Illinois Assistive Technology
Guidance Manual
2020 Edition
This manual was created in collaboration with Infinitec
and made possible through a grant from the Illinois State Board of Education.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 1
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual
Table of Contents
SETTING THE VISION FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN SCHOOLS.......................................................................................... 0
CHAPTER 1 UNDERSTANDING ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 1
WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF AT? ............................................................................................................................ 1
WHAT IS THE GOAL OF AT? ............................................................................................................................................. 2
WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT AT IS A COMPENSATORY INTERVENTION? ...................................................................................... 2
WHAT ARE THE CATEGORIES OF AT? ................................................................................................................................. 2
WHAT IS THE AT CONTINUUM?........................................................................................................................................ 3
HOW IS AT DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TECHNOLOGIES USED IN SCHOOLS? .................................................................................. 3
WHAT ARE SCHOOLS’ RESPONSIBILITIES TO PROVIDE MEDICALLY NECESSARY AT? ....................................................................... 4
WHAT ARE AT SERVICES? ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Summary .............................................................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2 UNDERSTANDING AT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN IDEA ......................................................................................... 6
WHAT ARE EXAMPLES OF AT SPECIAL EDUCATION, RELATED SERVICES, AND SUPPLEMENTARY AIDS AND SERVICES? ........................... 7
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AT AND FAPE? ......................................................................................................... 8
WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AT AND LRE? ........................................................................................................... 9
WHAT IS THE LEA’S RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP PERFORMANCE MEASURES WHEN THE IEP TEAM DETERMINES AT IS NEEDED? ......... 9
WHEN SHOULD PARENTS BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE IEP TEAM’S REQUIREMENT TO CONSIDER AT FOR THEIR CHILD? ........................... 9
CHAPTER 3 UNDERSTANDING HOW AT RELATES TO OTHER EDUCATIONAL MANDATES AND INITIATIVES ........................ 11
HOW DOES AT RELATE TO THE ILLINOIS LEARNING STANDARDS? .......................................................................................... 11
HOW DOES AT RELATE TO ACCESSIBLE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (AIM)? ........................................................................... 11
HOW DOES AT RELATE TO UNIVERSAL DESIGN? ................................................................................................................ 11
HOW DOES AT RELATE TO DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION? .................................................................................................. 12
HOW DOES AT RELATE TO MULTI-TIERED SYSTEMS OF SUPPORT? ........................................................................................ 13
HOW IS AT ADDRESSED UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973? ............................................................. 13
How can an IEP team judge its Section 504 processes for including AT? ........................................................... 14
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 4 UNDERSTANDING THE AT PROCESS ................................................................................................................. 15
CONSIDERATION OF AT ................................................................................................................................................ 15
PROVISION OF AT ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
IMPLEMENTATION OF AT .............................................................................................................................................. 16
PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF AT USE .......................................................................................................................... 16
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 2
CHAPTER 5 AT PROCESS: UNDERSTANDING AT CONSIDERATION ...................................................................................... 17
A MODEL FOR AT CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................................. 17
Review current information about student ........................................................................................................ 18
Develop IEP goals and objectives. ...................................................................................................................... 19
Can the student meet IEP goals and objectives and make reasonable progress in the curriculum without any
technology-based compensatory supports? ...................................................................................................... 19
Does the IEP team have the knowledge and skills necessary to make this decision? ........................................ 19
DOCUMENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS CONCLUSION AND ANY ACCOMMODATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE NECESSARY OR WHETHER THE
STUDENT DOES NOT NEED AT AT THE TIME OF THIS IEP MEETING. ......................................................................................... 20
Collect more information or seek assistance from person or team with necessary knowledge and skills. ........ 20
Is the student currently using AT? ...................................................................................................................... 21
Is the AT working? .............................................................................................................................................. 21
Document AT in the IEP ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Conduct an AT evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 21
WHO IS INVOLVED IN AN AT CONSIDERATION? .................................................................................................................. 21
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AT CONSIDERATION, AT ASSESSMENT AND AT EVALUATION? .......................................... 22
WHO MAY CONDUCT OR BE INVOLVED IN AN AT ASSESSMENT OR AT EVALUATION? ................................................................. 23
WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE PART OF AN AT ASSESSMENT AND AN AT EVALUATION? ........................................................................ 23
Task-demand analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Feature-match analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Tool-demand analysis ........................................................................................................................................ 26
AT trials and data collection............................................................................................................................... 27
WHAT ARE CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC FACTORS THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED IN AN AT ASSESSMENT? ............................................ 27
HOW IS AT DOCUMENTED IN A STUDENT’S IEP?................................................................................................................ 28
SHOULD COST BE A FACTOR WHEN CONSIDERING AT?......................................................................................................... 31
CAN PARENTS OR GUARDIANS REQUEST AN INDEPENDENT AT EVALUATION? ........................................................................... 31
What components might be included in an independent AT evaluation? ......................................................... 31
Must schools consider parents’ AT evaluations? ............................................................................................... 32
HOW CAN A TEAM JUDGE THE QUALITY OF ITS AT PROCESSES? ............................................................................................. 32
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 32
CHAPTER 6 AT PROCESS: UNDERSTANDING THE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY’S REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AT ...................... 33
WHO OWNS THE AT WHEN IT IS PURCHASED BY THE SCHOOL? ............................................................................................. 33
CAN SCHOOL-OWNED AT BE USED IN HOME SETTINGS? ...................................................................................................... 33
CAN FAMILY INSURANCE BE USED TO PAY FOR AT? ............................................................................................................. 33
WHAT SHOULD SCHOOLS DO IF A FAMILY CHOOSES TO PURCHASE AT FOR USE IN A CHILD’S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM? .................... 34
CAN A SCHOOL SEEK OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING TO PROVIDE AT DEVICES AND SERVICES THAT ARE PART OF A STUDENT’S IEP? ...... 34
CAN TECHNOLOGIES ALREADY IN A CLASSROOM BE USED BY STUDENTS AS AT? ........................................................................ 34
ARE SCHOOLS REQUIRED TO INSURE THE AT PROVIDED TO A STUDENT? .................................................................................. 35
IF AT IS REPEATEDLY DAMAGED, HOW SHOULD THE DISTRICT RESPOND? ................................................................................. 35
ARE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AT TO STUDENTS AT CHARTER SCHOOLS OR PRIVATE SCHOOLS? .................... 35
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 35
CHAPTER 7 AT PROCESS: UNDERSTANDING AT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................... 36
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AT? ......................................................................................................... 36
PROCESS FOR AT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 36
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 3
Tasks................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Tools/Strategies ................................................................................................................................................. 38
Where is it used? ................................................................................................................................................ 38
Additional Comments ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Related IEP Goal(s) ............................................................................................................................................. 38
Routine Maintenance, Training and Customization ........................................................................................... 38
Repairs and Contingency Planning ..................................................................................................................... 39
WHAT TRAINING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED TO IMPLEMENT AT EFFECTIVELY? ............................................................................. 39
WHAT DOES ‘CUSTOMIZATION OF AT’ MEAN? .................................................................................................................. 39
CAN AT BE USED ON STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS? ............................................................................................................... 39
HOW CAN A TEAM JUDGE THE QUALITY OF ITS AT IMPLEMENTATION? .................................................................................... 40
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 8 AT PROCESS: UNDERSTANDING CONTINUOUS PROGRESS MONITORING OF AT USE ....................................... 41
WHAT IS INVOLVED IN PROGRESS MONITORING FOR AT? .................................................................................................... 41
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL OUTCOMES OF PROGRESS MONITORING OF AT USE? ...................................................................... 41
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 43
CHAPTER 9 UNDERSTANDING AT SERVICES IN THE CONTEXT OF TRANSITIONS .................................................. 44
WHAT AT AND AT SERVICES COMPONENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS DURING A STUDENT’S TRANSITION? ............................... 44
HOW ARE TRANSITIONS THAT INCLUDE AT ADDRESSED IN AN IEP? ........................................................................................ 45
CAN A STUDENT TAKE SCHOOL-PROVIDED AT TO A NEW PLACEMENT? ................................................................................... 46
WHAT AT AND AT SERVICE COMPONENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS IN TRANSITIONS FROM ONE EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT TO ANOTHER?
................................................................................................................................................................................ 46
WHAT AT AND AT SERVICE COMPONENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS WHEN PREPARING FOR POSTSECONDARY TRANSITIONS? ...... 46
HOW CAN IEP TEAMS DOCUMENT AT SERVICES AND DEVICES IN A STUDENT’S POST-SECONDARY TRANSITION PLAN AND SUMMARY OF
PERFORMANCE? ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
CAN AT BE TRANSFERRED TO A STUDENT UPON GRADUATION OR TRANSITION TO ANOTHER PLACEMENT? ..................................... 47
HOW CAN A TEAM JUDGE THE QUALITY OF ITS AT TRANSITION PLANNING? ............................................................................. 47
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 47
CHAPTER 10 CREATING AN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS EFFECTIVE AT SERVICES ................................................... 48
WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS HIGH-QUALITY AT SERVICES? ......................................... 48
WHAT ACTIONS CAN BE TAKEN TO BUILD VISION AND SET DIRECTION FOR AN AT PROGRAM? ...................................................... 48
Questions about students’ use of AT .................................................................................................................. 49
Questions about staff members’ knowledge about and use of AT .................................................................... 49
Questions about agency or district resources .................................................................................................... 49
WHAT ASPECTS OF MANAGING A PROGRAM CAN BE APPLIED TO AN AT INFRASTRUCTURE? ........................................................ 49
Operating guidelines .......................................................................................................................................... 49
Resource management ...................................................................................................................................... 50
AT device infrastructure ..................................................................................................................................... 50
Accessing and leveraging state and regional resources ..................................................................................... 50
Working with vendors ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Purchasing in bulk to provide large-scale access ............................................................................................... 51
Building a local AT library................................................................................................................................... 51
WHAT ASPECTS OF DEVELOPING INDIVIDUAL EDUCATORS CAN BE APPLIED TO AN AT INFRASTRUCTURE? ....................................... 51
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 4
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE AT SERVICES ........................................................................................ 52
TPACK Model for AT Professional Development ................................................................................................ 52
WHAT ASPECTS OF REDESIGNING THE ORGANIZATION CAN BE APPLIED TO AN AT INFRASTRUCTURE? ............................................ 53
What should school systems do to plan for ensuring effective AT services? ...................................................... 54
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 55
APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX A: ...................................................................................................................................................................... 56
QUALITY INDICATORS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................................................ 57
Quality Indicators for Consideration of Assistive Technology Needs ................................................................. 57
Quality Indicators for Assessment of Assistive Technology Needs ..................................................................... 59
Quality Indicators for Including Assistive Technology in the IEP ........................................................................ 61
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Implementation ............................................................................. 63
Quality Indicators for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Assistive Technology ................................................. 65
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Transition ...................................................................................... 67
Quality Indicators for Administrative Support of Assistive Technology Services ................................................ 69
Quality Indicators for Professional Development and Training in Assistive Technology .................................... 71
QUALITY INDICATORS FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY WITHIN 504 PLANS ................................................................................. 73
(QIAT-504) .............................................................................................................................................................. 73
APPENDIX B: FORMS FOR TEAM PROCESS USE .................................................................................................................. 76
SETT SCAFFOLD FOR TOOL SELECTION ............................................................................................................................ 76
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 76
SAMPLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARENT AND DISTRICT FOR PRIVATELY OWNED EQUIPMENT ..................................................... 76
QIAT TRANSITION PLANNING WORKSHEET ...................................................................................................................... 76
SETT SCAFFOLD FOR TOOL SELECTION ............................................................................................................................ 77
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .............................................................................................................. 79
SAMPLE AGREEMENT BETWEEN PARENT AND DISTRICT ....................................................................................................... 82
QIAT TRANSITION PLANNING WORKSHEET FOR AT USERS .................................................................................................. 84
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 87
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Setting the Vision Page 0
Setting the Vision for Assistive Technology
in Schools
The U.S. Department of Education’s National Educational Technology Plan of 2017 recognizes that, in general,
schools have more access to technologies now than at any other point in history. The plan challenges schools to
leverage technologies to provide greater equity and accessibility for every student.
Many technologies can increase equity and accessibility for students. Technologies that meet the criteria for
assistive technologies (AT) can empower students with disabilities by creating increased independence along
with greater academic, social and functional performance. AT enables students with disabilities to increase or
maintain their performance on a variety of tasks within school settings. The technologies constantly evolve as
new AT tools are introduced and new applications of existing tools are developed.
For students to use AT effectively, it is essential to understand AT use as a process, not just a set of tools. School
systems are required to engage in processes for considering the need for AT, what AT to provide students, how
to provide and implement it, and how to monitor the effects on students’ performance while using AT. School
systems need to ensure that those who work with students have the knowledge and skills necessary to engage
in these processes and establish infrastructure to support them.
This manual is designed to help school systems adopt processes and practices that enable students with
disabilities to use AT effectively. It is intended as a reference for school administrators, teachers and related
service personnel, as well as students and parents of students with disabilities.
While the manual describes recommended practices for providing AT and AT services to students with
disabilities receiving special education services, agencies may need to pursue specific policy guidance for
individual cases.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 1 Page 1
Chapter 1
Understanding Assistive Technology
Assistive technology (AT) is a classification of technologies specific to individuals with disabilities. In
schools, classifying technology as AT is important. It allows that technology to be documented as part of
an Individualized Education Program (IEP), 504 plan or other accommodations for a student with a
disability. This section covers basic AT information school teams need to understand, and how it applies
in school settings.
What is the legal definition of AT?
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) provides a legal definition of AT. The
definition at 34 C.F.R. § 300.5 reads:
Assistive technology device means any item, piece of equipment, or product system,
whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to
increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401[1])
“Any item” can be interpreted broadly. AT ranges from more complex items such as computer-based
technology and software to everyday items like small balls that can be used to modify pencils for
alternative grasps.
“Product system” refers to the idea that an AT solution often requires multiple technologies working
together to benefit a student with a disability. The concept of a product system is analogous to a
computer and software. Software alone cannot run without a computer, and a computer is unable to
provide much benefit without the software. An example of this concept in application is a student who
requires an augmentative or alternative communication (AAC) device mounted to his or her wheelchair,
as well as a switch to activate the device. All the technologies must work in concert for the student to
benefit from the AT system.
“Whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized” means that commonly available
technology may be used as AT tools or AT systems purchased and used as AT to increase functional
capabilities. Often, however, they need to be adapted to a student’s individual needs. This idea is similar
to buying a car. Before driving it, the buyer will most likely adjust the seat positions, mirrors, tilt of the
steering wheel and so forth. The buyer may even add a wrap to keep the steering wheel from getting
hot in the summer. All those changes make the car better for the driver who bought it. The same is true
of AT. Once out of the box, AT may need to be modified or customized for the individual student.
Support personnel may need to adjust the device or system programming or alter the way the student
physically interacts with it.
“That is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability”
relates to the reason the AT tool or system is provided to the student. Functional capabilities are the
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 1 Page 2
skills and activities students must perform effectively to succeed in school. Among them are eating,
drinking, toileting, seeing, hearing, communicating, reading, writing, paying attention and getting to and
around school.
The paragraph of IDEA that defines AT also limits its definition with this statement:
The term [assistive technology] does not include a medical device that is surgically
implanted, or the replacement of such device. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(1))
In effect, AT considered for students with disabilities in school settings should not include items inserted
below the skin by a medical doctor. A cochlear implant, for example, would not be considered AT.
