District Must Assess AT Needs Comprehensively When Student Isn't Using Provided Devices

A high school student with dyslexia, a specific learning disability, and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (a degenerative neuromuscular condition) challenged Antelope Valley Union High School District's special education program over three school years. The ALJ found that while the District largely provided appropriate services, it failed to conduct a comprehensive assistive technology assessment after it became clear Student was not using his AT devices — a violation that denied Student meaningful access to his curriculum. The District was ordered to fund an independent AT assessment tailored to Student's unique physical and learning disabilities.

What Happened

Student is a high school junior in the Antelope Valley Union High School District who has two significant disabilities: a specific learning disability (including dyslexia affecting reading, reading comprehension, and written expression) and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT), a progressive neuromuscular condition that causes weakness in the legs and potentially the hands and arms. Student wore leg braces, tired easily, and had documented challenges with fine-motor skills. Student was placed in a special day class (SDC) for most of his school day and received a range of supports including the READ 180 reading program, math and writing instruction, transition planning, and assistive technology (AT).

Parent filed for due process in February 2010, covering the 2007–2008, 2008–2009, and 2009–2010 school years. Parent argued that the District failed to assess Student in all areas of need, created inappropriate IEP goals, did not provide enough support in reading, math, and writing, failed to provide appropriate assistive technology, created inadequate transition plans, and did not offer proper accommodations for Student's mobility on a newly expanded campus. The hearing was held over five days before ALJ Clifford H. Woosley.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled mostly in the District's favor, finding that Student's IEP goals were appropriate, his reading, math, and writing programs were sufficient, his transition plans met legal requirements, and the District's campus mobility accommodations were reasonable — including its offer of a motorized scooter, which Student's own medical expert acknowledged was appropriate for longer distances.

However, the ALJ found that the District did violate Student's right to a FAPE for the 2008–2009 and 2009–2010 school years by failing to conduct a comprehensive assistive technology assessment. Student had been provided an AlphaSmart keyboard device (and later a device called the Fusion), but he consistently did not use either. Rather than investigating why Student wasn't using the AT — particularly whether his CMT-related physical limitations, visual processing disorder, or dyslexia were making the devices inaccessible — the District assumed Student was simply unmotivated or resistant. The ALJ found this was a critical error. The District's own IEPs acknowledged that Student required AT to access his curriculum. Without a proper assessment, the District was essentially guessing at what Student needed, and that guess was failing him. The AT technician who selected the devices even admitted at hearing that he was unaware Student had limited physical strength. This failure significantly impeded Parent's ability to participate meaningfully in AT-related decisions and deprived Student of educational benefit.

The AT failure was found to begin at the October 2008 triennial IEP, not earlier — the ALJ determined the District was not yet on notice of the problem at the September 2007 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Within 45 days of the decision, the District must provide and pay for an independent assistive technology assessment of Student.
The assessment must specifically examine how Student's visual processing disorder, dyslexia, and CMT affect his ability to access and use proposed AT devices.
The assessment must identify specific strategies to help Student actually use AT to access his curriculum.
The assessment must propose measurable benchmarks to track whether AT is working for Student.
A timely IEP team meeting must be convened to consider the assessment's findings and recommendations.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child isn't using their AT device, the district can't just blame your child. This case makes clear that when a student consistently fails to use assistive technology, the district has an obligation to investigate why — not assume the student is unmotivated. Non-use is a signal that the AT may not be the right fit, and a proper assessment is required.
AT assessments must account for the whole child — including physical disabilities. The District chose keyboard devices for a student whose neuromuscular disease progressively affects hand and arm strength, without ever assessing whether he could physically use them. If your child has a physical condition alongside a learning disability, any AT assessment must consider how both affect technology use.
When a district acknowledges in an IEP that a student needs AT to access the curriculum, it is legally bound to ensure that AT actually works. The IEPs here repeatedly stated Student required AT — but because no proper assessment was done, he had no functional AT for two school years. Document any statements in your child's IEP about AT necessity, and hold the district accountable for following through.
Procedural violations only matter legally if they cause real harm. The ALJ dismissed many of Parent's procedural claims because the errors didn't deprive Student of educational benefit or block Parent's participation. When raising procedural concerns, be prepared to show how the violation actually hurt your child's education or prevented you from meaningfully participating in IEP decisions.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The AT failure was found to begin at the October 2008 triennial IEP, not earlier — the ALJ determined the District was not yet on notice of the problem at the September 2007 IEP.

What Was Ordered

Within 45 days of the decision, the District must provide and pay for an independent assistive technology assessment of Student.
The assessment must specifically examine how Student's visual processing disorder, dyslexia, and CMT affect his ability to access and use proposed AT devices.
The assessment must identify specific strategies to help Student actually use AT to access his curriculum.
The assessment must propose measurable benchmarks to track whether AT is working for Student.
A timely IEP team meeting must be convened to consider the assessment's findings and recommendations.

Why This Matters for Parents

If your child isn't using their AT device, the district can't just blame your child. This case makes clear that when a student consistently fails to use assistive technology, the district has an obligation to investigate why — not assume the student is unmotivated. Non-use is a signal that the AT may not be the right fit, and a proper assessment is required.
AT assessments must account for the whole child — including physical disabilities. The District chose keyboard devices for a student whose neuromuscular disease progressively affects hand and arm strength, without ever assessing whether he could physically use them. If your child has a physical condition alongside a learning disability, any AT assessment must consider how both affect technology use.
When a district acknowledges in an IEP that a student needs AT to access the curriculum, it is legally bound to ensure that AT actually works. The IEPs here repeatedly stated Student required AT — but because no proper assessment was done, he had no functional AT for two school years. Document any statements in your child's IEP about AT necessity, and hold the district accountable for following through.
Procedural violations only matter legally if they cause real harm. The ALJ dismissed many of Parent's procedural claims because the errors didn't deprive Student of educational benefit or block Parent's participation. When raising procedural concerns, be prepared to show how the violation actually hurt your child's education or prevented you from meaningfully participating in IEP decisions.