District Wins: CART Captioning Not Required for High-Achieving Deaf Student

A parent requested that Poway Unified School District provide Computer Assisted Real-Time Captioning (CART) for their deaf 13-year-old daughter who uses a cochlear implant and hearing aid. The ALJ found that, despite not hearing every word in class, Student was earning nearly straight A's, participating actively in class, and accessing the general education curriculum — making CART unnecessary for a free appropriate public education under the Rowley standard. The parent's request for relief was denied.

What Happened

Student is a 13-year-old with moderate to profound hearing loss in both ears. She wears a hearing aid in her left ear and a cochlear implant in her right ear. She communicates orally — using speech and listening — rather than sign language. At the time of her April 2009 IEP, she was in seventh grade at a Poway Unified middle school, enrolled in general education classes alongside her typically developing peers. She was earning nearly straight A's, scoring in the "advanced" range on state testing, actively participating in class discussions, and even running for student government office.

Student's parents believed she was missing significant portions of classroom conversation — comments from other students, incidental discussion, and collaborative group work — because her hearing aids and cochlear implant cannot filter out background noise or capture every voice the way typical hearing can. They requested that the District provide CART (Computer Assisted Real-Time Captioning), a service in which a trained stenographer transcribes everything spoken in the classroom in real time onto a laptop screen. The District's April 2009 IEP offered FM amplification, a pass-around microphone, close-captioned videos, preferential seating, peer notes, and speech-language services — but not CART. The parents filed for due process, arguing this denial was a violation of Student's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled in favor of the District. While acknowledging that Student does not hear every word spoken by peers in class, the ALJ found this was not sufficient to constitute a denial of FAPE. The legal standard — established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Rowley — does not require schools to maximize a student's potential or provide the parents' preferred program. It requires only that the IEP be "reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit." Given Student's exceptional academic performance, grade-level advancement, active class participation, and social engagement, the District's existing accommodations met that standard.

The ALJ found that Student's own experts — an audiologist and a psychologist who had previously assessed her — never formally recommended CART in any written report before the hearing. They testified that CART would be "appropriate," but never that Student would lose educational benefit without it. That distinction mattered: appropriate is not the same as necessary. The ALJ also noted that Student's IEP goals related to articulation, mumbling, and communication development showed consistent year-over-year progress — undermining the argument that CART was needed to achieve those goals. The parent's argument that California Education Code section 56000.5 creates a higher standard for deaf students than the federal Rowley standard was also rejected — the Legislature explicitly stated it did not intend to set a higher standard than federal law.

What Was Ordered

Student's request for relief was denied in full.
The District prevailed on the sole issue heard and decided: whether the April 20, 2009 IEP denied Student a FAPE by not including CART services.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Appropriate" is not the same as "necessary" under special education law. The ALJ drew a sharp line between what might help a student and what is legally required. If your child is performing well academically, districts will argue that additional services — even beneficial ones — are not required for FAPE. To win, you need experts who can testify that your child cannot access their education without the service, not just that the service would help.
Get written expert recommendations before the IEP meeting, not just at hearing. In this case, the parent's psychologist expert had never put a CART recommendation in writing before the due process hearing. The ALJ found this significantly weakened the parent's case. If you believe your child needs a specific service or technology, ask your evaluators to document that recommendation formally and share it with the District before the IEP meeting.
Academic grades are powerful evidence — in both directions. A student earning nearly straight A's is a difficult case for a FAPE denial claim. Courts and ALJs look at grades, test scores, and grade-level advancement as key indicators of educational benefit. If your child is struggling academically, that strengthens your case. If they are succeeding, be prepared to explain why the missing service still matters — for example, what it costs your child in terms of fatigue, anxiety, or social exclusion, even when grades look fine.
IEPs are judged as a "snapshot" — what the District knew at the time. The District later offered transcription services in an August 2009 letter, and even filed its own due process case about it. The ALJ refused to treat either as an admission that CART was needed in April 2009. The law evaluates the IEP based on what the District reasonably knew when it was written. This means parents must bring their full case — including expert opinions — to the IEP table, not just to the hearing room.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

Student's request for relief was denied in full.
The District prevailed on the sole issue heard and decided: whether the April 20, 2009 IEP denied Student a FAPE by not including CART services.

Why This Matters for Parents

"Appropriate" is not the same as "necessary" under special education law. The ALJ drew a sharp line between what might help a student and what is legally required. If your child is performing well academically, districts will argue that additional services — even beneficial ones — are not required for FAPE. To win, you need experts who can testify that your child cannot access their education without the service, not just that the service would help.
Get written expert recommendations before the IEP meeting, not just at hearing. In this case, the parent's psychologist expert had never put a CART recommendation in writing before the due process hearing. The ALJ found this significantly weakened the parent's case. If you believe your child needs a specific service or technology, ask your evaluators to document that recommendation formally and share it with the District before the IEP meeting.
Academic grades are powerful evidence — in both directions. A student earning nearly straight A's is a difficult case for a FAPE denial claim. Courts and ALJs look at grades, test scores, and grade-level advancement as key indicators of educational benefit. If your child is struggling academically, that strengthens your case. If they are succeeding, be prepared to explain why the missing service still matters — for example, what it costs your child in terms of fatigue, anxiety, or social exclusion, even when grades look fine.
IEPs are judged as a "snapshot" — what the District knew at the time. The District later offered transcription services in an August 2009 letter, and even filed its own due process case about it. The ALJ refused to treat either as an admission that CART was needed in April 2009. The law evaluates the IEP based on what the District reasonably knew when it was written. This means parents must bring their full case — including expert opinions — to the IEP table, not just to the hearing room.