District Not Required to Replace Broken Scooter Provided as Compensatory Ed, Not FAPE

A parent filed for due process after Long Beach Unified refused to replace a motorized scooter that broke down in spring 2018. The district had originally provided the scooter in 2015 as compensatory education under a settlement agreement — not as part of a FAPE offer. The ALJ ruled in the district's favor, finding that the scooter was never an IEP-required accommodation and that Student could access his education without it.

What Happened

Student is a teenager with multiple disabilities, including dwarfism (a severe orthopedic impairment), pervasive developmental disorder, profound visual impairment, and asthma. He attends Long Beach Unified and has been in special education since age three. In 2015, the family and the district settled a prior due process dispute. As part of that settlement, Long Beach Unified agreed to purchase a motorized scooter — specifically called a Littlescoot — for Student's use at home and at school. The settlement agreement clearly labeled the scooter as compensatory education only, not as a component of Student's FAPE.

Student used the scooter throughout middle school. In spring 2018, the scooter broke down and could not be repaired because the model was no longer manufactured and parts were unavailable. The district declined to replace it, explaining in a July 2018 letter that it had only ever agreed to purchase one scooter as compensatory education, and that Student did not need a scooter to receive a FAPE because he could walk around campus with his one-to-one aide. Parent disagreed, pointing to references to the scooter in Student's December 1, 2017 IEP as evidence that it had become a required accommodation. Parent filed for due process, arguing that the district had unilaterally removed an IEP accommodation and denied both Parent meaningful participation in the IEP process and Student a FAPE.

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor and denied all relief sought by the family.

The central question was whether the scooter had ever been offered as part of a FAPE, or whether it remained solely what the 2015 settlement called it: compensatory education. The ALJ found that no IEP team had ever specifically determined that Student required the scooter to receive a FAPE. Student was never assessed for the scooter. No IEP goals were tied to its use. No staff member was designated as responsible for it in any IEP. The December 2017 IEP's reference to the scooter — stating that Student "has access to a Little Scooter to navigate around the campus" — was informational, not a service commitment. Under case law, an IEP must contain a clear requirement that a service be provided before a district can be found to have materially failed to implement the IEP by not providing it.

The ALJ also rejected the argument that Long Beach Unified had improperly amended the IEP without Parent's participation by simply not replacing the scooter. Under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Van Duyn v. Baker School District, failing to implement an IEP service is a different legal question from unilaterally amending an IEP — and conflating them does not automatically entitle a student to relief without showing actual educational harm. Here, the evidence showed Student continued to walk to all classes, missed no instruction, and had access to a wheelchair. No expert testified that the absence of the scooter harmed Student educationally.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Long Beach Unified prevailed on the only issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

What a settlement agreement says controls — even years later. If your district provides equipment or services as part of a settlement labeled "compensatory education only," that label matters legally. The district likely has no ongoing obligation to maintain or replace that item through the IEP process. If you want something to be a permanent part of your child's program, make sure it is written into the IEP itself — not just a one-time settlement item.
Mentioning a device in an IEP does not automatically make it a required service. The ALJ found that the word "access" in the accommodations page was not the same as the district committing to provide the scooter. If you want your child's use of a device to be a binding district obligation, the IEP should include specific goals tied to the device, a designated staff member responsible for it, and language clearly stating it is required for FAPE — not just that the student "has access" to it.
Assessment matters. Because Student was never assessed for the scooter — meaning no evaluation was done to determine whether he needed it for educational access — there was no clinical basis in the record to support the claim that it was educationally necessary. If you believe your child needs a specific piece of equipment or assistive technology, request a formal assessment so that need is documented.
To win an implementation failure claim, you must show actual educational harm. The ALJ found no evidence that Student missed class, lost access to services, or was otherwise harmed educationally after the scooter broke. If you believe your child's education has been harmed by the district's failure to provide something in the IEP, document the specific impacts — missed instruction, dropped services, declining performance — and secure expert testimony to support that connection.

What Happened

What the ALJ Found

The ALJ ruled entirely in the district's favor and denied all relief sought by the family.

What Was Ordered

The student's requests for relief were denied in their entirety.
Long Beach Unified prevailed on the only issue heard and decided.

Why This Matters for Parents

What a settlement agreement says controls — even years later. If your district provides equipment or services as part of a settlement labeled "compensatory education only," that label matters legally. The district likely has no ongoing obligation to maintain or replace that item through the IEP process. If you want something to be a permanent part of your child's program, make sure it is written into the IEP itself — not just a one-time settlement item.
Mentioning a device in an IEP does not automatically make it a required service. The ALJ found that the word "access" in the accommodations page was not the same as the district committing to provide the scooter. If you want your child's use of a device to be a binding district obligation, the IEP should include specific goals tied to the device, a designated staff member responsible for it, and language clearly stating it is required for FAPE — not just that the student "has access" to it.
Assessment matters. Because Student was never assessed for the scooter — meaning no evaluation was done to determine whether he needed it for educational access — there was no clinical basis in the record to support the claim that it was educationally necessary. If you believe your child needs a specific piece of equipment or assistive technology, request a formal assessment so that need is documented.
To win an implementation failure claim, you must show actual educational harm. The ALJ found no evidence that Student missed class, lost access to services, or was otherwise harmed educationally after the scooter broke. If you believe your child's education has been harmed by the district's failure to provide something in the IEP, document the specific impacts — missed instruction, dropped services, declining performance — and secure expert testimony to support that connection.