What is the goal of AT?
The goal of AT is to enhance students’ performance on specific tasks (Edyburn, 2005) or to allow
students to maintain performance levels that allow them to succeed in their instructional programs.
Lewis (1993) noted that AT can:
• augment strengths that counterbalance the effects of any disabilities; and
• allow for performing a task in a way that compensates for or bypasses disabilities.
Edyburn (2000) further suggested that AT can act as a cognitive prosthesis, replacing an ability that is
missing or impaired, or as a cognitive scaffold, providing the support needed to accomplish a task.
What does it mean that AT is a compensatory intervention?
Two primary types of interventions are used in school settings. Instructional interventions are
procedures or strategies educators use to teach academic or social skills. Instructional interventions
help students learn new skills.
Compensatory interventions are procedures, tools and strategies that allow students to perform better
on a task without necessarily improving the underlying skills associated with it.
AT provides a compensatory benefit to a student with a disability, according to Edyburn (2000), Lewis
(1993), Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Wojcik and Bardi (2007), and Wojcik (2005). All proposed that AT is any
tool (or system of tools) allowing a person to complete a task at an expected performance level when
that would not otherwise be possible. In short, AT helps students show what they know and
compensate for a barrier posed by their disability.
What are the categories of AT?
No categories of assistive technologies are defined in legislation; however, the AT field has developed a
number of taxonomies to help classify assistive technologies.
The AbleData ( http://www.abledata.com) database resource sponsored by the National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research has developed 20 different categories to classify AT by function.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 1 Page 3
These categories are:
Aids for Daily Living
Blind and Low Vision
Communication
Computers
Controls
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Deaf Blind
Education
Environmental Adaptations
Housekeeping
Orthotics
Prosthetics
Recreation
Safety and Security
Seating
Therapeutic Aids
Transportation
Walking
Wheeled Mobility
Workplace
(AbleData, n.d.)
Categories aside, it is important to note that AT provides compensatory benefit to improve or maintain
functional performance (e.g., reading, communicating, or mobility). An AT tool is not tied to a specific
disability type but rather to an area of functional performance. Any item, unless surgically implanted,
may qualify as AT if it provides compensatory benefit to a student with a disability, resulting in enhanced
performance on educational and functional tasks.
What is the AT continuum?
AT ranges on a continuum from low tech to high tech. Low-tech AT tools are typically more widely
available, lower in cost and easier to use (e.g., slant boards, tactile rulers, colored paper and name
stamps). They may be used by a wider variety of students and are easier to replace if lost or damaged.
High-tech AT tools tend to be more specialized, less widely available, higher in cost and more complex to
operate and use (e.g., alternative keyboards, speech recognition software and electronic eye-gaze
systems). These tools are often used to meet more challenging or specialized needs of students with
disabilities.
Wojcik (2011) noted that practitioners argued IEP teams should first consider low-tech AT tools and
systems before progressing to high-tech. Once an IEP team determines a student needs AT, however,
the IDEA mandates that the AT chosen, high tech or low, must allow the child to increase functional
capabilities and benefit from a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
How is AT different from other technologies used in schools?
One role of an IEP team is to differentiate AT from other technologies used in school settings. IDEA
mandates that IEP teams “consider whether the child needs AT devices and services” (20 U.S.C.
614(d)(3)(B)(v)). The key term here is need. Does the child need the AT to perform tasks required to
have access to and participate in the school’s curriculum or other school-related functions?
Many technologies may be classified as AT in some situations and as instructional technology in others,
e.g., when the technology simply allows teachers to share knowledge or help students build skills. For
example, Chromebooks® have become a popular tool within schools; they are often the tool of choice
when schools decide to issue a device for every student. A Chromebook may give teachers several ways
to present information. It may give students different ways to engage in activities that develop their
knowledge and skills. In this scenario, the use of the Chromebook is only one means of providing
instruction, and students may still benefit from other tools and strategies to learn the content. A
Chromebook, used in this way, would be considered instructional technology.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 1 Page 4
For some students, however, a Chromebook may be classified as AT. For instance, a Chromebook may
offer students with reading and writing disabilities alternative ways to encode and decode printed text.
Enlarged text, text-to-speech, different contrasts and alternative readability levels are all available. A
Chromebook can even produce printed text through speech recognition. Having access to such
technologies provides a compensatory benefit, minimizing the impact of a learning disability . A
Chromebook can allow a student to perform tasks in ways he or she could not otherwise. The fact that
the Chromebook and associated applications provide such compensatory benefits for an individual
student would support the designation of AT for that student and should be documented in the
student’s IEP.
Any student, with or without disabilities, may use readily available technologies that have accessibility
features such as text enlargement or text to speech. These technologies are identified as AT for a
student with a disability if they are used as a compensatory intervention and an IEP team determines
that a student needs them to receive FAPE. Additional AT may be needed to help a student with
disabilities access readily available technologies used by all students. Once such a need is determined, it
must be documented in the student’s IEP.
What are schools’ responsibilities to provide medically necessary AT?
Surgically implanted medical devices—including those used for breathing, nutrition and other bodily
functions—are excluded from the definition of an assistive technology device in section 602(1)(B) of
the IDEA. The exclusion applies to the implanted component of the device as well as its external
components (71 Federal Register, 46,547 (August 14, 2006)).
Under IDEA, therefore, schools are not responsible for purchasing surgically implanted devices,
optimizing their function (e.g., mapping cochlear implants), or maintaining or replacing them. (See
also: Letter to Gregg, 48 IDELR 17 (ED 2006); Petit v. U.S. Department of Education, 58 IDELR 241
(D.C. Cir. 2012); A.U. v. Roane County Board of Education, 48 IDELR 3 (E.D.Tenn. 2007); 71 Federal
Register, 46, 570–71 (August 2006).)
Nevertheless, schools must conduct routine checks to ensure that the external components of
students’ surgically implanted medical devices are functioning properly. The 2006 IDEA regulations
state that schools must “appropriately monitor and maintain medical devices that are needed to
maintain the health and safety of the child, including breathing, nutrition, or operation of other
bodily functions, while the child is transported to and from school or is at school.” (34 C.F.R.
§300.34(b)(2) (ii)).Education agencies are not responsible for providing personal medical devices
such as eyeglasses or hearing aids that a child with a disability requires, regardless of whether the
child is attending school. If a child’s IEP team determines that such a non-implanted device is
required for a student to receive FAPE, the public agency must ensure that it is provided at no cost
to the parents, according to 71 Federal Register, 46, 581 (August 14, 2006).
If an IEP merely refers to a medical device, hearing aid or eyeglasses, it does not mean that the
school has assumed responsibility for the device. The IEP has to incorporate the device as necessary
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 1 Page 5
for implementation of the IEP and receipt of FAPE for the school to take responsibility for the
personal device .
What are AT services?
IDEA 2004 provides a definition of AT services at 34 C.F.R. § 300.6. It states:
Assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a
disability in the selection, acquisition, and use of an assistive technology device. The
term includes—
(a) The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability, including a functional
evaluation of the child in the child’s customary environment;
(b) Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive
technology devices by children with disabilities;
(c) Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, retaining, repairing,
or replacing assistive technology devices;
(d) Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services with assistive
technology devices, such as those associated with existing education and
rehabilitation plans and programs;
(e) Training or technical assistance for a child with a disability or, if appropriate, that
child’s family; and
(f) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing
education or rehabilitation services), employers, or other individuals who provide
services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions
of that child. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(2))
Summary
AT service delivery involves more than simply providing AT. It is a process, recorded in a student’s IEP, by
which AT is considered, selected, provided, supported and periodically evaluated to determine its
effectiveness for a student.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 2 Page 6
Chapter 2
Understanding AT requirements within
IDEA
Assistive technology and AT services are both defined and addressed within IDEA. Specifically, IDEA
establishes AT as a special consideration in the IEP process. The act states that IEP teams must “Consider
whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services” (34 C.F.R. § 300.324(2)(v)). In doing
so, IDEA also uses this language:
§ 300.308 Assistive Technology
(a) Each public agency must ensure that assistive technology devices or assistive
technology services or both, as those terms are defined in §§ 300.5 and 300.6,
respectively, are made available to a child with a disability if required as a part of the
child’s—
(1) Special education under § 300.39;
(2) Related services under § 300.34; or
(3) Supplementary aids and services under §§ 300.42
IDEA defines each of these areas as follows.
§ 300.39 Special education.
(a) General.
(1) Special education means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the
parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including—
(i) Instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and
institutions, and in other settings; and
(ii) Instruction in physical education.
§ 300.34 Related services.
(a) General. Related services means transportation and such developmental,
corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a
disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech-language
pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services,
physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation,
early identification and assessment of disabilities in children, counseling services,
including rehabilitation counseling, orientation and mobility services, and
medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes. Related services also
include school health services and school nurse services, social work services in
schools, and parent counseling and training.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 2 Page 7
(b) Exception; services that apply to children with surgically implanted devices,
including cochlear implants.
(1) Related services do not include a medical device that is surgically
implanted, the optimization of that device’s functioning (e.g., mapping),
maintenance of that device, or the replacement of that device.
§ 300.42 Supplementary aids and services.
Supplementary aids and services means aids, services, and other supports that are
provided in regular education classes, other education-related settings, and in
extracurricular and nonacademic settings, to enable children with disabilities to be
educated with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate in accordance
with §§ 300.114 through 300.116.
For a more complete IDEA definitions with additional explanations, visit the IDEA Website,
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b.
What are examples of AT special education, related services, and
supplementary aids and services?
AT and AT services may be provided as part of special education to a student if the IEP team deems it
necessary and develops related goals within the IEP. In this context, specially designed instruction may
be provided to help a student understand how to use AT. For example, a special education teacher may
provide instruction on how to use speech recognition effectively when composing print. The
instructional goals would define key performance outcomes in using speech recognition for writing.
Alternatively, AT may be provided along with specially designed instruction to meet a student’s
individual needs and to ensure free appropriate public education (FAPE). As an example, a student may
use speech recognition while receiving instruction on specific writing strategies. Using speech
recognition helps the student generate printed text. This AT compensates for the impact of a disability
that affects how the student applies the writing strategy being taught through individualized and
specially designed instruction. The IEP team would generate goals for using specific writing strategies
and may identify goals for learning how to use speech recognition.
AT and AT services also may be provided as part of a related service. For example, a student who has
difficulty communicating may receive AT services to learn to use an alternative and augmentative
communication (AAC) system from a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP).
Finally, AT and AT services may be provided as a supplementary aid or service. In this scenario, AT and
AT services are provided in regular education classes and other education-related settings, as well as in
extracurricular and nonacademic school settings. The intent is to enable students with disabilities to be
educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate. For example, a slant board
may be provided as AT to help a student with motor difficulties more effectively engage in handwriting
in a general education classroom. The general education teacher may provide AT services to ensure that
the slant board is available when the student needs to use it. The teacher also may help the student set
up the slant board so that it may be used effectively.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 2 Page 8
What is the relationship between AT and FAPE?
IDEA requires that students who are aged 3–21 and receiving special education services be guaranteed
free appropriate public education (FAPE). According to IDEA 2004 (34 C.F.R. § 300.17):
Free appropriate public education or FAPE means special education and related services
that—
(a) Are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and
without charge;
(b) Meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of this part;
(c) Include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school
education in the State involved; and
(d) Are provided in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP)
that meets the requirements of §§ 300.320 through 300.324.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(9))
Providing AT may serve as an element of a school’s obligation to provide FAPE to students. The “free” in
FAPE means that all special education and related services (including necessary AT tools and services)
should be provided to students with disabilities at no cost to the parents. This rule prohibits schools
from refusing to provide AT or AT services in a student’s IEP because of expense. The only time schools
may consider cost of AT in making a consideration determination is when two equally effective
alternatives cost different amounts.
The “appropriate” portion of FAPE refers to the degree of impact the equipment and services provided
may have on students’ progress in school settings. In the landmark case of Board of Education v. Rowley,
the Supreme Court established a two-pronged test (458 U.S. 176 (1982)) that an appropriate education:
1. complies with the procedural requirements set out in IDEA; and
2. provides students with a substantive education.
The Supreme Court emphasized that, to be substantively appropriate, students’ education programs
should be “reasonably calculated” to ensure students’ educational progress. The goal of FAPE, according
to the Supreme Court, is not to maximize students’ potential but to guarantee that schools offer them a
“basic floor of opportunity.” Day and Huefner (2003) pointed out that the Rowley decision regarding
FAPE applies to the consideration of AT. AT should be provided to students with disabilities to confer an
equitable opportunity in educational settings and to ensure that their educational program is
“reasonably calculated” to ensure educational progress.
Recently, in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, the Supreme Court further defined the concept
of “appropriate” with regard to the education of students with disabilities under IDEA. In the Endrew F.
case, the court stated that each child’s educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of
his or her circumstances, and every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives (U.S.
DOE, 2017); therefore, when AT is considered for a student with a disability, the IEP team should “be
able to offer a cogent and responsive explanation for its decision that shows the IEP is reasonably
calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.” (Moore, 2019)
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 2 Page 9
What is the relationship between AT and LRE?
IDEA regulations provide that each student with a disability must be educated with nondisabled peers to
the maximum extent appropriate. (34 C.F.R. 300.114(a)(2)). This requirement is better known as the
obligation to educate students in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The regulations also provide
that students with disabilities should only be removed from the general education environment if the
nature of the student’s disability “is such that education in the [general] classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” (34 C.F.R. 300.114(a)(2)(ii)).
The role of AT is to enhance students’ performance in their LRE. If students are unable to demonstrate
performance on tasks and activities at an acceptable level, despite instruction on the necessary skills,
then AT may be warranted. By providing needed compensatory benefits, AT may allow students to
perform closer to the expected performance level and, ultimately, access the curriculum. Consequently,
students may receive instruction in less restrictive environments when AT is provided than when it is
not.
What is the LEA’s responsibility to develop performance measures when the
IEP team determines AT is needed?
When services are being directly provided to help a student learn how to use AT, or use it effectively as
part of an IEP goal (e.g., access to the curriculum, learning, participation, assessment, etc.), then the
recommended practice is to identify outcome measures for the student’s performance related to those
services. For example, if a student is being taught how to use AT, then outcome measures and criteria
would need to be specified to determine the degree to which the student could successfully operate the
AT. On the other hand, assume a student has already learned how to use AT that is needed for a
particular task within an IEP, student performance measures and performance criteria on the task would
need to be developed. In this case, AT is a condition of target behavior used to measure task
performance.
When should parents be notified about the IEP team’s requirement to
consider AT for their child?
In 2018, the Illinois School Code (105 ILCS 5/14-8.02 Identification, evaluation and placement of
children) was amended with these requirements.
At a child’s initial IEP meeting, and at each subsequent annual review meeting, the IEP team shall
provide the child’s parent/guardian with a written notification that informs them that the IEP team is
required to consider whether the child requires assistive technology in order to receive FAPE.
The amended Illinois School Code also requires that the notification from the LEA must include a toll-
free telephone number and internet address for the State’s assistive technology program. In response to
these changes, the Illinois State Board of Education revised the Parent/Guardian Notification of
Conference form (34-57D) and the Educational Accommodations and Supports form (34-54N).
