LAUSD Did Not Have to Offer Auditory Verbal Therapy or Fund Private AVT Provider

A four-year-old boy with mild to moderately-severe hearing loss received speech and language services and deaf/hard-of-hearing itinerant support from Los Angeles Unified School District. His parents wanted the district to fund auditory verbal therapy (AVT) from their chosen private provider. The ALJ found that the district's program was appropriate and that it had no obligation to offer AVT earlier or to contract with the parents' preferred private therapist.

What Happened

Student is a boy who was four years old at the time of the hearing. He was born with a mild high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss in both ears and has been eligible for special education under the category of "hard of hearing" since early childhood. For years, Student struggled to consistently wear his hearing aids due to small ear canals and excessive ear wax, and the family worked with numerous outside specialists on this issue. In August and September 2014, as Student was transitioning from the district's Early Start infant program to preschool special education, LAUSD assessed him in the areas of speech and language, language and communication, and audiology. The assessments showed that Student's language development was in the average range, though he had a phonological processing deficit that affected his speech intelligibility.

At the initial IEP meeting on September 17, 2014, the team offered Student one hour per week of speech and language services and 60 minutes per month of support from a deaf and hard of hearing itinerant teacher, along with classroom accommodations such as preferential seating and visual aids. Shortly after that meeting, Parents discovered auditory verbal therapy (AVT) — a specialized approach to teaching listening and spoken language skills to children with hearing loss — and privately hired a certified AVT specialist. Student began wearing his hearing aids consistently around the same time. Parents asked the district to fund AVT services and specifically to contract with their chosen private provider. The district declined, and in December 2014 and February 2015, it updated the IEP to include AVT through a qualified district provider. Parents refused the district's AVT offer and continued with the private provider, then filed for due process seeking reimbursement and an order requiring the district to fund their preferred therapist.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in favor of the district and denied all relief sought by the family. On the first issue — whether the district should have offered AVT sooner — the ALJ found that at the time of the September 2014 IEP, Student presented only one of several factors that would signal a need for a listening and spoken language assessment: he was three years old and not wearing his hearing aids. His language development tested in the average range, he could speak, and his hearing loss was mild to moderate. Multiple witnesses, including qualified deaf and hard of hearing specialists, testified that this single factor was not sufficient to trigger an AVT assessment or offer. The ALJ also found that Student's speech needs could be addressed appropriately by either speech and language therapy or AVT, meaning AVT was a matter of methodology — and under federal law, when a district's program is appropriate, the district gets to choose the instructional method, even if parents prefer a different one.

On the second issue — whether the district had to offer the parents' specific private AVT provider in the February 2015 IEP — the ALJ found that districts are not required to name a particular service provider in an IEP, and that parents do not have the right to select who implements their child's services. The district had qualified AVT staff available. While the private therapist believed Student might regress slightly if he changed providers, the ALJ found this was not sufficient to show that only the private provider could deliver a FAPE.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
No compensatory AVT services were ordered.
No reimbursement for the private AVT provider's fees (totaling approximately $4,940) was awarded.
The district was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Methodology is the district's choice, not yours — as long as their program is appropriate. If the district's offered services are reasonably designed to address your child's needs and your child is making meaningful progress, a hearing officer will generally not override the district's choice of method, even if you believe a different approach (like AVT) would work better.
Hiring a private provider before notifying the district of your intent to seek reimbursement is risky. In this case, Parents never formally put the district on notice that they intended to seek reimbursement when they first hired the private therapist. Courts and ALJs look carefully at whether parents gave the district a fair chance to offer an appropriate program before going private at district expense.
You cannot demand that the district use your specific chosen provider. The law gives districts the right to select qualified staff to implement IEP services. If the district has qualified people on staff, it is not required to hire or contract with your preferred outside provider, even if your child has a strong relationship with that person.
Assessments drive services — so request them in writing. The district was not required to offer an AVT assessment because Student's profile did not clearly signal that need at the time. If you believe your child needs a specialized assessment (like a listening and spoken language assessment), put your request in writing. A written request starts a legal clock and creates a paper trail, and it shifts the conversation from informal to formal.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
No compensatory AVT services were ordered.
No reimbursement for the private AVT provider's fees (totaling approximately $4,940) was awarded.
The district was found to have prevailed on all issues.

Why This Matters for Parents

Methodology is the district's choice, not yours — as long as their program is appropriate. If the district's offered services are reasonably designed to address your child's needs and your child is making meaningful progress, a hearing officer will generally not override the district's choice of method, even if you believe a different approach (like AVT) would work better.
Hiring a private provider before notifying the district of your intent to seek reimbursement is risky. In this case, Parents never formally put the district on notice that they intended to seek reimbursement when they first hired the private therapist. Courts and ALJs look carefully at whether parents gave the district a fair chance to offer an appropriate program before going private at district expense.
You cannot demand that the district use your specific chosen provider. The law gives districts the right to select qualified staff to implement IEP services. If the district has qualified people on staff, it is not required to hire or contract with your preferred outside provider, even if your child has a strong relationship with that person.
Assessments drive services — so request them in writing. The district was not required to offer an AVT assessment because Student's profile did not clearly signal that need at the time. If you believe your child needs a specialized assessment (like a listening and spoken language assessment), put your request in writing. A written request starts a legal clock and creates a paper trail, and it shifts the conversation from informal to formal.