District Wins: Deaf Student's Demand for AVT Over Aural Rehab Therapy Rejected

What Happened

Student was a 10-year-old girl with profound hearing loss in both ears who had received a cochlear implant in her right ear in June 2006, at approximately age eight — relatively late by clinical standards. She had not received amplification until age five, had not attended school prior to that age, and communicated primarily using sign language when she received her implant. Spanish was the primary language spoken at home. Student was enrolled in Baldwin Park Unified but attended special education programs operated by Covina-Valley Unified under a special education local plan area agreement.

After Student received her cochlear implant, her parents requested that she be placed in an auditory/oral program and provided with Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) — a specific, certified methodology for teaching deaf children to listen and speak without relying on sign language or lip reading. The districts initially kept Student in a total communication classroom (which used both sign language and spoken language) while providing aural rehabilitation therapy (ART) using AVT techniques. In February 2007, Student was moved to an auditory/oral classroom at Ben Lomond Elementary. Parents later alleged that another student had inappropriately kissed and touched Student, and when they felt the districts had not responded adequately, they withdrew Student and enrolled her at Oralingua, a private school for the hearing impaired, seeking reimbursement for that tuition.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of both districts on every issue. On the question of therapy methodology, the ALJ found that the aural rehabilitation therapy Covina-Valley provided was nearly identical to AVT in practice — the therapist sat to Student's side to prevent lip reading, used "auditory sandwiching" (using a brief sign only as a last resort before returning to auditory input), and was herself a candidate for AVT certification being mentored by a certified AVT therapist. Crucially, the ALJ applied the longstanding legal principle from Board of Education v. Rowley that school districts are not required to provide the methodology a parent prefers — only one that is appropriate and provides some educational benefit. Because Student made measurable progress with ART, the district's choice of methodology was legally sufficient.

On the question of the total communication placement in fall 2006, the ALJ found the districts acted appropriately. Student's own expert acknowledged that older cochlear implant recipients need a transition period and may need to continue signing while developing auditory skills. The districts had begun increasing Student's ART services proactively, before the annual IEP, and the evidence showed Student was not yet ready for a fully oral classroom at that time. On the Ben Lomond oral placement after February 2007, the ALJ found that the limited, incidental use of sign language in the classroom (used only as a last resort or among students themselves) did not constitute a denial of FAPE, and Student's own report cards showed satisfactory academic progress.

On the alleged inappropriate touching, the ALJ found the districts were not "deliberately indifferent." Covina-Valley immediately attempted to investigate when allegations were first raised, arranged for a deaf, sign-language-fluent staff member to assist Student in discussing the incident, took preventive steps to separate students, and repeatedly offered to interview Student off-campus with a person of the parent's choosing. Parent ultimately prohibited school staff from speaking with Student, making further investigation impossible. Because Student denied anything happened and the districts could not verify the allegations, they could not legally be required to provide counseling, change Student's placement, or conduct additional assessments.

What Was Ordered

1. All of Student's requests for relief were denied.
2. Both Baldwin Park Unified and Covina-Valley Unified were named the prevailing parties on all issues.
3. No tuition reimbursement was awarded for Student's enrollment at Oralingua (approximately $10,324).

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Districts are not required to provide the specific therapy method you prefer — only one that works. Under federal law, school districts have discretion over educational methodology. If the district's approach is appropriate and your child is making progress, a hearing officer will likely not order a switch to a different method (like certified AVT), even if research supports it or outside clinicians recommend it.

2. Progress matters enormously in these cases. The ALJ repeatedly pointed to Student's report cards, teacher observations, and her successful admission to Oralingua as evidence that the district's program was working. If your child is making meaningful academic and functional progress, it is very difficult to prove a denial of FAPE, even if you believe a different program would work better.

3. When raising allegations of misconduct or harassment, keep lines of communication open with the school. The ALJ found that once Parent prohibited school staff from speaking with Student, the districts could not verify what happened or determine what services Student needed. Withdrawing cooperation — even for understandable reasons — can legally shield the district from responsibility for failing to act.

4. Withdrawing your child and enrolling in private school before a hearing is a significant legal risk. Parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school and then seek reimbursement must first show the district's program was inappropriate. In this case, because the districts prevailed on every substantive issue, no reimbursement was available. Always consult a special education attorney before making a unilateral placement change.