART is a service where a trained captionist types spoken words in real time, displaying them as text on a screen, so a deaf student can follow along with classroom discussion as it happens. The district's director of student support services denied the assessment request by letter — without consulting the IEP team — claiming Student was "successful" with his current services. The parent raised the issue again at a second IEP meeting on April 24, 2007, and was again denied by the same administrator acting alone. Student filed for a due process hearing on August 29, 2007.

What the District Did Wrong

1. A district administrator rejected the assessment request outside the IEP process. The parent made a proper, documented request for an assistive technology assessment at an IEP meeting and followed up in writing. Instead of bringing the question back to the IEP team as promised, the director unilaterally denied it by letter — twice. This is a procedural violation: decisions about assessment and services must be made by the IEP team, not by a single administrator acting alone.

2. The IEPs contained no goals addressing Student's actual identified needs. Both the April 2 and April 24, 2007 IEPs acknowledged that Student had unique needs in communication, class participation, spelling, writing, and socialization — but contained zero goals in any of those areas. The only goal in the IEP was a generic vocational/career education goal about being on time and bringing materials to class. An IEP that identifies a need but fails to write goals to address it does not provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

3. The district failed to provide meaningful access to the general education curriculum. Student was physically placed in general education classes, but his FM system only allowed him to hear the teacher — not other students. He missed substantial portions of class discussion, could not fully participate in group activities or debates, and had no way to track the back-and-forth of classroom conversation. Being present in a classroom is not the same as having meaningful access to the curriculum. The district's approach effectively isolated Student from his non-disabled peers despite placing him in an inclusive setting.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was ordered to immediately provide CART services to Student for the remainder of the 2007–2008 school year.
2. The district was ordered to continue providing CART services throughout the entire 2008–2009 school year as compensatory education for the denial of FAPE.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A single administrator cannot veto an assessment request — that decision belongs to the IEP team. When a parent requests an assessment, the district must respond through the proper IEP process. If a district employee denies the request in a letter without convening the team, that is a procedural violation that can support a finding of FAPE denial.

2. An IEP that identifies needs but writes no goals to address them is legally deficient. If the IEP meeting notes or present levels section describes a problem — communication access, class participation, writing — the IEP must include measurable goals targeting that problem. A gap between identified needs and written goals is a concrete, documentable violation.

3. Physical inclusion is not the same as meaningful access. Placing a student with a disability in a general education classroom does not satisfy FAPE if that student cannot actually access the instruction being delivered. Parents of deaf and hard-of-hearing students should document in writing what their child can and cannot hear in the classroom, including peer discussion.

4. Compensatory education does not have to be day-for-day. The ALJ awarded CART for a full extra year — not as a one-for-one makeup of missed sessions — because the goal is to give the student a genuine opportunity to benefit from their education going forward. Parents should know that compensatory education can take many forms and can extend beyond the period of the violation.