The "IDEA" of Assistive Technology
meeting only when a parent or a staff member forced the issue. If the parents of a student feel that the IEP team did not adequately consider the student’s need for AT or if they disagree with the team’s decision regarding AT, they can seek an independent evaluation at the school’s expense (Goodman, 1996; Chambers, 1997).
In the landmark case, Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, the court ruled that Amy Rowley was receiving an appropriate education because she was progressing from grade to grade with above average performance. The court also made clear that the school only had to provide enough for the student to have a reasonable chance to make progress, not the best education possible.
While the language of IDEA and the Rowley decision appear simple, many special educators and related service providers find great difficulty with determining the place of assistive technology within the boundaries of the Rowley standard of providing "some benefit" but not providing for maximum development. In other words, when does assistive technology move from being necessary to being just a luxury?
A closely related question arises when the IEP team considers the wide array of assistive devices available, ranging from low technology to extremely advanced systems. Which assistive devices and services are appropriate for the student?
In summary, the IDEA clearly requires the provision of assistive technology devices and services to students needing them for an appropriate education.. However, the standard used to determine which of the available technologies is the appropriate one for the student to benefit from education is still inconsistent. As Bell and Blackhurst (1997) discovered, few schools have written policies to guide such decisions. Therefore, it is up to parents, administrators, and educators to work cooperatively to see that students receive the assistive technology devices and services to which they are entitled.
References
Bell, J. K. & Blackhurst, A. E. (1997). National survey of state
department of education assistive technology policies. University of Kentucky
Assistive Technology (UKAT) Project, Department of Special Education and
Rehabilitation Counseling University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0001. Chambers, A.C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for
IEP teams. Reston, VA: Council of Administrators of Special Education
and Technology of Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. Goodman, S. (1996). Right of independent education evaluation (IEE)
to include evaluation of needs for assistive technology [On-Line]. Available:
http://www.ucpa.org/atdoc/ Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). Smith, D. (1998, March). The right to technology under the
Latest Articles