IDEA requirements are designed to ensure free appropriate public education for students with
disabilities, as part of their IEP. This education should be provided in the least restrictive environment as
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 2 Page 10
much as appropriate. Local Education Agencies are responsible for developing ways to measure how
well students perform with AT. Parents are to be notified in writing about their child’s requirement for
AT at the first and each annual IEP meeting.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 3 Page 11
Chapter 3
Understanding How AT Relates to Other
Educational Mandates and Initiatives
IDEA and Illinois statutes mention additional legal and educational mandates that may influence
whether a team decides to provide assistive technology for a student. It is important to understand how
the provision of assistive technology devices and services relates to each of the following mandates.
How does AT relate to the Illinois Learning Standards?
The Illinois Learning Standards provide guidance about the content students are expected to learn. The
standards shape the development of curricula and associated experiences. AT provides a means for
individual students with disabilities to access and engage in curricula when they could not otherwise
perform the curricular tasks.
How does AT relate to Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM)?
IDEA requires school systems to ensure that textbooks and related printed materials are provided in
specialized formats to students with print disabilities in a timely manner (34 C.F.R. § 300.172). The
Illinois State Board of Education has provided guidance on this matter, which can be referenced at
https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Special-Education-NIMAS-NIMAC-Information.aspx. While students with
print-related disabilities may be provided with specialized formats (e.g., Braille, electronic text, enlarged
text or audio), students may need to use AT tools in conjunction with these specialized formats to
effectively access the materials. For example, if a textbook were provided as electronic text, a student
may still need to use a text-to-speech program or a refreshable braille display to access the digital
textbook file. In this instance, it would be insufficient to provide only the electronic text.
How does AT relate to Universal Design?
The Disability Act 2005 defines Universal Design (UD) as:
1. The design and composition of an environment so that it may be accessed,
understood and used
1. To the greatest possible extent
2. In the most independent and natural manner possible
3. In the widest possible range of situations
4. Without the need for adaptation, modification, assistive devices or
specialised solutions, by any persons of any age or size or having any
particular physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual ability or disability,
and
2. Means, in relation to electronic systems, any electronics-based process of creating
products, services or systems so that they may be used by any person.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 3 Page 12
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a set of principles guiding curriculum development that results in
equal opportunities for learning (CAST, n.d.). UDL focuses on instructional goals, methods, materials and
assessments that can be effectively accessed and used by all students, regardless of ability or
background. UDL is a flexible approach that may be adjusted to meet individual needs.
Both UDL and AT address learner variability. They both address the individual learning needs of
students; however, the method in which they address these needs is different. UDL is a proactive
strategy (Male, 2003) that addresses multiple areas of curriculum development. It seeks to ensure that
students:
• receive multiple representations of curricular content best suited for individual access and
comprehension;
• are engaged in curricular activities in ways that allow students to best “key into” the content
being taught; and
• are allowed to present evidence of their learning, using strategies that are most effective for
them.
UDL, as Edyburn (2010) noted, should not be devoid of technologies and, indeed, could not be realized
without their use. The point of UDL is to reduce barriers that prohibit student learning. AT, on the other
hand, allows individual students to overcome barriers presented by curricular tasks (Rose, Hasselbring,
Stahl and Zabala, 2005). The consideration and use of AT responds to issues a student with a disability
may face when engaging in curricular tasks. To differentiate between UDL and AT, Edyburn (2010)
stated:
Assistive technology devices and services are delivered reactively after a referral and
evaluation of an individual student. UDL is given to everyone with the understanding
that those who need specialized support will use the tools when they need them (i.e.,
embedded, just-in-time supports).
A tool, therefore, may realize UDL when it is used broadly to reduce barriers to curricular tasks and
allow students to access the tasks more meaningfully. The very same tool, however, may be used as AT
when an individual student with a disability needs it to overcome barriers to curricular tasks he or she
would not otherwise be able to perform.
How does AT relate to differentiated instruction?
Differentiated instruction is responsive rather than one size fits all (Tomlinson, 2003). Teachers using
differentiated instruction proactively plan varied approaches to what groups of students will learn,
based on their readiness, interests and learning profile. Instructional content, process and products are
modified to increase the likelihood that each student will learn as much as possible, as efficiently as
possible (Tomlinson, 2003). When differentiated instruction is used to design classroom learning
environments, students who use AT are more easily included and provided with better access to
curricular content and activities.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 3 Page 13
How does AT relate to Multi-Tiered Systems of Support?
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) is a general education initiative with the goal of increasing
individual students’ rates of progress in school settings. Students receiving services within an MTSS
framework may use AT tools at any tier to gain access to core instruction, and to receive evidence-based
interventions matched to their needs.
If, however, using AT tools significantly alters how an intervention is implemented, the effectiveness and
fidelity of the intervention may be altered as well. Take the example of a student receiving an
intervention to improve oral reading fluency. The use of a text-to-speech program that reads text
passages for the student may reduce the overall effectiveness and fidelity of the intervention. In this
case, the school team should determine whether the student will use the AT device while receiving the
intervention.
This does not mean that school teams should avoid using AT tools to allow students with disabilities on
curricular tasks. Interventions and supports provided in the context of an MTSS framework can and
should be used along with AT tools to increase students’ successes.
How is AT addressed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a U.S. civil rights statute prohibiting agencies and
programs that receive federal funds from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Because
public schools receive federal funds, they are subject to the provisions of Section 504. The law states:
No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States ... shall, solely by
reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefit of, or be
subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance. (34 C.F.R. §104.4(a))
Note that the definition of disability is different under Section 504 than it is in IDEA. Section 504 defines
an “individual with handicaps” as a person who:
(i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life
activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an
impairment. (34 C.F.R. §104.3(j)(1))
Among “major life activities” are walking, sleeping, seeing, hearing, learning, caring for oneself,
performing manual tasks, speaking, breathing and working. Thus, the definition of “individuals with
handicaps” under Section 504 is broader than the definition of children with disabilities under the IDEA.
Some children who are not eligible for special education services may be able to receive them under the
protections of Section 504. For example, some students who have a physical disability, are able to
benefit from the curriculum provided to students in general education classes. For these students, AT
my be provided to help them write or read the same material other students use. They do not need
specially designed instruction, but do need AT to have access to their educational program.
Section 504 applies to preschool, elementary and secondary schools that receive or benefit from federal
financial assistance. These programs are required to provide a free appropriate public education to
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 3 Page 14
students with disabilities . Section 504 defines “appropriate” as providing regular or special education,
and related aids and services, designed to meet the individual educational needs of persons with
disabilities as adequately as the needs of persons without disabilities. Programs subject to Section 504
must ensure that students with disabilities are afforded an equal opportunity to participate in all
academic and extracurricular school programs. Benefits and services provided to students with
disabilities must be equal to, and as effective as, the benefits and services afforded to other students.
Schools may have to make special accommodations, such as providing AT devices and/or services, so
that students with disabilities can access the full range of programs and activities. The key here is the
equal opportunity to participate required under Section 504. More information about Section 504 and
AT is available from:
Chicago Office
U.S. Department of Education
John C. Kluczynski Federal Building
230 S. Dearborn Street, 37th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 730-1560
Facsimile: (312) 730-1576
Email: OCR.Chicag[email protected]
How can an IEP team judge its Section 504 processes for including AT?
A list of 10 quality indicators for AT devices and services, as applied to students served under Section
504, is available in Appendix A and at https://www.natenetwork.org/forms-and-tools. These indicators
can serve as overarching guidelines for quality AT services required outside the special education
process. They are used to help schools and districts develop systems ensuring that students with
disabilities who do not qualify for specially designed instruction have full access to the general education
curriculum and other school-related activities.
Summary
State and federal mandates speak to a variety of educational tools and approaches. These mandates
may shape the decision to use AT. It is important that educators and parents understand how each of
these requirements is related to an educational agency’s responsibility to provide AT.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 4 Page 15
Chapter 4
Understanding the AT Process
It is important to think of AT services in the school setting not as a thing but as a process. This graphic
shows the iterative, cyclical nature of the process an IEP team might use.
Figure 1. The AT Services Process
Consideration of AT
The IEP team’s starting point is consideration of AT. At this point, the IEP team determines whether a
student needs AT to receive FAPE. Sometimes the IEP team may already have the knowledge, skills and
information to make a decision. At other times, the team may need to access other resources or gather
additional information to make a decision.
Once it has sufficient knowledge, skills and information, the IEP team decides whether a student needs
AT to receive FAPE. The decision is then documented in the student’s IEP. Any AT to be provided is
integrated into the student’s educational program.
Provision of AT
If the team decides that a student needs AT, the next step in the cycle is the provision of AT. The IEP
team determines how the AT it identified will be acquired and provided to the student. The team could
identify and access funding sources during this step. The time between deciding what AT to provide and
actually providing it to the student should be as short as possible.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 4 Page 16
Implementation of AT
After a student receives the AT determined necessary for FAPE, the school initiates a plan for successful
implementation. IEP teams identify who may need training for the AT to be used effectively by a
student. Training may involve the student, teachers, therapists, paraprofessionals, family members and
others who work with the student. An action plan identifies where, when and how a student will use the
AT, along with any supports needed for its effective use. This plan ensures that everyone knows their
role in helping the student use AT effectively.
AT might not be ready to use out of the box. It may have to be customized to meet a student’s individual
needs. Over time, the student may become more adept at using the AT, or the needs or skills of the
student may change. The AT plan or device may then be further customized to better meet the demands
of the tasks for which the student uses AT. During this step, the school also may determine what to do if
the AT becomes damaged or unavailable, and plan for routine maintenance of the AT.
Performance monitoring of AT use
As with other interventions, a school carefully monitors the student’s use of AT and the associated
impact on performance. Schools select specific data-collection strategies, monitor the compensatory
benefit to a student over time and assess the continued need for the AT. Through reliable and valid
data, the school demonstrates whether the student’s performance is increased, improved or maintained
by use of the AT; whether FAPE is achieved; and whether the student continues to need the AT. If data
show that the AT is no longer effective or that the student no longer needs the AT, the IEP team returns
to step 1 to consider additional AT or determine that no AT is needed. Conversely, if data indicate that
the current AT is both beneficial and needed, the team also returns to step 1 to consider that the
existing AT remains in place.
Summary
Educators use a four-step process to consider, provide, implement and monitor a student’s use of AT.
The process repeats, ensuring that AT continues to result in FAPE over time. The next chapters take a
closer look at these four steps.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 17
Chapter 5
AT Process: Understanding AT
Consideration
The Individuals with IDEA mandates that IEP teams consider several “special factors” for every student
receiving special education services. Section 300.324(a)(2)(v) of the IDEA regulations states that IEP
teams must “consider whether the child needs AT devices and services” when developing a student’s
IEP.
Consideration of assistive technology is a purposeful, collaborative decision-making process. The IEP
team reviews existing information and potentially collects additional information about a student before
deciding whether he or she needs AT. If the answer is yes, the IEP team identifies the AT needed for the
student to receive FAPE. The responsibility for AT consideration falls upon the entire IEP team and is not
relegated to an individual or an outside evaluator. While schools may engage in ongoing and recurring
AT consideration, discussion of the need for AT is required to, at every IEP meeting.
The Center on Technology in Education at Johns Hopkins University and the Technology and Media
Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (2005, p. 19) proposed five tasks an IEP team should
undertake before making a decision regarding AT for a student:
1. Review the student’s academic skills, functional capability and available evaluation data.
2. Develop annual goals, including objectives and benchmarks when appropriate.
3. Examine tasks required of the student to participate and progress in educational settings.
4. Evaluate the difficulty of the tasks and the student’s functional ability to perform them.
5. Identify services and supports, including AT, that enable the student to participate and achieve.
A model for AT consideration
Beginning in 1997, Chambers provided a model, still current, to guide AT consideration (Chambers,
1997). A key point in this model is establishing whether the team has the necessary knowledge and skills
to determine the student’s need for AT. More recently, OCALI (Ohio Center for Autism and Low
Incidence) published an assistive technology guide that states:
When addressing “AT consideration” within the IEP process, it is important to realize
that “consideration” is by nature a brief process that must be conducted during the
development of every student’s annual IEP. At least one person on the IEP team should
have some knowledge about AT. AT consideration requires that the team participate in a
consistent decision-making process in relation to the student’s goals and objectives that
facilitate access and progress in the general curriculum. (OCALI 2013)
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 18
Teams that do not feel they have the necessary knowledge and skills can either collect more information
or seek assistance from a person or team that has the knowledge and skills. This flowchart may help IEP
teams engage in the consideration of AT.
Figure 2: Flow Chart of the AT Consideration Process
Each of the critical points of the flow chart is explained as follows.
Review current information about student
The first point in the consideration of AT process focuses on reviewing all information currently known
about the student. During this point in the process, the IEP team looks at information about the
student’s performance on academic and functional tasks, assessment data, modifications and
accommodations currently used, any AT currently used and any other information available about the
student. The IEP team uses the information to identify areas of strength and areas for specially designed
instruction over the next academic year.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 19
Develop IEP goals and objectives.
After reviewing current information about the student, the team develops IEP goals and objectives
based on the student’s current performance levels. These goals and objectives should address how the
student will progress toward meeting curricular milestones and Illinois Learning Standards. IDEA
emphasizes high expectations, progress and achievement in the general education curriculum. The
student’s IEP goals and objectives should reflect that emphasis. To develop appropriate reading, writing,
mathematics or functional goals, the IEP team should be familiar with and consider state and district
curriculum standards, as well as assessments the student will be taking. After developing the goals, an
IEP team can begin to consider any associated accommodations, modifications or compensatory
technology supports, such as AT, that may be needed for the student to make reasonable progress.
Can the student meet IEP goals and objectives and make reasonable progress in the
curriculum without any technology-based compensatory supports?
The IEP team should next ask whether the student needs AT to make reasonable progress in his or her
educational program. Factors to examine include current knowledge about the student, the goals and
objectives of the student’s IEP and those of the curriculum in which he or she is participating, and the
goals and indicators of the Illinois Learning Standards. With those factors in mind, the IEP team
considers whether the student will make reasonable progress with instruction alone or will need AT to
provide compensatory support to enhance performance.
Does the IEP team have the knowledge and skills necessary to make this decision?
It is important to determine whether an IEP team has an understanding of the current or potential AT
and AT services that may benefit a student. IEP teams are comprised of individuals with a variety of
backgrounds, skills and knowledge. Each member of the team provides a different but complementary
perspective when developing an IEP for a student; however, not all IEP teams have members who are
knowledgeable about AT and AT services. The Center for Technology in Education at Johns Hopkins
University and the Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (2005)
suggested that an IEP team needs to have at least one person who is knowledgeable about AT and AT
services, and how AT could potentially be used to enhance a student’s performance. Wojcik (2011)
found that individuals serving in this capacity need to:
• link IEP teams to the information about potential tools that are being considered for a
student;
• keep abreast on emerging technologies, understand the technologies currently available
and maintain an understanding of the technologies already possessed by the school system;
• develop an understanding of the differences among similar tools or different versions of the
same tool and the operating requirements to use the tool successfully; and
• develop an understanding of what a tool is incapable of doing and convey to the IEP team
the limitations of the tool.
If an IEP team has at least one person who is knowledgeable about potential AT and AT services that
may benefit a student, then the team can proceed with the AT consideration process. If not, then the
team should seek more information or add a team member who has that knowledge.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 20
Document evidence to support this conclusion and any accommodations or
modifications that are necessary or whether the student does not need AT at
the time of this IEP meeting.
Assume a team determines it has the necessary knowledge and skills to make an AT decision and that a
student does require AT to make progress. Then the team must document in the IEP any
accommodations or modifications the student will use to progress toward his or her IEP goals and
objectives, curricular goals and Illinois Learning Standards. Conversely, the team must document the
determination that AT has been considered but is not necessary at this time. This determination must be
documented under the Consideration of Special Factors portion of a student’s IEP (see ISBE form 34-
54N). Table 1 lists the internet links for the ISBE forms IEP teams will use during their consideration
discussions.
