District Wins: Kindergartner's IEP Was Appropriate Despite Parent's Device and Communication Concerns

What Happened

Student was a five-year-old kindergartner who had been receiving special education services since just before their third birthday. Student was originally diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech — a condition that affects the ability to form and produce words — and had significant expressive language challenges. Because Student was mostly nonverbal at one point, Plumas Lake provided Student with an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device called a NovaChat 8 to help communicate at school.

By early 2020, Student had made significant progress. A new speech and language evaluation completed in February 2020 found that Student now scored in the average range for expressive language, was speaking in sentences of up to 20 words, and was understood by familiar listeners about 91% of the time. Student rarely chose to use the communication device anymore, preferring to speak verbally. Based on these results, Plumas Lake developed a new IEP on February 25, 2020, focused on continuing to address articulation errors. Parents did not consent to the IEP. They believed Student still needed goals tied to the communication device and wanted a formal communication system set up between Parents and the school team. Plumas Lake filed for due process to be permitted to implement the IEP without parental consent.

What the ALJ Found

Because the district prevailed, this section explains why the parent's concerns were not upheld.

The ALJ carefully reviewed each of the parents' objections and found them unsupported by the evidence. On the question of the communication device, the ALJ found there was simply no evidence that Student still had expressive language needs requiring device-based goals. The speech therapist's assessment, classroom observations, and teacher input all showed that Student had met or exceeded the previous year's expressive language goals and no longer needed that support. The ALJ credited the speech therapist's professional opinion that articulation — not expressive language — was Student's remaining area of need, and found the three proposed articulation goals to be appropriate and measurable.

On the question of a formal parent-school communication system, the ALJ noted that while Parents requested more frequent progress updates, the IEP already included quarterly progress reports, 20 minutes per month of consultation between the speech therapist and the classroom teacher, and offered extended school year services that Parents had requested. The IEP does not have to give parents everything they ask for — it only needs to be reasonably calculated to help the student make educational progress. The ALJ also found the assessment process, IEP meeting notice, team composition, and placement in general education with speech pullout services all met legal requirements.

What Was Ordered

1. The February 25, 2020 IEP was found to offer Student a free appropriate public education.
2. Plumas Lake Elementary School District was authorized to implement the February 25, 2020 IEP without parental consent, provided Student continues to attend school within the district and Parents seek special education services.

Why This Matters for Parents

1. Progress data can change what your child is entitled to. This case shows that when a student makes significant gains, the district can remove supports like AAC device goals from the IEP if assessment data supports that change. If you believe your child still needs a support, gather your own evidence — observations, outside evaluations, or a request for an independent educational evaluation (IEE) — before the IEP meeting.

2. Disagreeing with an IEP is your right, but the IEP doesn't have to match your requests. Parents meaningfully participated here — they attended, asked questions, and requested changes. The law requires districts to consider parent input, not adopt it. If the district rejects your requests, ask them to document why in writing (called a prior written notice), which you can use if you later challenge the decision.

3. Districts can file for due process too. Most parents think of due process as something families initiate. But if you withhold consent for an IEP the district believes is appropriate, the district can file a hearing to override that refusal — as happened here. Understanding this dynamic helps parents weigh the decision to withhold consent carefully.

4. Evaluation results are powerful. The district's case rested almost entirely on its February 2020 speech and language assessment. When assessment data clearly showed Student had progressed beyond needing device-based support, that evidence drove the outcome. If you believe an evaluation doesn't accurately reflect your child's needs, you have the right to request an IEE at district expense.