How to Protect AAC and Assistive Technology During ESY

Map the full access chain

List Mika's primary system, effective backup, school ownership, return terms, transport, storage, sign-in, charging, connectivity, mounting, positioning, access method, vocabulary, volume, privacy, and repair contact. Identify who completes each step at home, the bus, arrival, classroom, community activity, and dismissal. One failed handoff can remove communication for the day.

Connect the plan to the IEP decision

34 CFR 300.105 requires a public agency to make assistive technology devices or services available when required as special education, a related service, or a supplementary aid and service. For Mika's ESY program, ask the IEP team to specify the needed technology, service, setting, responsibility, and implementation evidence rather than relying on a generic annual-plan reference.

Test primary and backup access

The ASHA AAC portal says users should always have access to communication tools or devices. Test Mika's messages for choice, help, pain, bathroom, stop, break, people, places, learning, transport, and emergency needs. Confirm that the backup fits Mika's access method and vocabulary. Record system gaps as adult or environmental tasks.

Prepare incident and repair routes

Define what staff do when the device is missing, damaged, locked, wet, uncharged, disconnected, or unsafe to use momentarily. Preserve accessible backup communication while resolving the issue. Record discovery time, student impact, interim action, owner, repair contact, family notice, restoration test, and whether the IEP team must review a recurring failure.

Prepare Mika's access test

For AAC and assistive technology during ESY, walk Mika through arrival, class, community activity, transport, help, bathroom, break, pain, dismissal, and emergency messages with primary and backup systems. Record partner response and every adult or technology failure. Repair and repeat the affected step. Give Mika the results and ask whether vocabulary, effort, privacy, positioning, or response needs further change.

Build Mika's source-attributed ESY record

Create a restricted ESY AAC and technology readiness plan for Mika's device, owner, site, transport, vocabulary, access, backup, charge, connection, mount, repair, privacy, partner, test, and incident. Give every field a source, event or observation date, author, status, owner, next action, due date, correction, and closure evidence. Keep Mika's direct statement, family report, school record, private-provider observation, transport record, and interpretation separately attributed.

Within the ESY AAC and technology readiness plan, separate individualized ESY need, IEP content, school implementation, private clinical recommendation, health-plan authorization, provider capacity, family or student choice, records disclosure, transportation, and delivered service. A shared schedule or goal never combines those authorities.

Protect Mika's access and ordinary needs

Give Mika accessible information, AAC or another communication mode, privacy, enough time, useful choices, breaks, and a way to decline or correct a nonemergency discussion. The ASHA AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to communication tools or devices. Record the student's message separately from adult prediction or interpretation.

Preserve Mika's food, water, bathroom access, mobility, prescribed care, rest, relationships, preferred activities, and emergency help. The BACB Ethics Code guides covered behavior analysts on communication, consent and assent when applicable, competence, assessment, documentation, risk, and referral. It does not assign IEP, school, payer, transportation, or legal authority.

Ask eight ESY evidence questions for Mika

Use these questions in the ESY AAC and technology readiness plan:

• Which student need and FAPE question is the IEP team deciding?
• What does Mika want, value, question, or decline?
• Which current state criterion and record supports the decision?
• What service, schedule, setting, staff, transport, and technology are required?
• Which opportunity, support, prompt, source, and period produced the evidence?
• Which school, clinical, payer, family, or transport owner controls each action?
• What current access or interim support is needed while a decision remains open?
• What evidence and student feedback will close or revise the action?

Classify Mika's fields as complete, failed, pending, declined, disputed, or inapplicable with a reason. Pending work stays visible and blocks only the dependent action.

A fictional ESY example for Mika

Mika is fictional and involved in a new ESY site with different staff and buses. Reviewers freeze 29 technology-readiness controls and complete 23 of 29 by the checkpoint. Missing student, school, provider, transport, AAC, health, privacy, or implementation evidence remains in Mika's denominator with an owner, age, and next action.

The ESY AAC and technology readiness plan reports evidence completion separately from IDEA compliance, FAPE, clinical quality, coverage, student choice, service delivery, educational benefit, and satisfaction. Reviewers preserve the original cohort and all failed or pending states. They do not infer that ESY or one support caused change when instruction, health, access, schedule, experience, and time changed together.

Use compatible ESY denominators for Mika

For Mika's ESY AAC and technology readiness plan, report completed decisions divided by decisions due; required IEP elements documented divided by elements reviewed; service minutes delivered divided by approved service minutes due; accessible communication checks passed divided by checks due; transport arrivals completed by target divided by scheduled rides; and validated corrections divided by corrections due.

Segment Mika's results by school, program, service, setting, provider, communication access, transportation, decision state, missed-service reason, and source version when useful. Publish raw counts with percentages and age open items. Keep different definitions, service units, and maturity windows in separate measures.

Create Mika's dated ESY path

List Mika's request, evidence cutoff, IEP review, decision, notice, IEP update, staffing, transport, AAC readiness, health handoff, first service, missed service, progress review, correction, last service, fall handoff, and retest in chronological order. Distinguish proposed, scheduled, event, entry, receipt, decision, and effective dates.

The joint FERPA-HIPAA guidance classifies records by holder and capacity. Use the current school, state, provider, payer, and student-specific source for each decision. Share purpose-needed information through the applicable route and preserve authorship, receipt, corrections, and privacy.

Explain ESY source scope for Mika

For Mika, 34 CFR 300.106 provides the federal ESY rule: services must be available as necessary for FAPE, the IEP team decides individually, and the public agency cannot use the prohibited categorical or unilateral limits. The general FAPE rule supports this educational duty; it neither authorizes private care nor decides Mika's individualized ESY plan. Current state criteria, procedures, calendars, and dispute routes can add important detail and require direct verification.

The CASP organizational overview supplies broad operations and risk framing for page 5 in this cluster. Give Mika and the authorized adult an accessible summary of decisions, evidence, owners, dates, limits, and review triggers. Keep the page draft and noindex pending named review.