ISBE Form Title
Form Number
Internet Link to ISBE Form
Educational Accommodations
and Supports
34-54N
https://www.isbe.net/Documents/34-54N-
Educational-Accommodations%20-Supports.pdf
Parent/Guardians Notification
of Conference
34-57D
https://www.isbe.net/Documents/nc_conf_34-
57d.pdf
Notification of Conference
Translations
https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Special-Education-
Required-Notice-and-Consent-Forms.aspx
Table 1: ISBE Forms References
Collect more information or seek assistance from person or team with necessary knowledge
and skills.
If the IEP team determines it does not have enough knowledge to make a decision about AT or AT
services, then the team needs to discontinue or suspend the AT portion of the IEP process. At this point,
the team has several options. It can:
• gather additional information to help proceed with developing the student’s IEP before the
legally required timeline
• seek assistance from a person or a team with the requisite knowledge to move forward in
the AT consideration process before the legally required timeline or;
• determine that the student does need assistive technology but that the team does not have
enough information to identify the specific devices or system of tools that are needed
In the last case, the team can complete the Consideration of Special Factors section of the IEP by
stating the assistive technology devices and services are needed and specifying that further AT
assessment is required to identify an effective AT system. A date for completing the AT assessment
should be included in the Special Factors description.
IEP teams must continue to review IEPs annually as required by IDEA. The decision to discontinue or
suspend the AT portion of the IEP process does not change legally required timelines.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 21
Is the student currently using AT?
If the student is currently using AT, the IEP team needs to determine whether the AT provides sufficient
compensatory benefit for the student to make reasonable progress based on his or her assessment data.
From this information the team can determine whether to keep the current AT or investigate a change
in the AT component of the IEP.
Is the AT working?
If the AT is working, the IEP team should document the AT within the IEP. If the AT is not working (i.e., if
the student is not making reasonable progress), then the IEP team should move toward conducting an
AT evaluation.
Document AT in the IEP
Once an IEP team determines the AT a student needs, it is important to document the AT and the
associated AT services within the IEP. For AT and AT services to be truly effective, they need to be
integrated throughout the student’s IEP. Sections of the IEP that may contain information related to AT
and AT services are explained under “How is AT documented in a student’s IEP?”
Conduct an AT evaluation
If an IEP team determines that a student needs AT and the current AT is not effective or if the student is
not currently using AT, then the school may need to conduct an AT evaluation. An AT evaluation during
the AT consideration process allows the IEP team to collect information to determine what AT and AT
services will be provided to the student. For more information on AT evaluation, see the sections on
What are the differences between AT consideration, AT assessment and AT evaluation? and What
activities may be conducted as part of an AT evaluation?
Who is involved in an AT consideration?
Every member of the IEP team is involved in the AT consideration process. AT consideration is a team-
based decision where all members have an equal opportunity to provide input. A team approach to AT
consideration is critical since no single individual will have all the necessary information to make
decisions regarding appropriate AT (Smith, Benge and Hall, 1994). Individuals on decision-making teams
should have knowledge of the potential user of the AT, the user’s family and a range of AT devices that
may be appropriate (Inge and Shepard, 1995). Brennan (1998) suggested that, in addition to a student’s
special education teachers and parents, a team may include:
• a general education teacher who can help the team identify curricular demands and what
AT may be helpful to students with disabilities spending all or part of their time in a general
education classroom
• a speech-language pathologist who can assess communication needs and discuss possible
devices and interventions
• a physical therapist and an occupational therapist who can address the motor requirements
of using the potential devices and suggest solutions for positioning them
• the school’s technology coordinator who can provide information about the district’s
hardware and software resources and how they may be adapted
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 22
• an AT specialist who can present information on AT to the team for consideration
What are the differences between AT consideration, AT assessment and AT
evaluation?
AT consideration is the process that occurs during an IEP meeting where an IEP team determines
whether or not a student needs AT to receive FAPE and documents the decision within the student’s IEP.
As part of the AT consideration process, IEP team members present all available data regarding student
performance, as well as any data collected regarding AT that has been used by the student or has been
tried with the student.
In certain situations, tools that may prove beneficial to a student are readily available in the student’s
educational environment. In much the same way that a teacher or service provider may introduce
additional strategies or adjust interventions to facilitate a student’s progress toward his or her IEP goals
and in the curriculum, these readily available tools may also be introduced. Data collected regarding a
student’s performance while using these tools is collected and shared with the IEP team to inform the
AT consideration process.
Sometimes during the course of the AT consideration process, an IEP team identifies that a student may
need AT, but the team needs to gather additional information about the potential AT and AT services
that would provide the student with sufficient compensatory benefit to make reasonable progress in his
or her educational program. When an IEP team embarks on the process of collecting this targeted
information, then they have begun an AT evaluation. The findings of the AT evaluation inform the AT
consideration process that takes place during an IEP meeting.
AT evaluation is the process by which an IEP team collects information to determine a student’s
individual needs for AT and AT services. A request for an AT evaluation may be initiated by any member
of the IEP team, including the student, parents or guardians, teachers, therapists or administrators. An
AT evaluation may be conducted by members of the IEP team who have knowledge about the student
and the AT and AT services that could be beneficial to the student, and does not have to be conducted
by a specialist.
When an IEP team finds that an AT evaluation is necessary as a result of the AT consideration discussion
during an IEP meeting and the data gathered as part of the AT assessment, the team should suspend the
consideration of AT until the AT evaluation is complete. Thus, the findings from the AT evaluation can be
fully considered by the IEP team and integrated into a student’s IEP; however, suspending an IEP process
regarding AT does not absolve an IEP team from meeting legal timelines noted in the law. Because an AT
evaluation is an evaluation process, certain procedural safeguards and legal timelines will apply (e.g., the
requirement to obtain parental consent for the AT evaluation, and the 60-school day timeline to
conduct the AT evaluation and make a determination of a student’s need for AT). For example, during an
initial evaluation or reevaluation for determining eligibility for special education services, should a team
decide to evaluate AT tools and services as part of an evaluation domain area, the IEP team must obtain
parental consent and abide by procedural timelines.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 23
Teams may also want to consider conducting a formal reevaluation for students to obtain substantive
data for the consideration of AT tools and services. For example, should an IEP team identify the need
for a complex communication system (i.e., AAC) for a student, the team must collect data from multiple
individuals on the student’s IEP team.
An AT assessment is a tool used to gather information on a student’s performance in relation to any AT
services and devices. Like all good teaching practices, this can include integration of a variety of
instructional practices, review of delivery, trial of different instructional practices, or change in
instructional methodologies to improve student outcomes. all of which can be inclusive to AT. An
assistive technology assessment could include ongoing assessment of student performance in relation to
any AT needs, review of AT instructional supports, or the need for specialized instruction using an AT
device. An AT assessment may be conducted by those instructional staff who work with the student
most often and are most appropriate to assess a student’s skills.
Who may conduct or be involved in an AT assessment or AT evaluation?
AT assessment and AT evaluation are processes conducted to gather information to help an IEP team
determine the need for AT and, potentially, the nature of AT needed by a student. While there is no
legal guidance regarding the qualifications of people involved in these processes, the individual or
individuals should have an understanding of:
• the student (including current performance, interests, disability
• impact of the student’s disability on performance)
• the curriculum/tasks in which the student is expected to perform
• the scope of potential AT tools and services the student may need to be successful
The IEP team is responsible for ensuring that this assessment is completed.. In some cases, a member of
the IEP team will have the requisite knowledge and skills for the AT assessment. In other cases, the team
may need assistance from other individuals with specific knowledge and skills relevant to the process.
What activities are part of an AT assessment and an AT evaluation?
An AT assessment is a set of activities conducted to identify the need for AT and AT services for a
student. The activities associated with conducting an AT assessment vary widely, but these are among
the most common.
Task-demand analysis
IEP teams analyze the tasks necessary for the student to make reasonable progress. Tasks are defined as
processes that the student must undertake to demonstrate an expected level of performance. Parette
and Peterson-Karlan (2010) offered the following examples to illustrate tasks:
For example, to participate in free play, the preschool child may have to complete tasks
such as (1) scanning the available activities and choosing an activity in which to engage,
(2) engaging in the activity in a meaningful way, and (3) terminating the activity, often
by putting materials away. To participate in language arts at the elementary level, a
student might (1) read a text passage and then write a story about his/her own similar
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 24
experience, (2) engage in writing to include completing tasks of planning the topic and
making a content outline, (3) transcribe an initial draft, (4) edit and revise the
composition, and (5) finally submit it to the teacher. At the high school level, to
participate in history class, a student might (1) participate in class discussions, (2) listen
to a presentation or view a video, (3) take notes, (4) read a text assignment, (5) write
assignments in a planner, (6) complete and/or submit homework, and (7) take exams.
Thus, participation may be viewed as a series of related tasks that culminate in
successful completion of a specific activity by the student with a disability. (pp. 539–540)
Each task places demands on the student. Understanding the degree to which a student is able to meet
each of the demands provides a foundation for determining if the student needs compensatory support
from AT. King (1999) identified these areas of demands that tasks place on students—physical, cognitive
and linguistic—and described them as follows.
Physical demands involve the amount of muscle strength and movement “required to initiate, pursue,
and complete a task” (p. 60). For example, if a student reads a book, the student needs to:
• maintain a sitting position
• turn pages in the book
• visually focus, fixate and track the words on the page, and so forth
Cognitive demands, generally speaking, involve the amount of thinking required to complete a task.
Such demands may consist of:
• sensing (i.e., visual, auditory and tactile–kinesthetic experiences)
• remembering (i.e., factual memory)
• discriminating (i.e., differentiating)
• analyzing (i.e., problem-solving)
• sequencing actions (i.e., sequential memory)
Linguistic demands are those that require the interpretation and understanding of symbols. In thinking
about the student who is reading a book, the student must process letters, words, pictures, white space,
columns, headers, numbers and many other symbols presented as part of the reading task. IEP teams
must first identify those tasks and the associated task demands required for a student to progress
toward his or her IEP goals and objectives, curricular goals, and Illinois Learning Standards. Once that
identification is in place, the team may make decisions regarding the need for AT.
Environmental variables also may influence the demands placed on a user to conduct certain tasks. For
example, if a student who is easily distracted by noise is in a classroom across from the school’s
gymnasium, that student may experience difficulty concentrating or attending to a task. If a student’s
desk is not at a height that allows for effective use, that student may struggle to complete classroom
tasks. Understanding the environmental conditions under which a task is performed will inform the
team during the AT evaluation process.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 25
To understand the barriers that prevent a student from achieving success, schools must first understand
the difficulties a student experiences when performing tasks, the reasons for these difficulties and the
environmental conditions under which these tasks are performed. The team can use this information to
identify features of potential AT tools or systems that may be beneficial to a student.
Feature-match analysis
A feature-match analysis focuses on identifying appropriate AT tools or systems to help a student
overcome barriers and enhance his or her performance on educational tasks. Features are the abilities
or characteristics of a potential tool or system needs for a student to successfully operate it and use it to
complete a task.
A feature-match analysis starts with reviewing the barriers a student experiences on a particular task.
The barriers can be used to formulate feature statements. For example, if a student demonstrates
difficulty decoding grade-level text because of phonographic issues, a corresponding feature statement
might read, “Provides student auditory access to the printed text.”
The Global Priority Research Agenda of the World Health Organization (WHO) identifies two underlying
principles essential to examining specific interventions such as AT. First is user involvement in all aspects
of research, policy development, system design and service provision. Second is an environmental
approach to functioning. (Scherer, MacLachlan & Khasnabis, 2018).
An effective feature analysis therefore conveys preferences identified by the student. For instance, a
student who is concerned with how much a potential AT tool or system will make him or her stand out
from peers may require a feature to address that concern. Feature analysis also identifies the conditions
under which the task needs to be performed. As an example, if a student needs to perform the task in
three different environments, then the team may identify portability as a feature.
Once a list of features is identified, personnel can evaluate the potential tools to determine the most
appropriate match for those features, as shown in the following form.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 26
Figure 3. Feature Match Chart
Retrieved from http://joyzabala.com/Documents.html
The form allows for documentation of the features identified (listed in the top row) and the evaluation
of potential AT tools or systems (listed in the left-hand column). Personnel may then evaluate each tool
or system against the identified features, allowing the most appropriate match to be observed. The full
version of this form can be found in Appendix B of this guide.
Tool-demand analysis
In addition to understanding the features of potential AT tools or systems, an AT assessment must
consider the demands the introduction of the AT tools or systems may place on the student. King (1999)
stated that four human factors should be considered when matching a person to AT:
1. the physical load placed on an individual to operate the given tool (i.e., what are the
physical demands—motor and sensory—necessary to operate the tool or system?)
2. the cognitive load placed on an individual to operate the given tool (i.e., what must the
student remember to effectively operate the tool?)
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 27
3. the linguistic load placed on an individual to operate the given tool (i.e., what symbols must
be interpreted to operate the tool effectively?)
4. the time factors related to using the tool (i.e., can the student operate the tool effectively
within the time parameter of the given task?).
An AT evaluation must ensure that a student can reasonably operate the potential AT tool or system for
it to be successful.
AT trials and data collection
IDEA lists “functional assessment in the student’s customary environment” as one of the AT services
that may be provided. Usually referred to as a trial period, this functional assessment allows students to
try AT tools in order to determine their relative match for student needs and their overall effectiveness
(Parette, Peterson-Karlan, Wojcik, & Bardi, 2007). AT trials should be completed in a reasonable time
period (QIAT, 2015) yet be long enough to evaluate the potential match (Wojcik, 2011). Data collection
allows IEP teams to determine the relative effectiveness of one tool compared to other potential tools.
What are cultural and linguistic factors that may be considered in an AT
assessment?
IDEA regulations released in 2006 draw specific attention to working with and supporting culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Specific attention is drawn to these factors:
• Assessment and other evaluation materials should not be racially or culturally
discriminatory.
• Assessment and other evaluation materials are to be provided in the child’s native language
or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.
• A child must not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor is
lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, or limited English proficiency.
• Parents are entitled to an interpreter at the IEP meeting if needed to ensure they
understand the proceedings.
• When developing an IEP for a child with limited English proficiency, the language needs of
the child as they relate to his or her IEP must be considered (para 2).
Evaluation procedures (34 CFR §300.304) require that assessment and other evaluation materials should
be administered “in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the child knows and can
do academically, developmentally, and functionally.” For culturally and linguistically diverse children,
the “form” in which evaluation procedures are conducted will likely differ from student to student.
Specific cultural areas regarding AT take into consideration the ways AT may be viewed from the
student’s and the family’s perspective. Key questions to ask are:
• Do I understand the family’s values, beliefs, customs and traditions?
• Do I understand the family’s attitude regarding disability?
• Does the family accept the idea of assistive technology as a tool to help the child?
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 28
• Have I determined important social influences that might affect the child’s or family’s
perception and use of AT device?
How is AT documented in a student’s IEP?
To ensure clear understanding, the AT and AT services that the IEP team has identified for a student are
documented in the student’s IEP. Several sections within an IEP may contain information related to AT
and AT services. These sections include:
Present Levels of Academic and Functional Performance. If the student is already using AT or receiving
AT services, this is the section where IEP teams describe what AT is being used, how, for what reason
and the impact the AT has on the student’s performance.
