AB 784 amends Section 56031 of the California Education Code to make explicit that an individualized education program (IEP) may include specialized deaf and hard‑of‑hearing (DHH) related services as the only special‑education services. The bill ties that clarification to existing state rules and CASEMIS Service Code 710 and notes that those services may be provided through certified nonpublic, nonsectarian agencies where a teacher of the deaf or hard‑of‑hearing is not delivering core academic instruction.
This change matters because it removes a point of legal and administrative ambiguity that has affected placement decisions, contracting, and how districts document and fund supports for DHH pupils. Compliance officers, SELPAs, and LEAs will need to update IEP procedures, contracting practices, and data coding to reflect that related DHH services can be standalone interventions targeted to access, language, and communication needs without automatically triggering placement in a special day class or other core special‑education settings.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts an explicit sentence into Section 56031 stating that an IEP may include specialized deaf and hard‑of‑hearing related services as the sole special‑education services. It cross‑references existing state regulations and the CASEMIS Service Code 710 as descriptive authority for those services.
Who It Affects
Local educational agencies (LEAs), special education local plan areas (SELPAs), certified nonpublic, nonsectarian agencies that provide DHH services, teachers of the deaf and hard‑of‑hearing, and DHH pupils and their families are the primary actors affected. State data and fiscal offices will also need to account for changes in service coding and contracts.
Why It Matters
By clarifying that standalone DHH related services are permissible, the bill reduces legal uncertainty that has constrained IEP teams and contracting choices. Practically, the change can alter where supports are delivered, who provides them, how districts code services for state reporting, and how resources are allocated.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 784 is a targeted statutory clarification rather than a broad program overhaul. The core operative change is one sentence added to Section 56031: an IEP may list specialized deaf and hard‑of‑hearing related services as the only special‑education services.
The Legislature frames this change with findings explaining that DHH pupils sometimes need communication‑focused supports—language and communication development, auditory skill work, and accommodations—that do not always require placement in a special day class or instruction from a special‑education teacher.
The bill explicitly links these services to Service Code 710 in CASEMIS and to Title 5 regulations (Sections 3051.16 and 3051.18), signaling that the Legislature intends existing state definitions and reporting categories to govern what “specialized DHH services” are. It also flags that certified nonpublic nonsectarian agencies are an appropriate contracting option when a teacher of the deaf or hard‑of‑hearing is providing related services rather than core academic instruction.
That language clarifies contracting choices but does not create a separate funding stream or change eligibility criteria.For practitioners, the practical implications fall into three operational areas. First, IEP teams can document a plan that delivers only related DHH services when the student’s assessed needs do not require specially designed academic instruction.
Second, LEAs and SELPAs should review contracting and procurement practices to ensure certified nonpublic agencies used for standalone DHH services meet state certification and oversight requirements. Third, data and fiscal officers must ensure CASEMIS coding (Service Code 710) and state reporting capture these standalone services correctly so that apportionment and local budgeting reflect the delivered supports.The bill does not add statutory procedural requirements for assessments, change IDEA‑level eligibility rules, or appropriate new funds.
Instead, it removes an interpretive obstacle: IEP teams retain discretion to determine placement and services based on the individual pupil’s needs, and now that discretion explicitly includes the option of only providing specialized DHH related services.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 784 adds subsection (e) to Section 56031 to state that an IEP may include specialized deaf and hard‑of‑hearing related services as the only special‑education services.
The bill cites Service Code 710 in CASEMIS as the state identifier for ‘specialized deaf and hard of hearing services,’ linking the statutory change to existing data/reporting codes.
Legislative findings reference Title 5, Sections 3051.16 and 3051.18, identifying typical DHH services such as language/communication development, auditory skill development, and educational accommodations.
The Legislature explicitly permits those standalone services to be delivered through certified nonpublic, nonsectarian agencies when a teacher of the deaf or hard‑of‑hearing is not providing core academic instruction.
