Assistive Technology in K-12 Schools:
Understanding the Impact of the AT Consideration Mandate
Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D.
September 29, 2004
A Roadmap to Provision of the Best Assistive Technology
for Community Participation for People with Disabilities
St. Louis, MO
Given the federal mandate in IDEA that assistive technology must be considered when
planning each student's IEP, it is reasonable to assume that K-12 schools offer fertile
grounds to measuring assistive technology outcomes. However, there is little evidence
to suggest that all students who could benefit from assistive technology have access to
appropriate devices and services. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an
overview of issues associated with the assistive technology consideration mandate and
the implications for measuring assistive technology outcomes.
Ten Issues Impacting Assistive Technology Use in Schools
10 Despite the consideration mandate, there is no evidence of systematic efforts
devoted to ensuring that families are aware of their rights or the responsibilities
of the school to assess the need for AT to enable a child to benefit from FAPE
9 AT Consideration models are nearly identical to the process of referral,
qualification, and placement in special education which means they are subject to
the same inherent limitations (i.e., time, cost, inefficiency, etc.); as a result, there is
little evidence to suggest that all students who could benefit from AT have access
to appropriate devices and services; those that do have AT tend to have an
advocate that challenged the system
8 Policies and procedures focus on two components of a three-legged stool: AT
devices and services with little regard for evidence that an intervention actually
improves functional performance (hence, a third policy leg is needed: outcome)
7 Because funding issues have not been addressed, some criticize the AT
consideration mandate as a blank check
6 Inadequate professional training in assistive technology means that IEP teams
do not have the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively consider AT and
that AT specialists are not commonly found in every school
5 An unintended consequence of the 1997 IDEA consideration mandate essentially
added 4 million students to the AT case load by extending AT devices and
services to high incidence disabilities
4 Considerable confusion surrounds the use of technology to enhance academic
performance regardless of whether it is called assistive technology, instructional
technology, or universal design
3 Historically AT has focused on extending physical and sensory functions; little
attention has been devoted to assistive technology that functions as a cognitive
prosthesis and the implications of these type of applications
2 Implicitly, learning is viewed as naked independence; when AT is used as a
cognitive prosthesis (i.e., to compensate for an inability to read or store
information that is difficult to remember) it is viewed as undermining standards
and high expectations; confounding the educational system which wants to
assign a letter grade (How do you grade a student who uses AT?)
1 While assistive technology has historically been viewed as a tool for facilitating
access and participation, the current No Child Left Behind environment has
fundamentally shifted the focus to research-based instructional interventions
which not only close the achievement gap but demonstrate that all children
are preforming at grade level
Suggested Initiatives to Address Current Issues
• Initiate a dialogue about the purpose of education and the role of technology
tools in defining expectations for high-performance in 21st century citizens
• Develop theories on technology-enhanced performance that serve to unify the
constructs associated with AT, IT, and UD
• Create new procedures to replace existing AT consideration models that
identifies all students with a performance problem and provides appropriate
tools and resources for enhancing performance (AT Child Find)
• Develop a new generation of tools for facilitating decisions about technologyenhanced
performance
Selected References
Denham, A., & Lahm, E.A. (2001). Using technology to construct alternative portfolios
of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5),
10-17.
Edyburn, D.L (2003). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology
Practice, 5(4), 16-23.
Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes: Key concepts. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 18(1), 53-55.
Also available online: http://jset.unlv.edu/18.1/asseds/edyburn.html
Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in writing. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 18(2), 60-64.
Also available online: http://jset.unlv.edu/18.2/asseds/edyburn.html
Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in mathematics. Journal
of Special Education Technology, 18(4), 76-79.
Also available online: http://jset.unlv.edu/18.4/asseds/edyburn.html
Edyburn, D.L. (2004). Measuring Assistive Technology Outcomes in Reading. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 19(1), 60-64.
Also available online: http://jset.unlv.edu/19.1/asseds/edyburn.html
Golden, D. (1998). Assistive technology in special education: Policy and practice. Reston, VA:
The CASE/TAM Assistive Technology Policy and Practice Group.
Smith, R.O. (2000). Measuring assistive technology outcomes in education. Diagnostique,
25(4), 273-290.