According to Wojcik (2011), AT specialists reported different perspectives on whether to label AT by
name or to use general descriptive terms within the IEP. Neither IDEA nor Illinois’ special education rules
address this issue directly, but the prevailing thinking, noted by both Wojcik (2011) and the focus groups
used in developing this manual, is to give the specific name in the Present Levels of Academic and
Functional Performance section of the IEP and general descriptive terms in all other areas of the IEP. This
practice documents sufficient information about the AT and AT services used by a student while
affording the schools flexibility in providing the AT and AT services identified by the IEP team for the
student to receive FAPE.
IEP Goals and Objectives. Before addressing IEP goals and objectives directly, it is important to note that
students do not become competent with all forms of AT overnight. Instead, students progress through a
series of stages of competence. Zabala, Bowser and Korsten (2004/2005) adapted Light and Buekleman
and Reichle’s (2003) stages of communication competence for alternative and augmentative
communication users, then applied the concept to users of different varieties of AT. These stages
include operational competence, functional competence, strategic competence and social competence.
Operational competence refers to attaining the knowledge and skills needed to use a particular piece of
AT. As the authors noted, there is a difference between understanding how to use an AT tool and using
it to complete a task effectively.
Functional competence is attained when an individual can use a particular AT tool or system to complete
the task for which it was chosen.
Strategic competence refers to using the AT device in real-world settings on real-world tasks. A student
who has developed strategic competence can identify the situations and conditions in which the AT tool
could be used and how to apply it appropriately.
Social competence refers to attaining skills and strategies that allow the student to explain to others the
purpose of the AT tool or system and how it will be used in various contexts. Social competence also
may include developing the necessary self-advocacy skills to use an AT tool or system in multiple
situations.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 29
AT use ties directly to a student’s IEP goals and objectives. There are three ways in which this may be
done.
1. When the student is learning how to use the AT (i.e., developing operational competence),
goals and objectives may be written to address the necessary special education services that
may be provided to help the student become a competent user of the AT. In other words, if
part of the student’s educational programming will focus on teaching the student how to
use the AT, then specific goals and objectives may be created to strategically plan for and
guide the services that will help the student become successful in operating the AT. If
special education services or related services are provided to help a student learn to use the
provided AT, then outcomes of those services (e.g., operational competence) could be
indicated within the IEP goals. Specific training activities may be noted elsewhere in the IEP
(e.g., under Special Education and Related Services, Additional Information and Notes).
2. If a student has already developed operational competence in using the AT, schools may
consider the use of the AT within an objective or benchmark the student must reach to
perform a task according to specific criteria or within certain contexts. For example, a
student who is working on reading comprehension may require the use of a text-to-speech
software program to demonstrate successful performance in answering comprehension-
based questions about the text (i.e., functional competence). A student may also need to
determine when to use the text-to-speech software program based on the task or the
context (i.e., strategic competence).
3. Finally, a student may need to learn how to explain the reason he or she is using the text-to-
speech program on reading tasks and advocate for the right to use the AT (i.e., social
competence).
If appropriate, each of these areas may be written within the student’s goals and objectives in his or her
IEP.
Consideration of Special Factors. In accordance with Section 300.324(a)(2)(v) of the IDEA regulations, an
IEP team must consider whether AT is needed for a student. In Illinois, the IEP team must include a
statement determining whether AT is needed by the student and, if AT is needed, what AT tools will be
provided to the student.
Below are some examples of possible responses that could be included in the IEP.
These statements are provided as examples only. They should not be copied into all IEPs. Doing so would
mean a failure to make the IEP individualized for a student.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 30
If “Yes” Is Checked
Based on teacher observation data, Sarah requires a specially designed
device(s) to access instruction. The following AT services and/or devices will
be provided: [list of AT services the student needs]
If “No” Is Checked
Sarah can complete the required instructional tasks and can access the school
environment using standard classroom adaptions and the accommodations/
modifications that are in place. Based on the student’s present levels of
academic and functional performance, Sarah does not need AT services to
receive FAPE.
Table 2: Examples of Completed ISBE IEP Form 34-54D
Related Services. IDEA recognizes that AT and AT services may function as related services. For example,
a speech-language pathologist may provide a student with training on how to use an augmentative or
alternative communication device. Similarly, a physical or occupational therapist may be involved in
mounting and positioning the communication device on a student’s wheelchair as well as determining
methods for the student to access the device. When AT or AT services are provided by related service
providers, the minutes they spend are documented within the IEP as part of their anticipated time. AT
minutes should be included in the IEP in the Related Services section if instruction is taking place specific
to the AT, for example if a related service provider is providing instruction on how to use a new AT
device.
Note that the district is required to maintain related service logs. These logs record the type and
duration of the related service that was administered under the student’s IEP. The logs must be
available at any time to the child’s parent or guardian, as well as at the student’s annual review. If
services are not provided, the district must provide written notification within three school days of the
district’s non-compliance with the student’s IEP and include information about requesting
compensatory services.
Accommodations and Modifications. IDEA recognizes that AT also may be included under
Accommodations and Modifications. For example, a student may be allowed to use an electronic
organizer instead of the school-provided assignment notebook for recording assignments, school events
and other tasks. In another example, a student may be allowed to use a word processor with speech-to-
text features when composing his or her own work for assignments and assessments.
It is important to note that, for a student to use AT in permitted sections of statewide tests, AT must be
documented in the accommodations and modifications section of the student’s IEP. A description of the
need for the accommodation or the use of AT during statewide tests describes which accommodations
will be needed for each state assessment and when the accommodations are needed. -A description of
the conditions under which an accommodation will be used should be specific. For instance, the use of
keyboarding for written assignments may be needed for any assignment more than two sentences in
length. In another example, the use of audio files for reading comprehension may be needed when the
grade level of the passage is above the student’s instructional level. It is not acceptable to say simply
that an accommodation is used “as needed.”
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 31
Additional Information. This section of the IEP can be used to document other aspects of the AT and AT
services provided to a student. It may include describing when, where and how the student will use a
particular piece of AT.
Support for School Personnel. Here, information may be included regarding potential training and other
supports educational team members may need in order to effectively help the student use AT tools. For
example, teachers, paraprofessionals and staff may need training to help them work with a student on
how to use an AT device. Support also includes professional learning opportunities that help the staff
understand how to maximize the use of the device within the instructional environment.
Should cost be a factor when considering AT?
With only one exception, cost should not be a factor when considering a potential AT tool or system.
The purpose of AT is to provide FAPE. There is, however, wisdom in considering low-tech AT tools and
systems before high-tech AT tools and systems. Low-tech AT tools and systems tend to be easier to use,
maintain and replace than their high-tech counterparts. The only time cost may be a factor in an AT
consideration is when two equally beneficial AT tools or systems are being considered (i.e., both options
provide equivalent compensatory benefit), but one costs more than the other.
Can parents or guardians request an independent AT evaluation?
Parents always have the right to obtain evaluations, including AT evaluations, of their children at their
own expense (34 C.F.R. § 300.502). In addition, under the IDEA Part B procedural safeguards (see 34
C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(1)), “A parent has the right to an independent educational evaluation at public
expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation conducted by the public agency….” (Authority: 20
U.S.C. §1415(b)(1) and (d)(2)(A)). This section of the IDEA implementing regulations applies to AT
evaluations as well as to initial evaluations and reevaluations. If a parent requests an independent AT
evaluation, a school must either provide the AT evaluation at public expense or request a due process
hearing to defend its own evaluation and show that its evaluation was appropriate (34 C.F.R.
300.502(b)). A parent is entitled to only one independent AT evaluation at public expense each time a
school conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees (34 C.F.R. 300.502(b)(5)).
What components might be included in an independent AT evaluation?
There is no legal guidance for the content of AT evaluations, nor are there required components. AT
evaluations should be highly individualized based on the information sought by the IEP team about the
student, the tasks in which the student experiences difficulty and the context in which those tasks are
occurring.
Possible components may include:
• Basic Information — student name, date of birth, parent or guardian name(s), school, grade
and date of assessment
• Referral Question(s) — questions that drove the evaluation and answers that were sought
• Background Related to AT — summary of previous assessment and performance data,
including student’s interests
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 5 Page 32
• Tools and Accommodations Currently in Place — summary of AT presently used by the
student, along with any accommodations
• Environments and Curriculum Requirements — summary of environmental variables and
curricular tasks in which the student is expected to perform, as well as analysis of
environmental variables that serve as potential barriers and curricular tasks in which the
student is successful or experiencing difficulty
• Evaluation of Current Skills — information on assessments of current relevant functional
(e.g., communication, motor, self-care, mobility, vision, hearing) and academic (e.g.,
reading, writing, math, executive function) skills, along with associated results
• Assistive Technology Considered — summary of the processes (e.g., feature match) and trial
use data used to match AT tool(s) to the student’s compensatory intervention needs
• Recommendations — recommended AT and rationale, along with recommendations for
moving toward implementation
Must schools consider parents’ AT evaluations?
If parents obtain an AT evaluation at their own expense, or obtain an independent AT evaluation at
public expense, schools must consider the results in determining students’ FAPE (34 C.F.R. 300.502(c));
however, the IEP team is not required to accept all recommendations of parentally obtained evaluations
if they conflict with other factors in the consideration of AT need. For example, a team may decide that
a recommendation for daily, one-on-one AAC instruction from a speech-language pathologist would not
meet the student’s need for use of the AAC system in customary environments. Instead the IEP team
may offer a plan to integrate use of the AAC system daily in the classroom.
How can a team judge the quality of its AT processes?
The processes education agencies use vary widely because of factors such as resources, staff knowledge,
geographic makeup and population. The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (QIAT) Consortium
has developed a set of research-based quality indicators for assistive technology services. QIAT has
focused its efforts on defining descriptors that serve as overarching guidelines for quality AT services.
These descriptors apply regardless of service delivery models. Indicators related to topics discussed in
this chapter—assistive technology consideration, AT assessment and inclusion of AT in the IEP—can be
found in Appendix A.
Summary
Consideration of AT is a collaborative process completed during every IEP. The model for AT
consideration addresses many activities from developing IEP goals and objectives to documenting AT in
the IEP. It is important for IEP teams to understand the differences between AT consideration, AT
assessment and AT evaluation, along with the roles of the parties involved in each. Resources are
available to help teams put AT consideration processes in place and to judge the quality of their efforts.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 6 Page 33
Chapter 6
AT Process: Understanding the
Educational Agency’s Requirement to
Provide AT
The IEP team is responsible for determining whether a student needs AT to receive FAPE. Should the
team determine that AT is needed, then—in accordance with the “free” provision in FAPE—AT must be
provided at no cost to the student or his or her parents. It is important to note, however, that IDEA does
not mandate the funding source for the provision of AT, so schools have flexibility in how to meet the
mandate.
Who owns the AT when it is purchased by the school?
AT purchased by a school system is owned by that school system. If a student moves out of the school
system that purchased the AT, the AT does not travel with the student to the new school system.
Depending on local policies and legislation, the school system that originally purchased the AT may
choose to enter into arrangements with the receiving district to purchase the AT.
Can school-owned AT be used in home settings?
The degree to which the AT is used beyond the school environment is based on a student’s IEP and what
the IEP team determines is needed for a student to receive FAPE. IDEA 2004 specifically addresses
school-owned AT use in home settings:
On a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased assistive technology devices in a
child’s home or in other settings is required if the child’s IEP Team determines that the
child needs access to those devices in order to receive FAPE. (34 C.F.R. § 300.105(b))
Consequently, school-owned AT should be used in home settings if the IEP team determines such use is
required for the student to accomplish IEP goals. The school may set up specific arrangements with the
family to address issues of liability and care of the AT, as well as responsibilities of the family (e.g.,
charging the AT at home so that it is ready for school use). Any home-use agreements or arrangements
are specific to individual school systems. These may be vetted by legal counsel to ensure protections for
both families and schools.
Can family insurance be used to pay for AT?
Family insurance policies can be used to pay for AT that the IEP team has identified as necessary for a
student to receive FAPE; however, this method of funding must be voluntary and cannot be required by
the school. There is some benefit if the family is willing to use its insurance policy for certain kinds of AT.
AT that is personal in nature, such as devices for communication devices or mobility, will probably be
used in multiple aspects of a student’s life, including home and school. If parents use their insurance
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 6 Page 34
policy to fund the AT, then the parents own the AT. As a result, the AT can be used freely in
environments other than school. If the student moves out of the school system, he or she can continue
to use the AT. Some insurance policies have annual or lifetime caps regarding benefits. These caps may
affect the family’s decision to use personal insurance.
What should schools do if a family chooses to purchase AT for use in a child’s
educational program?
If a family chooses to purchase AT that an IEP team has identified is required for a student to receive
FAPE , then the family owns the AT. As with insurance policies, this method of obtaining AT must be
voluntary and cannot be required by the school. Nor does family-owned AT dispense with a school’s
obligation to provide AT devices, services or maintenance to students as part of FAPE. When families
own the AT, schools still must ensure that the AT is available for the student’s use during the school day.
Specific arrangements need to be made to outline the AT’s use, obtain permission to use family-owned
AT in the school setting, and ensure the maintenance and care of the AT. (A template that districts may
elect to use can be found in Appendix B or downloaded from https://qiat.org/resource-bank.html.)
If the personally owned AT that has been included in the IEP becomes damaged and unusable, the
school system is responsible to provide an alternative device or make arrangements to repair the
personally owned device. Again, the school system has the burden of providing AT that the IEP team has
identified as necessary for the student to receive FAPE
(34 C.F.R. § 300.6(c)).
If a family chooses to purchase and provide technology outside the AT consideration process, the IEP
team may consider whether the family-owned technology would help the student accomplish IEP goals
and achieve FAPE. The team is under no obligation to accept or implement use of technology that would
not do so.
Can a school seek other sources of funding to provide AT devices and services
that are part of a student’s IEP?
Schools may investigate other funding sources for purchasing AT, including private funding and loan
programs through non-profit disability associations. Schools also may consider service organizations
within the state and community as possible alternative funding sources. For certain populations of
students, such as those with low vision or blindness, schools may seek funding support from
governmental programs (e.g., instructional materials centers or federal quota funds), although these
funding sources may be limited in scope and availability. School systems may choose to lease AT as well.
It is important to note, however, that implementation of the devices and services required in the IEP
cannot be delayed while the school system tries to find alternative funding sources.
Can technologies already in a classroom be used by students as AT?
IDEA does not state that AT must be purchased specifically for an individual student. If a classroom
contains a technology tool that an IEP team has identified as AT for a student, then the student may use
that classroom technology tool as AT; however, the tool must be accessible so that the student can use
it as AT in accordance with his or her IEP. In other words, if a student needs to use a particular tool
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 6 Page 35
during specific times of the day or for certain tasks in order to receive make progress toward
educational goals, then the technology needs to be available for the student to use during those times.
Are schools required to insure the AT provided to a student?
Schools are not required to insure AT, but AT that is included on a school district’s equipment inventory
may be covered by the district or school’s general insurance policy. The insurance company’s agent of
record should be contacted to confirm that AT devices are insured. In some situations, schools may want
to investigate insuring AT over and above existing coverage, for example, if the cost of the device is
above the coverage limit. Schools also may want to consider extended warranties for high-cost devices.
Again, schools are required to provide AT identified by the IEP team for the student to receive FAPE.
Insurance may help the school get a timely replacement if an AT tool or system becomes damaged.
If AT is repeatedly damaged, how should the district respond?
