District Can Offer Aural Rehab Therapy Instead of Auditory Verbal Therapy for Deaf Student

What Happened

Student was a seven-year-old girl who is deaf and hard of hearing, eligible for special education under the categories of hearing impairment and speech-language disorder. She received a cochlear implant at age three and had been working with therapists ever since to develop listening, speech, and language skills. From 2004 to 2007, she received therapy from a District speech-language pathologist. After a dispute over the May 2007 IEP, the District agreed to fund Auditory Verbal Therapy (AVT) from a privately hired, certified AVT therapist — two hours per week — beginning in November 2007.

At the May 7, 2008 IEP meeting, the District changed course. For the 2008-2009 school year, the District offered Aural Rehabilitation Therapy (ART) — provided by its own credentialed staff for 50 minutes per week — rather than continuing to fund certified AVT. Parents rejected this offer. They believed ART incorporated lip reading, sign language, and tactile cues that were inappropriate for their daughter, who was an oral learner. They argued that only a certified AVT therapist could properly meet her needs, and they kept Student enrolled at a private school in Culver City. Parents filed for due process in June 2008, asking the ALJ to order the District to provide certified AVT services and compensatory education for the time Student did not receive it.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the District and denied all of Student's requested relief. The central finding was that ART and AVT are substantially the same type of therapy — they share the same goals (developing listening, speech, and language without sign language or lip reading), the same core principles, and many of the same techniques. The District's mission statement for ART explicitly described using AVT techniques, and the District's ART provider had been incorporating AVT methods into her work with Student since 2004.

Critically, Student's own AVT therapist — the certified specialist the parents had hired — testified at the hearing that the goals of ART and AVT were essentially the same, and that she agreed with the District's ART mission statement. She also acknowledged that she did not recommend at the IEP meeting that the District continue providing AVT, and she did not object to the offer of ART.

The ALJ also addressed the parents' concern that ART used inappropriate techniques like lip reading and sign language. The evidence showed that while the District therapist had used minimal lip reading in earlier years when Student was first learning with her implant, she had not used those techniques in recent years. No witnesses confirmed the parents' observations of sign language or tactile cues being used in ART sessions.

On the question of whether a certified AVT therapist is legally required, the ALJ noted that AVT certification is not mandated by California or federal law — it is a credential offered by a private professional organization. Under established legal standards, districts are only required to provide an "appropriate" program, not the "best" one. Because methodology is left to the district's discretion when the program is otherwise appropriate, the District's choice of ART over AVT was within its authority.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's request for prospective AVT services provided by a certified auditory verbal therapist was denied.
2. Student's request for compensatory education in the form of AVT was denied.
3. The District prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. "Best" therapy is not the legal standard — "appropriate" is. IDEA and California law require districts to provide a program reasonably designed to provide educational benefit, not the program parents believe is superior. Even if AVT from a certified therapist would produce better results, the District only has to offer something that is appropriate and addresses the student's unique needs.

2. Your own expert's testimony can hurt your case. In this case, the parents' AVT therapist testified that ART and AVT had substantially the same goals and techniques, and she did not object to the IEP offer at the meeting. If you bring an outside expert to an IEP, make sure they are prepared to clearly document and advocate for your child's specific needs — including making explicit written recommendations for continuing services.

3. Private certifications do not create legal requirements for districts. The AVT certification from the A.G. Bell Academy is issued by a private professional organization, not a government body. The ALJ ruled that this private credential does not obligate a district to hire only certified practitioners. If you believe a specific type of therapist or credential is necessary for your child, you will need evidence showing that the uncertified alternative is inadequate — not just that the certified version is preferred.

4. Document what you observe in therapy sessions carefully and contemporaneously. Parents believed they had seen the District therapist using sign language and tactile cues — techniques they considered inappropriate. However, no outside witnesses could confirm this, and the ALJ concluded the parents may have been confusing earlier therapy sessions with more recent ones. Keeping dated notes of what you observe, or requesting the right to observe sessions, can make a critical difference if those observations become disputed at hearing.