Considering Assistive Technology Needs

Each ARD committee will consider assistive technology as a part of the development of the student's IEP. Consideration of need for Assistive Technology must be given to every student with a disability who is eligible for an IEP.

An assistive technology consideration and screening checklist must be conducted as a part of every Full Individual Evaluation, regardless of the type and severity of a students' disability.

Who should be considered for AT?

Assistive technology must be considered for all students with disabilities, regardless of the type or severity. Any time an IEP is developed, the ARD committee should consider if the student has any need for assistive technology. By using decision making tools provided by the AT team, each student's academic needs will be considered in conjunction with assistive technology. If members of the ARD committee need additional assistance, the AT team is ready to help with consultation.

Why do we consider AT for each student?

It's the law. The IDEA, the ADA, and Section 504 all mandate that schools provide AT devices/services as part of appropriate educational programs for students with disabilities. The IDEA does so explicitly, while the ADA's and Section 504's guarantees of equal treatment of and participation by individuals with disabilities encompasses the provision of AT devices/services.

The IDEA requires that a school provide AT devices/services to a student with a disability who requires the AT devices/services in order to receive FAPE. FAPE includes special education and related services that are provided in compliance with the individualized education program (IEP) of a student with a disability. The federal regulations state:

Assistive Technology

Each public agency shall ensure that assistive technology devices or assistive technology services or both, as those terms are defined in 300.5-300.6 are made available to a child with a disability if required as a part of the child's

(a) Special education under 300.17;

(b) Related services under 300.16; or

34 C.F.R. § 300.308.

In addition to requiring the provision of AT devices/services, the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA includes a mandate that the IEP team of each and every special education student consider the AT needs of the student during the development of his or her IEP. The statute states, in relevant part, "The IEP Team also shall consider whether the child requires assistive technology devices and services." 34 C.F.R. § 300.346(a)(2)(v).1 The IDEA also establishes the more general special education concepts of FAPE and least restrictive environment ("LRE"), which both must be considered with respect to whether or not the provision of AT devices/services is necessary and how the AT devices/services should be implemented.

The ADA, in mandating equal access to programs and services offered by school districts, similarly requires the provision of auxiliary aids and services to enable individuals with disabilities to participate. The regulations state:

General

(a) A public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others.

(b)(1) A public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.

(c)(2) In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.

28 C.F.R. § 35.160.

The provision of AT devices/services is also mandated by Section 504's general requirement that individuals with disabilities must have equal access to programs and services offered by entities that receive federal funding, and by the statute's specific requirements regarding the provision of FAPE to public school students. The regulations state:

Discrimination prohibited

(a) General. No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance.

34 C.F.R. § 104.4.

Free appropriate public education

(a) General. A recipient that operates a public elementary or secondary education program shall provide a free appropriate public education to each qualified handicapped person who is in the recipient's jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the person's handicap.

(b) Appropriate education. (1) For the purpose of this subpart, the provision of an appropriate education is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met…

34 C.F.R. § 104.33

When addressing the needs of a student with a disability that impacts his or her educational progress, for a school district to be in compliance with these statutes, AT devices/services must be considered and must be implemented if necessary.

Process of the ARD Committee’s Consideration of AT

Step 1 (to be completed with every FIE): Assistive Technology Consideration and Screening Checklist

It is the primary responsibility of the student’s Case Manager, along with the assistance of other related service providers, to utilize the Assistive Technology Consideration and Screening Checklist. This checklist must be completed during the development of every initial and 3-year FIE. The ARD committee will complete the Assistive Technology Screening Checklist at or prior to the REED/NOPE meeting and attach it to the student’s IEP.

AT consultations/evaluations will not be completed prior to the student's ARD committee completing this checklist.

When completing the Assistive Technology Consideration and Screening Checklist, the Case Manager and other involved school personnel should:

- 1. Gather information related to the student, program, and environmental factors. Identify areas that are keeping the student from accessing the general curriculum.
  2. Considering the area(s) identified in step one, and determine whether or not the student can accomplish the required task with any special strategies, accommodations, or technology already in use within the classroom.
  3. Based on the information gathered from step one and step two, determine if the student requires Assistive Technology to complete the task identified. (Refer to the list of possible AT resources for examples of possible Assistive Technology solutions.)