Ultimately, when an IEP team determines that a student needs AT for purposes of achieving FAPE, the
school or district is responsible for ensuring that the AT is provided, in working condition, when it is
needed. If AT is damaged at school or in an environment other than school, it is the responsibility of the
school or district to make repairs to the AT or provide the same or comparable AT to the student.
Repeated damage does not in any way reduce the school’s or district’s burden to provide access to the
needed AT. Schools and districts may apply policies and procedures to recover costs related to such
repeated damage in much the same way that costs are recovered for other damaged school-owned
materials and equipment. That said, a student’s or a family’s inability to pay for such damages does not
remove the school’s or district’s responsibility of providing needed AT to a student.
Are public school districts required to provide AT to students at charter
schools or private schools?
AT may be needed by a student who does not attend a school operated by the district where he or she
lives. In that case, questions may arise about which agency is responsible to ensure the provision of AT.
Table 3 identifies the agency responsible for the provision of FAPE (and AT) based on the student’s
enrollment.
Student Placement
Agency Responsible for Provision of AT
Charter school under a district
District that authorizes the charter
Independent charter school/district
Charter school/district
District placed in private school
District that placed the student
Parentally placed in private school
No obligation to provide AT
Table 3: Agency Responsible for Provision of FAPE
Summary
Schools and districts are responsible for providing AT that a student needs., IDEA does not limit the
funding sources that can be used for purchase of AT.Shools are alos responsible for keeping the AT in
good repair. While families may choose to purchase an AT device, they are not required to do so.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 7 Page 36
Chapter 7
AT Process: Understanding AT
Implementation
Edyburn (1998) described a series of recommended activities to facilitate integrating AT into students’
educational programs. Implementation involves:
• ensuring that the technology can be adequately used within the environments in which a
student is required to perform
• creating a plan that addresses questions such as where technologies will be located, used
and maintained
• making sure teachers, educational staff, the student and his or her family all have sufficient
training, knowledge and skills to operate and troubleshoot problems with the AT
• developing AT contingency plans to ensure that a student has access to the AT tool or
system identified by the IEP team, even if the primary AT tool or system malfunctions
Who is responsible for implementation of AT?
Ensuring implementation of the AT as described in the IEP is the responsibility of the entire IEP team;
however, an IEP goal or objective that includes an AT device or service should specify the person
responsible for implementing that goal.
Process for AT implementation planning
AT implementation planning is both purposeful and well thought out, as shown on the following form.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 7 Page 37
Figure 4. AT Implementation Sample Form
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 7 Page 38
Tasks
When planning the implementation of AT, it is important to identify the specific tasks for which the
student will use an AT tool or system. For example, a task may be “reading textbook information” or
“sitting at desk.” By identifying the tasks for which AT will be used, the question of when the student will
use the AT is addressed from the start.
Tools/Strategies
It is then helpful to identify the specific AT tools or systems the student will use on each task. Being
specific provides clarity on the strategic use of AT. Strategies associated with specific AT tools or systems
(e.g., a least-to-most prompting strategy for a student using a particular communication device) also are
identified. A clear picture of how AT tools and strategies are used helps every team member understand
the plan for the student.
Where is it used?
The environments where AT tools or systems are used should be identified. An environmental scan also
includes items such as the location of the device when the student is using it, power sources, and the
method by which the AT tools or systems will be transported to different settings(e.g., whether the AT
will be carried by the student or transported by a staff member).
Additional Comments
Schools should note plans for training and protocols for AT use. Training could include the student,
teachers, therapists, paraprofessionals, family members and any other individuals who are working with
the student. As part of the Supports for Staff section of the IEP, schools could detail who will be trained
on what content as well as the timelines for training. Protocols for AT use help individuals working with
the student understand how he or she uses the AT tools and systems. For example, to effectively use a
switch to access a computer, a student may need to have the switch located at a specific access site
(e.g., head, elbow or right side of wheelchair tray). Issues regarding electricity needs for the device also
might be articulated (e.g., location of batteries or times at which device will be charged).
Related IEP Goal(s)
AT tools and systems have direct ties to the goals and objectives on a student’s IEP. For more
information on how AT interrelates with IEP goals, see the sections on Develop IEP goals and objectives
and How is AT documented in a student’s IEP?
Routine Maintenance, Training and Customization
AT tools and systems require routine maintenance, which may include battery replacement, charging,
cleaning and adjusting specific aspects of a device. An implementation plan should note what
components of an AT tool or system need to be maintained. In addition, any new personnel who work
with eligible students will need training. It is important to identify a contact person who can provide the
necessary training on the AT tool or system. Finally, AT tools and systems often have to be customized
to meet a student’s individual needs. A person or a team can be appointed as the responsible party for
handling any customization. For more information on customization, see What does customization of AT
mean?
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 7 Page 39
Repairs and Contingency Planning
Any technology system is bound to malfunction from time to time, despite routine maintenance. To
expedite the repair process, schools can note information about repairs (e.g., whom to contact for
repairs and how repairs will be funded) in an implementation plan. Because any AT tool or system
identified on a student’s IEP should be provided at all times when the student needs it, schools should
consider developing a contingency plan in the event the primary AT tool or system malfunctions. The
contingency plan stipulates how the student will be provided with a temporary replacement while the
primary AT tool or system is being repaired.
What training needs to be provided to implement AT effectively?
IDEA identifies training as a component of AT services to be provided to a student. The student may
need to be trained on how to use the AT. So may all personnel who may work with the student while he
or she is using an AT tool or system. Training includes:
• how to use the AT tool or system (e.g., building operational competence)
• any protocols that have been developed to specify how the student uses the AT tool or
system, or how the AT tool or system will be set up for student use
• any prompting or cuing systems to be used with the student
• ways of troubleshooting and problem-solving any common issues with the AT tool or system
A training plan indicates who will be trained, on what content each person will be trained, and timelines
to train each person.
What does ‘customization of AT’ mean?
Customization refers to the process by which an AT tool or system is modified or adapted to meet a
student’s individual needs. An AT tool or system may be customized to allow the student better access to
operate it, modify the functionality to better match the task in which the student will use it, or even change
the appearance of the AT to increase the student's motivation to use it or decrease sensory defensiveness.
Can AT be used on statewide assessments?
Use of AT tools and systems may be permitted on statewide assessments; however, the AT must be
appropriately documented in the student’s IEP. The IEP must specifically state that the student requires
a particular AT tool or system during state or district assessments and explain how the AT tool or system
will be used. Because of established protocols that affect assessment reliability and validity, not all AT
tools or systems may be used on every component of an assessment. It is important to read the sections
on accommodations in the administrator’s manual for the assessment to determine what AT tools or
systems may be used in each assessment component. In Illinois, information on accommodation
procedures for statewide testing may be found at:
• Illinois Assessment of Readiness — https://www.isbe.net/Pages/IAR.aspx
• Illinois Science Assessment — https://www.isbe.net/Pages/Illinois-Science-Assessment.aspx
• SAT, PSAT 10 and PSAT 8/9L — https://www.isbe.net/Pages/sat-psat.aspx
• Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment — https://www.isbe.net/Pages/DLM-AA.aspx
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 7 Page 40
How can a team judge the quality of its AT implementation?
The processes that education agencies use when IEP teams implement an assistive technology program
for a student may vary widely because of resources, staff knowledge, geographic makeup and
population. The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Consortium (QIAT 2015) has developed a list
of research-based quality indicators for AT Implementation. QIAT has defined a set of descriptors that
serve as overarching guidelines for quality AT implementation, and the descriptors apply regardless of
service delivery models. The indicators for effective assistive technology implementation include:
Collaborative plan development
Integration into curriculum and activities
Shared responsibility
Multiple strategies
Training
Data-based
Equipment management and
maintenance
The full text of the implementation indicators is included in Appendix A.
Summary
The entire IEP team is responsible for ensuring that students can use AT where required, making the AT
available and maintaining it, ensuring that those involved can operate and troubleshoot the AT, and
developing backup plans for malfunctions. A sample planning document in this chapter guides teams
through the process. A set of quality indicators in Appendix A helps teams judge their success.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 8 Page 41
Chapter 8
AT Process: Understanding Continuous
Progress Monitoring of AT Use
AT, like any other intervention, must be monitored to ensure that the intervention is working in the way
it is intended. The goal in reviewing the performance of a student using AT is to determine whether the
AT still meets the student’s needs and whether it continues to be needed for FAPE. Data about the
effectiveness of the student’s AT use are reviewed at least annually during the IEP meeting, and
performance data are collected as indicated in IEP goals.
What is involved in progress monitoring for AT?
Progress monitoring of a student’s AT use includes data collection, documentation and analysis. The
information gathered helps to monitor changes in student performance resulting from the
implementation of assistive technology devices and services. Student performance is reviewed to
identify if, when or where modifications and revisions to the implementation plan are needed.
Evaluating the effectiveness of AT use is a dynamic, responsive, ongoing process in which scheduled
data collection occurs over time and reflects measurement strategies appropriate to the individual
student’s needs.
Data are collected on specific student achievement goals that have been identified by the team. These
might include the student’s use of assistive technology to make progress toward IEP and curricular goals
or increased participation in extracurricular activities at school and in other environments. To guide
decision-making, teams regularly analyze data on multiple factors that may influence success or lead to
errors and guide decision-making. Progress monitoring gives teams a way to analyze student
achievement, identify supports and barriers that influence AT use, and determine what changes, if any,
are needed.
Performance changes targeted for data collection are observable and measurable, so that data are as
objective as possible. Among the changes identified by the IEP team for evaluation are accomplishment
of relevant tasks; how AT is used; student preferences, productivity, participation and independence;
quality of work; speed and accuracy of performance; and student satisfaction. For each environment
where the AT is to be used, relevant tasks are identified, and data needed and procedures for collecting
those data are determined.
What are the potential outcomes of progress monitoring of AT use?
There are three primary outcomes related to performance monitoring of AT use:
1. AT is working and continues to be needed
2. AT is not working but continues to be needed
3. AT is no longer needed
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 8 Page 42
Using a Time Series Concurrent and Differential Approach (TSCD) (Smith, 2000) may assist teams in
collecting and analyzing data to determine tool effectiveness during AT trials. It may also be helpful to
graph the information and analyze it visually. For example, the graphs below represent the data
collected by using the TSCD approach. The dashed line represents the student’s performance using AT
on a task. The dotted line represents the student’s performance on the same task, not using AT. Finally,
the solid line represents the goal or the expected performance on the task. Note that there is a
significant shift in performance when the student is using AT to perform the task. Across time, the
student is able to approximate the performance expectations for the task while using AT; however, the
data show the student is unable to meet the expected performance of the task while not using AT. This
scenario indicates that the current AT tool or system is working for and continues to be needed by the
student.
Figure 5. Example Depicting Performance with and without AT
Conversely, the following scenarios indicate that, while AT is still needed by the student, the AT tool or
system is not working or is not providing sufficient compensatory benefit to the student to meet the
expectations set for the task.
In the first scenario, over time, the expected performance on the task begins to outpace the
compensatory benefit offered by the AT tool or system. In this scenario, a gap remains between the
student’s performance without the AT and the expected performance on the task. While AT is still
needed, the current AT tool or system is not working for the student.
In the second scenario, the AT tool or system loses effectiveness in providing sufficient compensatory
benefit to the student. As a result, the student’s performance on the task diminishes. Again, there is a
significant gap between the expected performance on the task and the student’s performance while not
using AT. The student still needs AT, but the current AT tool or system has lost its effectiveness. Perhaps
there was a change in the student’s medical condition or a new classroom environment that altered the
effectiveness of the current AT tool or system. A determination would need to be made to identify the
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 8 Page 43
reason the AT tool or system is no longer effective for the student on this task and new AT tool or
system may need to be considered for the student.
Figure 6. Example Depicting Scenarios in Which AT Is No Longer Effective
Finally, the following scenario demonstrates a situation in which the student’s performance without an
AT tool or system increases to the point that the student can meet the expectations set for the task
without it. In this scenario, the student no longer needs the AT tool or system to perform the task in the
way that it is expected.
Figure 7. Example Depicting When AT Is No Longer Needed
Summary
Monitoring the impact of AT on student performance allows the IEP team to determine whether AT is
working and continues to be needed, AT is not working but continues to be needed, or AT is no longer
needed. The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (QIAT) Consortium has developed research-
based indicators to evaluate AT effectiveness. The full text is in Appendix A.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 44
Chapter 9
Understanding AT Services in the
Context of Transitions
In IDEA Part B, the term “transition services” means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a
disability that is
• designed to be within a results-oriented process that is focused on improving the academic and
functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from
school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education,
integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education,
adult services, independent living, and community participation
• is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences,
and interests
• includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment
and other post-school adult living objectives, and, if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills
and functional vocational evaluation (34 C.F.R.§300.43)
The word, transition, has several meanings within the context of AT services. Transition may often refer
to the IDEA-mandated processes for post-school transitions discussed above. However, a transition that
includes AT may also mean a change of placement or location such as the transition from one classroom
to another or the transition from one school to another such as from elementary school to middle
school. Regardless of the type of transition that a student with a disability will experience, advanced
planning that addresses the AT needs of the student in a new environment is valuable. The processes
and strategies discussed in this chapter are generally appropriate for any type of transition for AT users
at any age.
What AT and AT services components are important to address during a
student’s transition?
As transitions approach, IEP teams for students who use AT consider the impact of those transitions on
the students’ future needs for AT and AT services. A plan is developed to ensure that the AT each
student has been using successfully, along with associated AT services, will continue to be provided
within the new placement. The plan also addresses new functional activities in which the student will
engage that may necessitate a change in the system of AT and AT services. AT transition planning
requires coordination between the current and future placements. Discussions between each
placement’s support team, the student and the student’s family help ensure continuity of AT use
between the placements.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 45
Transition planning for AT may include:
• training provided by the previous placement to the receiving placement
• transfer of AT equipment from one placement to the next
• purchase of new AT equipment for the receiving environment
• identification of and planning for providing specific AT services to the student at the
receiving placement
Part of transition planning involves helping the student get ready for a new environment. New AT,
training and specific supports may be added to the current IEP or to the IEP for the new placement. For
example, if a student has a transition plan that focuses on entering a specific area of employment,
training on the use of AT in the work setting may be needed to facilitate the student’s success. Different
support would be needed for a student with a disability affecting the ability to remember a series of
steps needed to complete cooking or cleaning tasks at home. In that case, it could be appropriate to
provide visual prompting AT, such as a flipbook of pictures associated with each step of the task, or an
app that provides a visual and auditory cue for each step. AT of that nature would increase the accuracy
of the task completion.
How are transitions that include AT addressed in an IEP?
Transition services may be considered special education if provided as specially designed instruction, or
a related service if required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education.
Project Tech Trans (Fried-Oken, Bersani, Anctil and Bowser, 1998) investigated critical features of an
educational program that help students experience continuity of AT use during transitions. The research
indicates that students who have the right skills and supports during transitions are more likely to
continue using their AT after transitions occur. Comprehensive postsecondary transition plans that
include specific details for the use of AT can help students become successful adults who use AT, are
able to advocate for themselves and have skills that allow them to be, to the best of their ability,
independent in their AT use. A paradigm, developed by Light, Beukelman and Reichle (2003) and
adapted by Bowser and Castillani (2006), describes the types of skills a person who uses AT might need
to be competent and independent. Based on this paradigm, introduced in Chapter 5, transition skill
areas in the IEP could include:
• Operational skills — knowledge of how to make the technology work
• Functional skills — use of AT to improve performance in the functional area for which the AT
was chosen
• Social skills — skills related to self-determination and self-advocacy such as choice-making,
decision-making, problem-solving, goal-setting and -attainment, self-regulation/self-
management, and self-advocacy and leadership (Wehmeyer, 2007)
• Strategic skills — ability to choose the right tool for a specific task and environment
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 46
Can a student take school-provided AT to a new placement?
