Empowering Rural Students with Disabilities Through Assistive Technology

The Legal Mandate: What is the School's Responsibility?

Technically, the legal requirements for the provision of assistive technology to students with disabilities have not changed since the 1970s. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 required accommodations for all individuals with disabilities who were served by programs receiving federal funding. And Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, established requirements for schools to provide the necessary devices and services to ensure an appropriate public education for all students with disabilities.

Despite the legislative intent of these landmark acts, however, school districts and other agencies were slow to adopt the use of assistive technology. Consequently, Congress enacted the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act (Tech Act) in 1988 to provide grants to the states to increase awareness of the need for assistive technology and related services among people with disabilities, and to help the states develop the policies and structures that need to be in place to ensure the provision of assistive technology. The grants to the states are competitive and range from $500,000 to $950,000 per year for up to 10 years. The grant program is scheduled to expire in 1999.

The Tech Act defined assistance to include both assistive technology devices and services. Services was further defined to include evaluation of the need for such devices, acquisition of devices, adaptation and maintenance, collaboration with other agencies involved, and training and technical assistance for all persons involved.

The 1990 Education Amendments, which changed the name of EAHCA to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), added definitions of the terms "assistive technology device" and "assistive technology service" to IDEA. These definitions were taken verbatim from the Tech Act. It wasn't necessary to add a requirement that school districts provide assistive technology since it is covered by implication in appropriate education and related service requirements that have been a part of IDEA since passage of P.L. 94-142 in 1975.

The federal regulations implementing IDEA, which were released in 1992, added new rules addressing assistive technology that had major implications for school district special education identification:

1. School districts must ensure that assistive technology devices and services are made available to a child with a disability if required as part of a child's special education and related services (emphasis added) as stated in the child's individualized educational program (IEP).
2. School districts must describe in a child's IEP any assistive technology devices or services that will be provided in connection with the child's placement in regular education (emphasis added).

Professionals directly involved in assistive technology services see these regulations as changing the legal climate surrounding school districts' responsibility for acquiring assistive technology devices and services. The directive to school districts is much more prescriptive than that originally stated in the EAHCA and the Rehabilitation Act. For students who qualify for special education, school districts need to answer two questions:

1. Is assistive technology needed in order for a particular student to receive a free appropriate public education?
2. Would an assistive device enable a particular student to move into a less restrictive environment?

Neither of these questions is necessarily easy to answer. However, all school districts have been addressing the issues of appropriate education and least-restrictive environment for their students with disabilities for a long time now. The difference since the 1992 regulations is that school districts must be able to show that they have specifically considered assistive technology in their decision-making process for each special education student's individualized educational program.

Some students with disabilities do not qualify for special education under IDEA but might qualify for accommodatior under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Districts need to consider whether assistive technology is necessary to permit such students to participate in or gain access to a school-sponsored program or activity on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Federal laws addressing the education of children with disabilities are part of a larger body of related federal legislation that provides for rights and services for all persons with disabilities. Extensive analysis of these laws is beyond the scope of this discussion, but educators need to be aware of the related legislation:

• for an appropriate perspective on the import of the subject of assistive technology,
• for understanding possible alternative funding sources, and
• to be able to work effectively with other agencies, especially when students are making the transition from school to post-school services.

Other federal laws addressing assistive technology include the:

• Social Security Act, which provides payment through Medicaid for any assistive device that is a "medical necessity." Also, it will pay for assistive devices through its Plan for Achieving Self-Support (PASS) work incentive program and Impairment Related Work Expenses (IRWES) program for students transitioning into employment.
• Fair Housing Amendment of 1988, which requires housing with four units or more to follow "universal design" standards. Districts, clearly, should apply "universal design" in the construction of new schools.
• Mentally Ill Bill of Rights Act and the Developmentally Disabled Bill of Rights Act, both of which address the provision of assistive devices.
• Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires accommodations in employment and public settings.
• Architectural Barriers Act, which mandates accessibility accommodations for all federal or federally leased buildings.

The Legal Mandate: Gray Areas

Given the complicated nature of assistive technology, the fact that there are some controversial issues associated with it should not be surprising. Since issuance of the 1992 regulations, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has published several policy letters addressing a number of such problems. Each policy letter has spoken to questions about specific devices and circumstances, but virtually all of the policy analyses reflect one principle: If an assistive technology device is needed by a student in order to receive an appropriate education (i.e., one that provides educational benefit), that assistive technology, or the need for the assistive technology, must be described in the student's IEP. Furthermore, the public school system has ultimate responsibility for ensuring that the student has access to the assistive technology. However, this does not mean that the school has the sole responsibility for purchasing the device and the related services (e.g., maintaining the device or training personnel in its use). Depending on the complexity of the device, the funding, training, and/or maintenance may require a team of professionals working together and multiple funding sources.

"Best vs. "Appropriate": A Dilemma for School Districts

Because of widespread confusion about the meaning of "appropriate education" in Public Law 94-142, the Supreme Court addressed the concept in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley in 1981. The Court decided that an appropriate education must provide educational benefit but that maximization of potential or the "best education" is not required under federal law. Unless a state has mandated maximization of potential, the district's legal responsibility stops at the "basic floor of opportunity," which consists of "access to specialized instruction and related services which are individually designed to provide educational benefit." This is an important point as regards the provision of assistive technology, since a wide range of devices that might be considered appropriate for a specific impairment may be available. Assistive technology research and development sometimes outstrip what is practical and reasonable for widespread use in many cases. Because of such factors as cost and lack of technical expertise, the practicality issue has serious implications for district decision making in developing student IEPs that address assistive technology. As with other kinds of special education services, cost should not be the major consideration when making a decision about whether a particular assistive device should be provided, but according to several circuit court rulings, it may be a consideration when choosing between several equally appropriate options.

The Albuquerque Public Schools assistive technology program, which is one of the most mature programs in the nation, has grappled with these appropriate-versus-best issues since 1982. According to Brenda Heiman, coordinator of the program, nowhere in special education is the issue of the appropriate level of service more controversial than with assistive technology decisions. Heiman and her staff are responsible for assisting IEP committees in making the decisions about which assistive technology devices are appropriate for children who are eligible for special education. The assistive technology staff begins the assessment process by considering low-end devices first. This is a difficult and critical process involving the weighing of benefit against cost, which often produces decisions quite different from what the teachers, parents, and child may want. Heiman says, "It would be easy to go for the really far-out stuff, but common sense must reign." For example, a request for a laptop computer for a third-grade student who cannot read would probably be denied, while a laptop for a high school student who needs it for note taking and writing might be allowed. Or the assistive technology program might receive a request for a computer with a word processing program for a student who has difficulty with spelling; however, a spell checker on the scale of a hand-held calculator might be deemed more appropriate.

Next page: The Funding Process