AB 784 contains no appropriation; the bill was referred to the fiscal committee for review rather than authorizing new funding.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Why the Legislature acted — scope and definitions
This opening section lists four findings that frame the amendment: DHH pupils have distinct communication and access needs; state Title 5 regulations provide models of specialized services (3051.16, 3051.18); Service Code 710 denotes related DHH services in CASEMIS; and those services may appropriately be contracted when a TODHH is not providing core academic instruction. The findings are practical: they preempt interpretive resistance by documenting legislative intent and by anchoring the statute to existing regulatory and data categories.
Retains existing federal‑aligned definition of special education
Sections (a) through (d) restate California’s alignment with federal definitions (20 U.S.C. §1401(29); 34 C.F.R. §300.39 and §300.43). These paragraphs preserve that special education is specially designed instruction and list examples (speech‑language pathology, travel training, vocational education), and that grouping should reflect instructional needs. Practically, this keeps eligibility and the broader special‑education framework unchanged while leaving room for the new clarification.
Explicitly allows IEPs to list only specialized DHH related services
The new subsection (e) is the operative change: it prevents Section 56031 from being read to bar IEPs that provide only specialized deaf and hard‑of‑hearing related services. For administrators and IEP teams, that means an evaluated DHH pupil can receive standalone related services focused on access, language, or auditory skills without the IEP defaulting to additional special‑education placements or services. It also creates a statutory basis for contracting those services through certified nonpublic entities when appropriate.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Deaf and hard‑of‑hearing pupils who primarily need communication and access supports: IEP teams can target services narrowly to language, audition, and accommodation needs without automatically adding broader special‑education placement.
- Families seeking targeted, less disruptive supports: parents can have IEPs focused on access and communication without moving students into special day classes when academic instruction is not the issue.
- Certified nonpublic, nonsectarian agencies that provide DHH services: the bill clarifies contracting eligibility and may increase demand for specialized contracted providers.
- IEP teams and district special‑education administrators: the clarification reduces legal ambiguity, making team decision‑making and documentation more defensible.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local educational agencies and SELPAs: districts may face additional contracting costs, administrative work to revise policies and procurement, and training needs for IEP teams to implement the change appropriately.
- County and state oversight offices: agencies that monitor certification and compliance must absorb oversight work for contracted providers and ensure quality standards for standalone services.
- Teachers of the deaf and hard‑of‑hearing and related service providers: providers will need to document service scope and outcomes more precisely where services replace or substitute for academic instruction.
- Special education data and fiscal staff: staff must update CASEMIS coding, reporting protocols, and potentially recalibrate budgets to reflect services coded under Service Code 710 rather than placements that drive different funding calculations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between two legitimate aims: maximizing individualized access by allowing IEPs to focus narrowly on communication and access needs, versus protecting against administrative or fiscal incentives that could narrow IEPs and reduce access to broader specially designed academic instruction. The bill resolves ambiguity in favor of individualized, services‑first planning, but it leaves funding, oversight, and incentive structures unchanged—creating a trade‑off between local flexibility and the risk of under‑identifying educational needs.
The bill solves a narrow interpretive problem but raises practical questions about funding classification, oversight, and the boundary between ‘related services’ and ‘specially designed instruction.’ California’s special‑education funding and accountability systems often treat placements and service categories differently; shifting more students to standalone related services could change how districts budget and how state apportionments are calculated—issues the statute does not address. Absent new funding, LEAs could face higher per‑unit costs for contracted DHH services, or conversely try to manage costs by restricting services to lower‑cost options.
Quality assurance and LRE (least restrictive environment) obligations are also unresolved in practice. The bill does not alter IDEA eligibility tests or LRE principles, but it makes it administratively simpler to list only related DHH services.
That could produce pressure—financial or programmatic—for teams to limit IEPs to related services even when broader specially designed instruction might better serve a pupil. The oversight regime for certified nonpublic agencies will become more important; California must ensure those contractors meet the same accountability and progress‑monitoring standards that apply when services are delivered by district employees.
Finally, implementation will hinge on clear CASEMIS guidance: districts need specific coding instructions, and SELPAs need templates for contracts and service documentation to avoid inconsistent practices across the state.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.