Step 2 (to be completed with every IEP): ARD Committee Consideration and Documentation

Assistive Technology is explored in an on-going manner and changes as the educational needs of student change. The IDEA mandates that during the development of an IEP, the IEP team must consider whether the student requires AT devices/services in order to receive FAPE. 34 C.F.R.§ 300.346(a)(2)(v). It is unacceptable for an ARD committee to ignore the possible AT needs of a special education student, even when it might seem readily apparent that AT devices/services are not needed.

- Assistive Technology must be considered during the development of every IEP for every student that requires an IEP.
- Assistive technology considerations must be documented during every IEP meeting.

IEP teams should use the provided Considerations Resource Guide as an aide in the determination process.

In considering whether an AT device/service is or is not necessary as a component of a child's IEP, the ARD committee must determine, in light of the child's particular educational needs, whether the AT device/service is necessary in order for the student to receive FAPE. See Letter to Bachus, 22 IDELR 629 (OSEP 1995). In addition, hearing officers have stressed that the standard established by the United States Supreme Court in Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley with respect to the meaning of "appropriate" applies to a district's provision of an AT device/service as a part of an educational program. The court in Rowley held that an "appropriate" educational program does not mean one that maximizes progress, but rather means a program that is reasonably calculated to provide a student with a disability some educational benefit. The benefit must be more than trivial. It must be meaningful in light of the individual student's disability. See Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); Charles A. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., Comm'r Dec. No. 061-SE-1000 (February 12, 2001); Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ., 34 IDELR 83 (SEA AL 2000).

In applying the Rowley standard to the provision of AT devices/services, hearing officers, including those in Texas, have found that though there might be a better technology available for a student to use, if a lesser technology provides some meaningful educational benefit, it is appropriate and therefore sufficient. In some cases, though parents may be seeking AT device upgrades, the requested, more advanced devices are actually not appropriate for the students.

How to Know When Assistive Technology is Not Necessary

The need for AT devices/services of a student who is eligible for special education services must be considered by his or her ARD committee. What factors of a child's educational situation might indicate that no AT device/service is necessary?

Although a particular assistive technology device/service may provide an educational benefit to the student, it may not be required if the student is able to make reasonable progress in their present educational setting. Assistive technology is only required when its use supports an individual student sufficiently to maintain the student’s educational placement and its absence requires the student’s removal to a more restrictive environment.

Within the IEP, the assistive technology must connect to a goal which the student has in order to show evidence for how it is required for FAPE. Typically, if a student is using assistive technology, it is addressed in the related goals and objectives. The assistive technology is simply a tool that assists the student in accomplishing these goals and objectives. The ARD committee should determine IEP goals and objectives first, and then decide how technology will be used to accomplish them.

For example: A student without a reading goal would not be an appropriate candidate for AT which reads text for them.

We can provide supportive technology, but it would not technically be considered AT. Throughout the process we need to have a common set of terms and language in regards to documentation.

Having AT well documented in the IEP also makes it easier to justify accommodations for the student on testing and in transition settings.

Possible conclusions of the consideration process include:

The following is simply a summary, actual documentation of the consideration and determination should follow the SSA's set procedures as set out in the documentation section.

1. The student independently accomplishes required tasks within the relevant instructional or access areas using standard classroom tools. Assistive Technology is not required.
2. The student accomplishes the required tasks within the instructional or access areas using standard classroom modifications and accommodations that are currently in place. Assistive Technology is not required.
3. The student accomplishes the required tasks within the relevant instructional or access areas with Assistive Technology that is currently in place. Assistive Technology is required. (Document currently used AT devices and services in the IEP. Monitor the use of AT and make changes as needed.)
4. The student cannot accomplish the required tasks within the relevant instructional or access areas with modifications, accommodations, and/or Assistive Technology that are currently in place. More information is needed.
  1. - If the ARD committee knows of and has access to potential Assistive Technology solutions but is not sure of their effectiveness for the student, trial use of the identified Assistive Technology solution may be documented in the IEP. Following the trial use period, the results of the trial with a description of the appropriate Assistive Technology device should be documented in the student’s ARD document, if the ARD committee determines that it is required for FAPE.
    - If the ARD committee is not sure if the student requires AT, does not know of potential AT solutions, or does not have access to potential Assistive Technology solutions, a referral for consultation (NOT evaluation) should be made to the HCSSA Assistive Technology Coordinator/Team for a student/classroom consultation (See below).

The outcomes of the consideration process will be documented in the student's ARD document.

Report abuse