AT that has been purchased by a public agency for student use remains the property of the agency when
the student makes a transition. Agency policy would determine whether the student can take a device
to a new placement operated by the agency. If the transfer is to a new program (e.g., preschool to
kindergarten) or to a different district, the device may stay with the agency that made the initial
purchase. For this reason, it is important for the IEP team to determine what AT the student will need in
new environments and how it will be provided.
What AT and AT service components are important to address in transitions
from one educational placement to another?
It is important to address both AT devices and AT services when a student is changing placements from
one public education agency to another. The first consideration is the provision of ongoing AT and AT
services. As stated earlier, AT purchased for a student by one agency remains the property of that
agency if the student moves to a different agency placement. In implementing the student’s IEP, the
receiving agency may need to acquire that technology, or complete an assessment to determine
whether that AT is appropriate to the new setting or should be changed. The receiving agency may
conduct a new AT assessment to make this determination. Such an assessment also addresses the need
for AT supports and services for the student and professionals in the new environment.
What AT and AT service components are important to address when
preparing for postsecondary transitions?
The use of AT is regarded as a factor in the successful transition of students as they move beyond K–12
education (Asselin, 2014; E. C. Bouck. C., ed., (2016); E. C. Bouck, Maeda and Flanagan, 2012; Targett,
Wehman, West, Dillard and Cifu, 2013). There is a significant difference, though, between school-to-
school transitions and the transition from school to community placements.
IDEA mandates postsecondary goals and outcomes for transition planning, including employment,
education and/or training, and independent living. When a student leaves the public school setting,
however, the protections of IDEA no longer apply, meaning less oversight. For students who successfully
use AT in secondary school, it is important for the IEP team to identify what kinds of supports and
services will be needed and how they will be provided to help realize these post-school goals and
outcomes.
Individuals with disabilities who use AT in post-school settings must be able to describe the AT they
need, request the support services they need and use their AT as independently as possible. If
individuals who use AT are unable to advocate for and request their own AT and AT services, they will
need an advocate who understands the AT and can ensure continuity of use after the student leaves the
public school setting. Planning for this kind of advocacy and support is most effective when it begins as
soon as a transition plan is developed for the student at age 14½.
Take, for example, a student with difficulty decoding text who has a transition plan focusing on entering
postsecondary education. Text-to-speech technology may be provided as AT along with supporting AT
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 47
services to prepare the student to tackle the reading demands of postsecondary education. Specific
plans need to be made to ensure that the student has access to appropriate AT within that environment.
Strategies also could be developed to help empower students to advocate for themselves with regard to
the use of AT within post-school settings. Transition planning goals could specifically address
appropriate AT and AT services that are needed within K–12 education and set the stage for ongoing AT
use within post-school settings.
How can IEP teams document AT services and devices in a student’s post-
secondary transition plan and Summary of Performance?
In the post-secondary transition plan, AT can be noted in the Post-Secondary Outcomes areas if the AT
would assist the student in completing job tasks or communication. AT also can be noted in the
Transition Services section if the student requires the AT to perform job-related skills or communicate.
The Summary of Performance (SoP) should describe the student’s academic and functional
performance, and whether AT devices and/or services were used. Any continued need for AT services or
accommodations also could be noted in the SoP.
Can AT be transferred to a student upon graduation or transition to another
placement?
It may be possible for AT to be transferred to a student who is graduating or transitioning to another
placement. Models have been proposed and used to allow a student or a student’s family to purchase
AT from a school system or receive placement at a depreciated value; however, these models are
subject to state and local policies regarding disposition of school-owned equipment. As these policies
vary widely, it is difficult to provide blanket guidance on this issue.
How can a team judge the quality of its AT transition planning?
Many factors can be addressed during a transition-planning process for
student who uses AT. The QIAT Leadership Team (2015) has developed a
list of research-based quality indicators for AT transitions. The indicators
related to AT transitions can be found in Appendix B.
A sample planning worksheet from the QIAT Leadership Team (2013) also
is included in Appendix B and can be retrieved at
https://qiat.org/docs/resources/Transition_Planning_Worksheet.pdf.
Summary
Transition can mean moving from one classroom to another. It can mean changing schools, as from
elementary to middle school. It also can mean preparing to enter a world of employment,
postsecondary education or training, and independent living. Transition services help students gain the
operational, functional, social and strategic skills to use AT effectively in a new setting.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 48
Chapter 10
Creating an Infrastructure that Supports
Effective AT Services
Previous chapters of this guide have identified the legal and procedural requirements for an agency to
provide assistive technology devices and services to all students who receive specially designed
instruction and need AT to benefit from their educational program. Much of the guidance has been
directed to the specific actions an IEP team would take to meet the needs of an individual student.
Agencies providing AT services that are equitable, effective and efficient for all students offer guidance
for their staff about how AT services are developed and managed. The purpose of this section is to
describe the components of an infrastructure that supports effective AT services.
Productive schools exhibit a high degree of consistency where staff members use well-
understood policies to guide the daily operation. Members of a well-managed
organization should expect that routine matters will be dealt with in fair and consistent
ways so that the other aspects can be addressed to improve the performance of all
students (Ubben & Hughes, 1997).
What are the components of an infrastructure that supports high-quality AT
services?
In an international synthesis of research about successful school leadership, Leithwood, Harris and
Hopkins (2008) noted that almost all successful leaders draw on the same set of basic leadership
practices. They organized these into four categories:
1. Building vision and setting directions
2. Managing the program
3. Understanding and developing individuals
4. Redesigning the organization
Each aspect of successful leadership can help administrators and AT leaders identify critical issues and
specific actions that help to define and improve the way AT devices and services are provided.
What actions can be taken to build vision and set direction for an AT program?
To ensure quality and consistency of AT services, agencies can help stakeholders develop a vision for
what AT services should be in their setting. When agencies include teachers and other stakeholders in
developing a shared vision and goals for reaching the vision, their actions give meaning, common
purpose, challenge and motivation to everyone involved (Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005;
Schmoker 1999).
A shared vision of the ways AT contributes to student performance describes AT’s contribution to school
improvement as well as individual student progress. Wide dissemination of the agency’s approach to AT
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 49
services also confirms that AT for all students who need it is an agency priority. AT does not have to be
viewed as a separate issue for individual students but can be folded into overall school efforts. Just as
the full use of instructional technology by teachers and students is achieved only through the support
and vision of technology-savvy administrators (ISTE, n.d.), the full use of AT is achieved only with that
same support and vision.
In preparing to develop a vision for the agency, administrators and AT leaders might develop a set of
questions such as these to help them gather information and data about the state of AT services.
Questions about students’ use of AT
• Which of our students currently use AT?
• What types of AT do they use?
• What percentage of students with disabilities have AT?
• Are there students who could benefit from AT for whom it has not been made available?
Questions about staff members’ knowledge about and use of AT
• Do teachers know what AT is available?
• Do they know how to request it?
• Do teachers or other staff need training about AT to be active participants in AT
consideration during the IEP?
• Do they need training to use AT in their practice?
Questions about agency or district resources
• Where might training be obtained?
• Is there an AT team?
• Is there a need to develop an AT team?
• If an AT team is required, what role should that team play (i.e., should members directly
assess students and make recommendations, or should they focus on building the capacity
of all teachers, therapists and assistants to provide these services)?
Questions like these can begin to provide a vision for the use of AT throughout the agency and help it
focus the discussion of what an effective service design for the agency would look like.
What aspects of managing a program can be applied to an AT infrastructure?
IEP teams need a way of approaching AT that can apply to every student. If each student’s team uses a
different decision-making process, inconsistent AT services and unequal treatment of students can
result. Agencies can prevent difficult situations by developing procedures and operating guidelines for
AT services to guide the actions of individual staff members and teams. These guidelines should address
the following areas.
Operating guidelines
Operating guidelines and policies identify the actions people should take in response to predictable and
recurring events that concern AT. Guidelines can delegate specific tasks to team members and help to
clarify roles. When educational agencies have operating guidelines for AT, more time is available for
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 50
people knowledgeable about AT to handle unusual or unpredictable problems that may require
individual attention (Ubben and Hughes, 1997, Leithwood et al., 2008).
Operating guidelines also make it less likely that there will be conflict about AT decisions and
implementation. When every member of an IEP or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) team has a
clear picture of what will be done for a student, as well as how and when it will be done, it is easier to
track progress, identify implementation strategies and put them in place.
Resource management
While it is important to make sure a program has sufficient guidelines and resources, it is also the
agency’s responsibility to ensure that the program uses those resources wisely. Efficiently managed AT
programs have little duplication of costs and services. When AT budgeting is integrated into the agency’s
general budgeting and planning process, there are many opportunities to ensure efficiency. For
instance, in some areas budgets for AT and AT services have been integrated with information
technology (IT) budgets. This kind of integration can result in less duplication of purchases and more
efficient use of resources.
A component of providing effective AT services is having access to a technology infrastructure that
allows IEP teams to test and effectively implement an array of AT tools with students with disabilities.
AT tools cannot be considered completely in the abstract for a student. Students should be allowed to
try an AT tool, and IEP teams should collect data to determine the extent to which that tool meets the
student’s needs. It is imperative that schools establish a system that allows IEP teams to have ready
access to potential AT tools.
AT device infrastructure
There are four common strategies for building a technology infrastructure in school systems. These
strategies may be used in isolation or in concert with each other. Descriptions of these strategies follow.
Accessing and leveraging state and regional resources
Illinois has two major loan options for acquiring AT tools. The first option is provided through
the Illinois Assistive Technology Program (IATP), funded by an ISBE grant (www.iltech.org). IATP
provides access to a variety of AT tools at no cost to school systems. School systems may borrow
AT tools for up to five weeks. The second loan option is provided through Infinitec. Infinitec
offers a rental loan library to school systems that are members of the Infinitec Coalition. Items
may be rented at a monthly rate, based on the purchase cost of a particular device, that can be
applied toward purchase.
Some Illinois school systems report engaging in regional partnerships to leverage local
technology resources. For example, one set of school systems reported setting up a regional
agreement to create an inventory database of AT tools owned by each of the partnering
systems. Each partner could borrow AT tools from other partners, provided that the particular
AT tools were not currently in use by the primary partner. This agreement gives the school
systems access to a greater variety of AT tools. It is advisable to put any such agreement to
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 51
writing, including length of time for the technology loans, and responsibility for wear and tear
and damage to the AT.
Working with vendors
School systems also report working with vendors who either manufacture AT tools or are
resellers of AT tools. Depending on the vendor, school systems can borrow AT tools for
extended trial periods or rent the AT tools on a short-term basis. This approach allows school
systems to have relatively quick access to AT tools without a large initial outlay of money.
Purchasing in bulk to provide large-scale access
Finkel (2012) pointed out that purchasing in bulk units allows school systems to deploy
technologies to a greater number of students at a reduced cost per unit. In addition, Finkel
commented that school systems lacking the ability to engage in bulk purchases may network
with other school systems to increase their purchasing power. Bulk purchasing allows AT tools
and software licenses to be widely available within a school system, and offers immediate
access to AT tools for consideration. In some cases, the strategy may provide supports for all
students, moving toward Universal Design for Learning. Infinitec provides a discounted bulk
purchase program for Infinitec Coalition districts.
Building a local AT library
Finally, some school systems use local funds, donations and grants to establish and build their
own local library of AT tools. With this library, IEP teams reported having more immediate
access to potential AT tools for consideration, as well as backup options should students’
primary AT tools need repair.
What aspects of developing individual educators can be applied to an AT
infrastructure?
Helping educators understand AT and develop AT skills can occur in different ways. AT knowledge can be
part of both hiring and ongoing training of staff. Agencies recruit staff members who are qualified to
provide AT services and to ensure that the AT services provided are legal and ethical. Agencies also help
create a positive learning environment that supports and expects functional and effective AT use as part
of a high-quality education for students with disabilities (Bowser and Reed, 2018). AT training needed by
educators and staff to assist specific students should be discussed and noted in the student IEP under
the Supports for School Personnel section.
Supervision activities present a significant opportunity to affect the quality of AT services by:
• recruiting individuals with knowledge about technology, including AT;
• hiring highly qualified staff experienced with all types of technology, including AT where
possible;
• making the staff member’s work with students who use AT a focus of staff observations;
• ensuring that staff evaluation forms include criteria about the responsibility to understand
AT and support its use by students;
• helping individual staff members work together as teams to support students using AT;
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 52
• encouraging collaboration and cooperation among all staff in supporting students who use
AT; and
• fostering a positive and productive climate for the use of AT and learning (Bowser and Reed,
p. 49).
Professional development to ensure effective AT services
Professional development to ensure effective AT services involves an array of activities that are
grounded in practices of quality professional development for education professionals. By its nature,
professional development should allow education professionals to not only develop an awareness of
potential AT tools and services but also learn to use those tools effectively with students with disabilities
in educational settings.
When AT services are effective, it is largely because those who are involved in providing them have the
knowledge and skills necessary to do their job. Wojcik (2011) found that individuals engaged in
providing AT services often reported they had no formal AT training but developed their knowledge and
skills through a combination of on-the-job trial and error, workshops, webinars and conferences. Their
experiences often related directly to the students with whom the individuals worked. Professional
development experiences should be strategically designed to allow individuals to develop the
knowledge and skills they need to provide effective AT services to the students with whom they work. In
that way, school systems build the capacity for providing effective AT services.
Infinitec, an ISBE grant-funded service, provides online and in-person foundational and intensive
trainings for AT services state-wide (www.at4il.org).
TPACK Model for AT Professional Development
Mishra and Koehler (2006) introduced a model referred to as the
Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge Model or TPACK.
The model illustrates the types of knowledge by education
professionals that are required for effective technology
integration.
In looking at the TPACK model, the components directly involving
and overlapping with technology knowledge (TK) can be used as
a lens when developing professional development experiences
for education professionals. Figure 8 explains specific TK-related
components of the model and connects them to the
development of the knowledge and skills necessary to provide
effective AT services.
Figure 8. Technological Pedagogical Content
Knowledge Model
(TPACK; Mishra and Koehler, 2006),
reprinted with permission from
http://tpack.org
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 53
Figure 9. Application of TPACK Framework to AT Professional Development
What aspects of redesigning the organization can be applied to an AT
infrastructure?
Agencies that have a vision of high-quality AT use and the AT needs of their students can integrate and
improve those services as they develop budgets, set educational priorities and address district goals. For
example, AT needs can be addressed in district or building technology plans and in the development of
technology grants. As agencies look for opportunities to enhance AT services, they also can examine
school improvement initiatives to determine how the use of AT might contribute to achieving agency-
wide goals.
Improvements to the way AT services are delivered may be undertaken as part of a larger agency-wide
improvement effort or based on information gathered from self-assessments and surveys of consumers
or AT providers. Program improvement entails change. When a significant program change is desired,
agencies can convene a group of concerned individuals and make it possible for that group’s members
to participate in the decision-making, planning and implementation of program development and
improvement activities.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 54
Technology administrators and leaders are essential members in building a technology infrastructure
that supports effective AT services. Brody (2004) and Wojcik (2011) indicated that decisions regarding
AT tools and related issues often are not made in conjunction with the local technology administrators
and support staff. Consequently, technology administrators may be unaware of the school’s AT needs or
may put policies in place that make the implementation of AT tools more difficult. Brody (2004) pointed
out that a lack of coordination between those who work with AT and the technology administrators may
result in missed opportunities to address the needs of students with disabilities within the technology
infrastructures of school systems. Several Illinois school systems reported either engaging in frequent
conversations with technology administrators and support staff regarding the technology issues related
to AT services, or becoming members of the technology support team to directly address such issues.
