In the world of school-based AAC implementation, districts sometimes wrestle with the question:
“Should we pick one AAC system for all of our students?”

It’s a tempting idea—especially when you’re trying to streamline training, support teachers, and build consistency across classrooms. But like most decisions in AAC, the answer isn’t simple. There are benefits to choosing one “standard” system… and some serious pitfalls if you’re not thoughtful about which system you choose and why.

Let’s break it down.

The Appeal: Why Schools Consider One Common AAC System

There are legitimate advantages to standardizing AAC across classrooms:

✔️ It simplifies training for teachers and paraprofessionals.

Instead of teachers juggling multiple apps, layouts, or device platforms, everyone learns one system really well. Consistency increases confidence, reduces avoidable errors, and makes modeling more natural.

✔️ Teams develop deeper expertise.

Your SLPs, AT teams, and classroom staff get faster and more efficient when they’re not constantly switching between different organizational structures, navigation patterns, or symbol sets.

✔️ Classroom implementation becomes more realistic.

When the whole class uses a similar layout, shared modeling during group instruction, play, literacy, and routines is far easier.

So yes—there are real benefits to choosing a standard starting place.

The Problem: One System Can’t Meet All Needs

Here’s the flip side:
Students with complex communication needs are not interchangeable.

Their motor access, sensory preferences, language levels, cognitive profiles, visual needs, and personal communication styles vary widely. A single system—no matter how well-designed—won’t be the right fit for everyone.

And here’s where things get dangerous:

If a district chooses one system, but chooses a limited or simplistic system, they’re not simplifying. They’re restricting.

Let’s talk about that.

If You Standardize AAC, It MUST Be a Robust System

A “starting system” must still be a full, robust AAC system, not a beginner board or a reduced-vocabulary page set. Otherwise, you’ve unintentionally set students on a path with a ceiling—one they can’t break through no matter how much they grow.

A robust AAC system includes:

• A large, stable core vocabulary available on the home screen
• Consistent motor plans for frequently used words
• Full access to grammar (morphology, verb tenses, pronouns, plurals)
• Efficient navigation—not 50 taps to get to basic words
• A full QWERTY keyboard for emergent–conventional literacy
• Access to fringe vocabulary organized in logical, repeatable patterns
• Support for multiple communicative functions, not just requesting
• Room to grow—both in vocabulary size and linguistic complexity
• Customization options for individual access needs

If you're choosing one system for everyone, this is your non-negotiable list.

The Real Danger: Selecting a “Starter” or Simplified App or Pageset Option on a Robust App

Too many districts choose the wrong thing for the right reason. They select:

• MultiChat (PRC-Saltillo)
• TD Express (Tobii Dynavox)
• Proloquo2Go-Basic Communication Vocabulary Level (Assistiveware)- in particular when grid size is severely restricted
• VocaChat (Smartbox, Grid 3) A good system but limited in literacy supports and limited grid sizes.
  

These are not robust AAC systems. They’re simplified page sets designed to meet immediate needs: requesting, labeling, making brief comments. They are intentionally limited. They ARE appropriate for some, but definitely NOT a starting point for ALL.

When a district standardizes around one of these, here’s what actually happens:

🚫 Students are limited to meeting basic, immediate needs.

Not opinions. Not stories. Not problem-solving. Not emotional expression.
Just… requests.

🚫 Students don’t get a path to more age-appropriate language.

A 12-year-old shouldn’t be stuck with toddler vocabulary.

🚫 Students don’t learn to spell.

No full keyboard with spelling supports= no literacy pathway.
No literacy = no independence.

🚫 Students can’t communicate across environments.

Those systems are too limited to support communication in science class, morning meeting, a grocery store, or at the movies with peers.

🚫 Students can’t talk about specific topics using precise vocabulary.

Try discussing a book, a field trip, or video game without real vocabulary.
You can’t. Neither can they.

When we choose a simplistic system, we are not “starting small.”
We are starting wrong.

The Good News: Every Major Company Already Offers Robust Options

The irony is that every one of the companies above makes excellent, robust systems—so why wouldn’t you choose the more evidenced based choice for the same cost??

If you’re purchasing licenses for all students anyway, why settle for the watered-down version?

• PRC-Saltillo → WordPower, LAMP Words for Life, Unity
• Tobii Dynavox → TD Snap Core First, Gateway, Snap Text/Keyboard options
• AssistiveWare → Proloquo2Go (intermediate or Advanced Core) or Proloquo, not Proloquo Basic
• Smartbox —> Grid 3 Super Core 50 (robust but somewhat limited in full literacy and academic/technical vocabulary)
  

If you want to standardize, bump it up.
Choose the robust, expandable, linguistically complete system the company intended for long-term communication.

So… Should We Choose One System for All Students?

The honest answer:

You can choose one standard starting system—IF it is robust and IF you still allow individualization when needed.

A thoughtful district approach might look like:

1. Default robust system (the system everyone learns first)
2. Clear decision-making pathway and options for when a student needs something different
3. Consistent training and modeling for staff
4. District-wide growth in AAC competence

This is absolutely doable, and many districts are successful with this model.

But the key is:

Never standardize around a limited system. Standardize around a robust one.

And when a student needs something different for access, motor planning, vision, or personal preference—we pivot.

Final Thoughts

Choosing one AAC system district-wide is about reducing chaos for adults, not limiting language for kids. When done well—with a robust system—it can support consistency, confidence, and meaningful growth.

Just remember:

Language is not one-size-fits-all.
AAC shouldn’t be either.