District Wins on Placement, But Loses on Speech and AAC Services for Girl with Apraxia

What Happened

Student is a seven-year-old girl diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech — a neurological condition that makes it extremely difficult to plan and execute the mouth movements needed to produce speech. She had significant delays in expressive language, receptive language, motor skills, and self-help, and relied on a combination of signs, gestures, picture cards, and a voice output communication device called a Springboard Lite to communicate. Since preschool, Student had been receiving intensive services at a private nonpublic agency (ALLS/Arbor Bay School), paid for partly by the district and partly by Parents out of pocket.

Parents filed for due process in October 2009, arguing that the district's IEPs from April 2008 and April 2009 failed to offer adequate speech and language therapy, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) services, and occupational therapy (OT). Parents also objected to the district's proposed placement — a special day class called the Learning Center — and argued that Student should instead attend Arbor Bay School (ABS), a private program with an intensive speech-language focus. Parents sought reimbursement for ABS tuition and transportation costs for the 2009-2010 school year, as well as compensatory services.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ issued a split decision. The district lost on speech and AAC services but won on placement, OT, and the procedural violation claim.

Speech and Language Services — District Lost. The ALJ found that in both the April 2008 and April 2009 IEPs, the district offered only two hours per week of speech and language services without any separate AAC services. This was not enough given Student's severe apraxia and her new Springboard Lite device, which required significant training for Student, her teachers, aides, and Parents. Student's private speech therapists — who had worked with her for years — credibly testified that Student needed at least two hours of speech therapy and two hours of AAC services per week to make educational progress. The district's experts acknowledged Student needed intensive services but disagreed on the amount. The ALJ sided with Student's providers.

AAC Services — District Lost. When the district finally introduced AAC services in the May 2009 revised offer, it proposed only 60 minutes per month from a program specialist who was not a speech therapist and had no AAC expertise. The ALJ found this was inadequate. Student's apraxia required that her AAC provider have a background in speech and language development — a point even the district's own speech expert partially supported.

Placement — District Won. The ALJ found the district's proposed Learning Center placement, combined with daily inclusion in a general education kindergarten class, was appropriate and in the least restrictive environment. The ABS program preferred by Parents was actually more restrictive — it had no typical peers. Student's own speech therapist acknowledged Student would benefit from interaction with typically developing peers.

OT — District Won. Student's own OT expert testified that the district's OT offer was appropriate and that Student made substantial progress on her motor goals. No contradictory evidence was presented.

Procedural Violation (May 2009 Letter) — District Won. Parents argued the district violated procedural rules by revising its IEP offer in a letter without holding a new IEP meeting. The ALJ disagreed, finding the letter only increased the level of services offered and did not change eligibility, assessment data, or goals. Parents retained the right to request an IEP meeting if they had questions.

What Was Ordered

1. The district was ordered to pay $513.00 to speech therapist Janet Buchwald within 45 days, representing nine speech therapy sessions provided in November and December 2009 under a Stay Put Order that the district had not paid.
2. Student's requests for tuition reimbursement for ABS ($30,000+) and transportation costs ($1,543) were denied because the district's placement offer was found to be appropriate.
3. Student's request for compensatory education (future speech, AAC, and OT services) was denied because Parents did not present sufficient evidence about what services were owed or what had been missed.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Winning on the substance doesn't automatically mean winning a remedy. The ALJ agreed the district violated FAPE on speech and AAC services — but denied compensatory education and tuition reimbursement because Parents didn't provide enough specific evidence (session logs, invoices, dollar amounts) to support those claims. Document everything: keep records of every private session, every invoice, and every payment made out of pocket.

2. When your child gets a new assistive device, demand separate AAC services in the IEP. The district provided Student a Springboard Lite but didn't add AAC training services to the IEP. The ALJ found this was a FAPE violation. If your child receives a communication device, the IEP should include specific services to train the child, teachers, aides, and family to use it.

3. A more restrictive private placement isn't automatically better under the law. Parents wanted ABS, which had a stronger speech program — but ABS had no typically developing peers. The law requires placement in the least restrictive environment, meaning districts can prevail even when a private program offers more intensive services, if the private program is more isolated.

4. Your private providers' testimony matters — but they need to be specific. Student's private speech therapists were persuasive on why the district's services were insufficient. However, when it came to remedies, the case failed because no one testified with specificity about how many sessions were missed and exactly what compensation was needed. Bring that evidence to the hearing.