AAC Evaluation Request: How to Get Your Child Assessed for a Communication Device

When to Request an AAC Evaluation

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) includes any tool — from picture boards to high-tech speech-generating devices — that supplements or replaces spoken language. An AAC evaluation assesses which system best matches your child's motor, cognitive, and communication profile.

You should request an AAC evaluation when your child is non-speaking or minimally verbal, when their speech is so unintelligible that daily communication breaks down regularly, or when frustration from inability to communicate is driving behavioral incidents. There is no prerequisite skill level or "readiness" requirement. The research supports AAC access for children with complex communication needs, and reviews have found that AAC does not inhibit natural speech development.

How to Submit the Request

Write a formal letter to the school's special education director requesting a comprehensive assistive technology (AT) evaluation with a specific focus on AAC. Use the phrase "assistive technology evaluation" because IDEA requires schools to consider AT for every child with an IEP (34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(v)), and AAC falls squarely within the AT mandate.

Your letter should:

• State your child's name, grade, and current IEP status
• Describe the communication challenges in specific terms (e.g., "intelligible to familiar adults approximately 30 percent of the time; unintelligible to peers and unfamiliar listeners")
• Reference IDEA's AT consideration requirement
• Request that the evaluation include a trial period with at least two AAC systems, including a high-tech speech-generating device
• Ask for the evaluation to be completed within 60 calendar days after the school receives parental consent, or within your state's evaluation timeline

Keep a copy and send via email with a read receipt or certified mail so you have proof of delivery.

What the Evaluation Should Include

A comprehensive AAC evaluation goes far beyond handing a child an iPad and seeing if they tap pictures. It should assess:

Motor access. Can the child physically access a touchscreen, switch, or eye-gaze system? What positioning, screen size, and button layout work best?

Language representation. Does the child benefit from a grid-based core vocabulary system, a visual scene display, a symbol-based system, or a combination? The evaluator should trial multiple options, not default to whatever app the district already owns.

Feature matching. The evaluation should compare at least two to three AAC systems and recommend the one that best matches the child's profile — motor abilities, cognitive level, communication goals, and environments of use.

Environmental assessment. Where will the child use AAC? Classroom, cafeteria, playground, home, community? The system must work across all settings, and the IEP should reflect that.

The evaluator should be an SLP with AAC specialization or an assistive technology specialist. A general SLP with no AAC training may default to a low-tech picture exchange system when a high-tech device would be more appropriate.

Common Stalling Tactics and How to Counter Them

"The Child Needs to Show Readiness First"

There is no readiness requirement for AAC. The research is clear: candidacy models that require children to demonstrate prerequisite skills before accessing AAC are outdated and harmful. ASHA's position statement explicitly rejects readiness requirements. If a school says your child must master low-tech PECS before getting a speech-generating device, that is a policy preference, not an evidence-based clinical standard.

"We Already Have an iPad in the Classroom"

A classroom iPad with a generic communication app may not meet your child's AAC needs. The system should be available when your child needs to communicate and customized to their vocabulary and motor needs. If reliable access requires a dedicated device, specify that in the IEP; shared classroom technology may not be available when your child needs it.

"The Child Talks a Little, So They Don't Need AAC"

AAC is not only for non-speaking children. Children with severe apraxia, dysarthria, or intelligibility deficits benefit from AAC as a supplement to emerging speech. Using AAC to fill the gap while speech develops reduces frustration, increases participation, and — counter to the common fear — actually supports spoken language growth.

"The District Doesn't Fund Devices"

Under IDEA, the school district must provide the assistive technology a child needs to receive FAPE — including purchasing or leasing an AAC device. If the IEP team determines that a child needs a speech-generating device, the district must fund it. The device must also go home with the child if the IEP team determines it is needed outside of school (34 CFR 300.105).

The Speech-Language & Apraxia IEP Toolkit includes a formal AAC evaluation request letter template plus pushback scripts for each of these stalling tactics, with specific citations to IDEA regulations and ASHA position statements.

After the Evaluation

Once the evaluation recommends an AAC system, the IEP team meets to add it to the IEP. The device should be listed as assistive technology in the IEP, with goals addressing its use across the school day. Staff training — for the classroom teacher, aides, specials teachers, and any adult who interacts with the child — should be written into the IEP as "supports for school personnel."

Implementation without training is implementation that fails. If the AAC device sits unused because no one in the classroom knows how to support it, the school is not delivering the services specified in the IEP.