DOJ/DOE Joint Publication: Frequently Asked Questions on Effective Communication for Students with Hearing, Vision, or Speech Disabilities in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

Case Study #2: The appropriate auxiliary aids and services under Title II are the same as special education and related services required under the IDEA.

Julie is a student with a visual impairment. She has been evaluated under the IDEA and determined eligible for special education and related services. Through the second grade, as part of her IEP and placement, Julie has been receiving Braille instruction, and the school district provided materials in Braille. In the summer before third grade, Julie began using an accessible e‐book reader. Her parents, therefore, have requested that prior to the new school year Julie’s IEP be revised to include an accessible e‐book reader in addition to Braille instruction.

FAPE determination under the IDEA: Prior to the new school year, Julie’s IEP Team convenes to discuss her IEP for the upcoming school year. The IEP Team agrees that because Julie now uses an accessible e‐book reader she should use the e‐book reader in addition to Braille materials. All agree that these services are reasonably calculated to enable Julie to receive meaningful educational benefit.

Effective communication determination under Title II: Because Julie is a student with a visual impairment already identified under the IDEA, the school district also has an affirmative obligation under Title II to ensure that she receives effective communication. In Julie’s school district, the district delegated the responsibility of determining effective communication to the public school district representative who participates in the school’s IEP Team meetings. Shortly after becoming aware that Julie’s parents requested an accessible e‐book reader, the IEP Team discusses whether any additional appropriate auxiliary aids and services are necessary to provide Julie with effective communication under Title II. Julie’s parents make no specific request for additional services beyond the accessible e‐book reader. After considering how to ensure Julie receives communication that is as effective as communication with students without disabilities, the team, including the school district representative delegated to make effective communication decisions, determines that the use of an accessible e‐book reader in addition to Braille materials will provide effective communication under Title II. As discussed above, the use of the e‐book reader in addition to Braille materials also ensures the provision of FAPE under the IDEA. Julie, therefore, will not receive additional auxiliary aids and services under Title II because the IEP meets both the IDEA and Title II standards to meet her communication needs.