District Wins: Multimodal AAC-Based Speech Services Were Appropriate for Student with Down Syndrome

What Happened

Student is a 19-year-old with Down syndrome who qualifies for special education as a student with an intellectual disability. He has been essentially nonverbal his entire school career, able to produce only a handful of spoken words. Since January 2008, he has been placed at Carousel School, a nonpublic school specializing in students who are nonverbal or minimally verbal. The district provided Student with an AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) voice output device called the TechTalk32, which he used to build phrases by pressing icon sequences — for example, pressing "I want," "markers," and "please" to produce the spoken phrase "I want markers, please." His speech and language goals were built around a multimodal communication system combining the AAC device, signs, gestures, facial expressions, and vocalizations.

Parent filed for due process in December 2012, raising three issues: (1) that the district failed to actually deliver speech services required by the November 2010 IEP; (2) that the February 2012 IEP failed to offer sufficient speech services — specifically, Parent wanted additional services from an outside NPA provider; and (3) that the district's speech-language pathologist (SLP) at Carousel was not qualified to serve Student. Parent believed Student's spoken vocabulary had regressed since attending Carousel, and pointed to brief improvements during a hospital stay as evidence that a different approach would help him speak more words. The district denied all claims and the ALJ agreed.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ denied all three of Parent's claims and ruled entirely in the district's favor.

On the question of whether speech services were actually delivered, the ALJ found that the district's SLP credibly testified she had provided all required services through the end of ESY 2012. Service logs confirmed a second SLP delivered services from September through November 2012. Critically, the ALJ found that the gap in services after November 2012 — when that SLP left Carousel — was caused by Parent herself, who explicitly told the school by email that she refused speech services from the returning SLP. Because Parent declined the offered services, the district was not held responsible for that gap.

On the adequacy of the February 2012 IEP's speech goals and services, the ALJ found the district's approach was appropriate and reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. The core disagreement was about methodology: Parent wanted Student to speak more words, while the district focused on functional communication through AAC and multimodal means. The ALJ accepted the SLP's expert testimony that traditional speech therapy would not meaningfully expand Student's spoken vocabulary, and that more one-on-one sessions — whether from Carousel or an outside NPA — would not improve his functional expressive communication. The ALJ also found that Parent's own actions undermined Student's progress: she directed Carousel to stop using the TechTalk32 after his hospitalization, substituting a photo picture book instead. The SLP credibly testified this hampered Student's expressive communication, since he could build phrases on the AAC device but not with pictures alone.

On the SLP's qualifications, the ALJ found the district's SLP held a current California teaching credential in speech-language pathology, held the CCC-SLP certification from ASHA, held a bachelor's degree in speech sciences, and had over a decade of experience working with nonverbal students with developmental disabilities. Parent presented no evidence of any deficiency beyond her personal distrust of the therapist.

What Was Ordered

1. Student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
2. No compensatory education, IEE funding, additional services, or other remedies were awarded.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. A district does not have to focus on spoken words if functional communication is the IEP's goal. If your child's IEP goals are built around AAC devices, sign language, or other multimodal systems — not verbal speech — the district will be measured against those goals, not against whether your child is speaking more words. If you want spoken language to be a goal, you need to raise that clearly and get it written into the IEP.

2. Refusing services can hurt your legal case. Parent declined speech therapy from the returning SLP by email, and the ALJ found the district was not responsible for the resulting gap. If you have concerns about a provider's approach, document those concerns in writing and request an IEP meeting — but be cautious about flatly refusing services, as this can shift responsibility away from the district.

3. Directing the school to stop using a device the IEP requires can backfire. Parent instructed Carousel to stop using the TechTalk32 and switch to a photo book. The ALJ found this actually harmed Student's progress. If you disagree with how an AAC device is being used, request an IEP team meeting rather than unilaterally removing it from your child's program.

4. Anecdotal reports of progress elsewhere are not enough to win a due process case. Parent relied heavily on observations that Student seemed to improve during his hospital stay, but the hospital SLP never testified, never submitted a report, and Parent never even observed a therapy session. Without expert testimony or documentation, the ALJ gave this evidence little weight. If you believe a different approach is working, document it carefully and get the professional involved in writing.