What should school systems do to plan for ensuring effective AT services?
Each school system is required to file a technology plan to meet requirements of certain technology-
related funding programs. These technology plans serve as a means for guiding the development,
revision and maintenance of technology infrastructures within school systems. Hasselbring and Bottge
(2000) indicated that school system technology plans should proactively and overtly plan for addressing
issues related to using technology with students with disabilities. Hasselbring and Bottge (2000)
encouraged school systems to conduct needs assessments to identify the issues around using
technologies with students with disabilities. The school systems were then urged to proactively
incorporate strategies within agency technology plans to address the issues.
It is important to note, however, that public funds obtained to support the implementation of these
plans cannot be used conjointly with IDEA funds to provide AT to individual students.
Any plan, once implemented, needs to be evaluated to determine the degree of effectiveness within a
school system. Evaluation should be periodic and regular. Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology
Services (QIAT, 2015) provides guidance to school systems on recommended practices regarding AT
services. Using these indicators, the QIAT Consortium developed a series of self-evaluation matrices, and
an associated score sheet, that school systems can use to evaluate their AT services and support.
Specifically, the QIAT matrices focus on:
Consideration of AT needs
Assessment of AT needs
Inclusion of AT in the IEP
AT implementation
Evaluation of effectiveness of AT
AT transition
Administrative support for AT services
Professional development and training in AT
These resources are available online at:
• Self-Evaluation Matrices
http://natri.uky.edu/assoc_projects/qiat/documents/QIATMatricesUpdated2011.pdf
• Score Sheet
http://natri.uky.edu/assoc_projects/qiat/documents/QIAT_Matrix_Score5-08.pdf
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 55
Summary
No IEP team operates in a vacuum. Instead, teams need an infrastructure that supports effective AT
services. By gathering information about the state of AT services, developing staff and connecting with
others in the school system, teams can make AT services better for students and schools alike.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual • 2019–20 Edition | Chapter 10 Page 56
Appendices
Appendix A:
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Within 504 Plans
(QIAT-504)
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 57
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology
Quality Indicators for Consideration of Assistive Technology Needs
Consideration of the need for AT devices and services is an integral part of the educational
process contained in IDEA for referral, evaluation, and IEP development. Although AT is
considered at all stages of the process, the Consideration Quality Indicators are specific to the
consideration of AT in the development of the IEP as mandated by the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In most instances, the Quality Indicators are also appropriate
for the consideration of AT for students who qualify for services under other legislation (e.g.,
504, ADA).
1. Assistive technology devices and services are considered for all students with disabilities
regardless of type or severity of disability.
Intent: Consideration of assistive technology need is required by IDEA and is based on the
unique educational needs of the student. Students are not excluded from consideration of AT
for any reason. (e.g., type of disability, age, administrative concerns)
.
2. During the development of an individualized educational program, every IEP team
consistently uses a collaborative decision-making process that supports systematic
consideration of each student’s possible need for assistive technology devices and
services.
Intent: A collaborative process that ensures that all IEP teams effectively consider the
assistive technology of students is defined, communicated, and consistently used throughout
the agency. Processes may vary from agency to agency to most effectively address student
needs under local conditions.
3. IEP team members have the collective knowledge and skills needed to make informed
assistive technology decisions and seek assistance when needed.
Intent: IEP team members combine their knowledge and skills to determine if assistive
technology devices and services are needed to remove barriers to student performance. When
the assistive technology needs are beyond the knowledge and scope of the IEP team,
additional resources and support are sought.
4. Decisions regarding the need for assistive technology devices and services are based on
the student’s IEP goals and objectives, access to curricular and extracurricular
activities, and progress in the general education curriculum.
Intent: As the IEP team determines the tasks the student needs to complete and develops the
goals and objectives, the team considers whether assistive technology is required to
accomplish those tasks.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 58
5. The IEP team gathers and analyzes data about the student, customary environments,
educational goals, and tasks when considering a student’s need for assistive technology
devices and services.
Intent: The IEP team shares and discusses information about the student’s present levels of
achievement in relationship to the environments, and tasks to determine if the student
requires assistive technology devices and services to participate actively, work on expected
tasks, and make progress toward mastery of educational goals
.
6. When assistive technology is needed, the IEP team explores a range of assistive
technology devices, services, and other supports that address identified needs.
Intent: The IEP team considers various supports and services that address the educational
needs of the student and may include no tech, low tech, mid-tech and/or high tech solutions
and devices. IEP team members do not limit their thinking to only those devices and services
currently available within the district.
7. The assistive technology consideration process and results are documented in the IEP
and include a rationale for the decision and supporting evidence.
Intent: Even though IEP documentation may include a checkbox verifying that assistive
technology has been considered, the reasons for the decisions and recommendations should
be clearly stated. Supporting evidence may include the results of assistive technology
assessments, data from device trials, differences in achievement with and without assistive
technology, student preferences for competing devices, and teacher observations, among
others.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. AT is considered for students with severe disabilities only.
2. No one on the IEP team is knowledgeable regarding AT.
3. Team does not use a consistent process based on data about the student, environment and
tasks to make decisions.
4. Consideration of AT is limited to those items that are familiar to team members or are
available in the district.
5. Team members fail to consider access to the curriculum and IEP goals in determining if AT
is required in order for the student to receive FAPE.
6. If AT is not needed, team fails to document the basis of its decisions.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 59
Quality Indicators for Assessment of Assistive Technology Needs
Quality Indicators for Assessment of Assistive Technology Needs is a process conducted by a
team, used to identify tools and strategies to address a student’s specific need(s). The issues that
lead to an AT assessment may be very simple and quickly answered or more complex and
challenging. Assessment takes place when these issues are beyond the scope of the problem
solving that occurs as a part of normal service delivery.
1. Procedures for all aspects of assistive technology assessment are clearly defined and
consistently applied.
Intent: Throughout the educational agency, personnel are well-informed and trained about
assessment procedures and how to initiate them. There is consistency throughout the agency
in the conducting of assistive technology assessments. Procedures may include–but are not
limited to–initiating an assessment, planning and conducting an assessment, conducting
trials, reporting results, and resolving conflicts.
2. Assistive technology assessments are conducted by a team with the collective knowledge
and skills needed to determine possible assistive technology solutions that address the
needs and abilities of the student, demands of the customary environments, educational
goals, and related activities.
Intent: Team membership is flexible and varies according to the knowledge and skills needed
to address student needs. The student and family are active team members. Various team
members bring different information and strengths to the assessment process.
3. All assistive technology assessments include a functional assessment in the student’s
customary environments, such as the classroom, lunchroom, playground, home,
community setting, or work place.
Intent: The assessment process includes activities that occur in the student’s current or
anticipated environments because characteristics and demands in each may vary. Team
members work together to gather specific data and relevant information in identified
environments to contribute to assessment decisions.
4. Assistive technology assessments, including needed trials, are completed within
reasonable time lines.
Intent: Assessments are initiated in a timely fashion and proceed according to a timeline that
the IEP team determines to be reasonable based on the complexity of student needs and
assessment questions. Timelines comply with applicable state and agency requirements.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 60
5. Recommendations from assistive technology assessments are based on data about the
student, environments and tasks.
Intent: The assessment includes information about the student’s needs and abilities, demands
of various environments, educational tasks, and objectives. Data may be gathered from
sources such as student performance records, results of experimental trials, direct
observation, interviews with students or significant others, and anecdotal records.
6. The assessment provides the IEP team with clearly documented recommendations that
guide decisions about the selection, acquisition, and use of assistive technology devices
and services.
Intent: A written rationale is provided for any recommendations that are made.
Recommendations may include assessment activities and results, suggested devices and
alternative ways of addressing needs, services required by the student and others, and
suggested strategies for implementation and use.
7. Assistive technology needs are reassessed any time changes in the student, the
environments and/or the tasks result in the student’s needs not being met with current
devices and/or services.
Intent: An assistive technology assessment is available any time it is needed due to changes
that have affected the student. The assessment can be requested by the parent or any other
member of the IEP team.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. Procedures for conducting AT assessment are not defined, or are not customized to meet the student’s
needs.
2. A team approach to assessment is not utilized.
3. Individuals participating in an assessment do not have the skills necessary to conduct the assessment,
and do not seek additional help.
4. Team members do not have adequate time to conduct assessment processes, including necessary trials
with AT.
5. Communication between team members is not clear.
6. The student is not involved in the assessment process.
7. When the assessment is conducted by any team other than the student’s IEP team, the needs of the
student or expectations for the assessment are not communicated.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 61
Quality Indicators for Including Assistive Technology in the IEP
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) requires that the IEP team consider
AT needs in the development of every Individualized Education Program (IEP). Once the IEP team has
reviewed assessment results and determined that AT is needed for provision of a free, appropriate, public
education (FAPE), it is important that the IEP document reflects the team’s determination in as clear a
fashion as possible. The Quality Indicators for AT in the IEP help the team describe the role of AT in the
child’s educational program.
1. The education agency has guidelines for documenting assistive technology needs in the IEP
and requires their consistent application.
Intent: The education agency provides guidance to IEP teams about how to effectively document
assistive technology needs, devices, and services as a part of specially designed instruction. related
services, or supplementary aids and services
2. All services that the IEP team determines are needed to support the selection, acquisition, and
use of assistive technology devices are designated in the IEP.
Intent: The provision of assistive technology services is critical to the effective use of assistive
technology devices. It is important that the IEP describes the assistive technology services that are
needed for student success. Such services may include evaluation, customization or maintenance of
devices, coordination of services, and training for the student and family and professionals, among
others.
3. The IEP illustrates that assistive technology is a tool to support achievement of goals and
progress in the general curriculum by establishing a clear relationship between student needs,
assistive technology devices and services, and the student’s goals and objectives.
Intent: Most goals are developed before decisions about assistive technology are made. However,
this does not preclude the development of additional goals, especially those related specifically to
the appropriate use of assistive technology.
4. IEP content regarding assistive technology use is written in language that describes how assistive
technology contributes to achievement of measurable and observable outcomes.
Intent: Content which describes measurable and observable outcomes for assistive
technology use enables the IEP team to review the student’s progress and determine whether
the assistive technology has had the expected impact on student participation and
achievement.
5. Assistive technology is included in the IEP in a manner that provides a clear and complete
description of the devices and services to be provided and used to address student needs and
achieve expected results.
Intent: IEPs are written so that participants in the IEP meeting and others who use the information to
implement the student’s program understand what technology is to be available, how it is to be used,
and under what circumstances. “Jargon” should be avoided.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 62
COMMON ERRORS:
1. IEP teams do not know how to include AT in IEPs.
2. IEPs including AT use a “formula” approach to documentation. All IEPs are developed in similar
fashion and the unique needs of the child are not addressed.
3. AT is included in the IEP, but the relationship to goals and objectives is unclear.
4. AT devices are included in the IEP, but no AT services support the use.
5. AT expected results are not measurable or observable.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 63
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Implementation
Assistive technology implementation pertains to the ways that assistive technology devices and
services, as included in the IEP (including goals/objectives, related services, supplementary aids
and services and accommodations or modifications) are delivered and integrated into the
student’s educational program. Assistive technology implementation involves people working
together to support the student using assistive technology to accomplish expected tasks necessary
for active participation and progress in customary educational environments.
1. Assistive technology implementation proceeds according to a collaboratively developed
plan.
Intent: Following IEP development, all those involved in implementation work together to
develop a written action plan that provides detailed information about how the AT will be
used in specific educational settings, what will be done and who will do it.
2. Assistive technology is integrated into the curriculum and daily activities of the
student across environments.
Intent: Assistive technology is used when and where it is needed to facilitate the student’s
access to, and mastery of, the curriculum. Assistive technology may facilitate active
participation in educational activities, assessments, extracurricular activities, and typical
routines.
3. Persons supporting the student across all environments in which the assistive
technology is expected to be used share responsibility for implementation of the plan.
Intent: All persons who work with the student know their roles and responsibilities, are able
to support the student using assistive technology, and are expected to do so.
4. Persons supporting the student provide opportunities for the student to use a variety of
strategies–including assistive technology– and to learn which strategies are most
effective for particular circumstances and tasks.
Intent: When and where appropriate, students are encouraged to consider and use alternative
strategies to remove barriers to participation or performance. Strategies may include the
student’s natural abilities, use of assistive technology, other supports, or modifications to the
curriculum, task or environment.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 64
5. Learning opportunities for the student, family and staff are an integral part of
implementation.
Intent: Learning opportunities needed by the student, staff, and family are based on how the
assistive technology will be used in each unique environment. Training and technical
assistance are planned and implemented as ongoing processes based on current and changing
needs.
6. Assistive technology implementation is initially based on assessment data and is
adjusted based on performance data.
Intent: Formal and informal assessment data guide initial decision-making and planning for
AT implementation. As the plan is carried out, student performance is monitored and
implementation is adjusted in a timely manner to support student progress.
7. Assistive technology implementation includes management and maintenance of
equipment and materials.
Intent: For technology to be useful it is important that equipment management
responsibilities are clearly defined and assigned. Though specifics may differ based on the
technology, some general areas may include organization of equipment and materials;
responsibility for acquisition, set-up, repair, and replacement in a timely fashion; and
assurance that equipment is operational.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. Implementation is expected to be smooth and effective without addressing specific components in a
plan. Team members assume that everyone understands what needs to happen and knows what to do.
2. Plans for implementation are created and carried out by one IEP team member.
3. The team focuses on device acquisition and does not discuss implementation.
4. An implementation plan is developed that is incompatible with the instructional environments.
5. No one takes responsibility for the care and maintenance of AT devices and so they are not available
or in working order when needed.
6. Contingency plans for dealing with broken or lost devices are not made in advance.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 65
Quality Indicators for Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Assistive Technology
This area addresses the evaluation of the effectiveness of the AT devices and services that are
provided to individual students. It includes data collection, documentation and analysis to
monitor changes in student performance resulting from the implementation of assistive
technology services. Student performance is reviewed in order to identify if, when, or where
modifications and revisions to the implementation are needed.
1. Team members share clearly defined responsibilities to ensure that data are collected,
evaluated, and interpreted by capable and credible team members.
Intent: Each team member is accountable for ensuring that the data collection process
determined by the team is implemented. Individual roles in the collection and review of the
data are assigned by the team. Data collection, evaluation, and interpretation are led by
persons with relevant training and knowledge. It can be appropriate for different individual
team members to conduct these tasks.
2. Data are collected on specific student achievement that has been identified by the team
and is related to one or more goals.
Intent: In order to evaluate the success of assistive technology use, data are collected on
various aspects of student performance and achievement. Targets for data collection include
the student’s use of assistive technology to progress toward mastery of relevant IEP and
curricular goals and to enhance participation in extracurricular activities at school and in
other environments.
3. Evaluation of effectiveness includes the quantitative and qualitative measurement of
changes in the student’s performance and achievement.
Intent: Changes targeted for data collection are observable and measurable, so that data are as
objective as possible. Changes identified by the IEP team for evaluation may include
accomplishment of relevant tasks, how assistive technology is used, student preferences,
productivity, participation, and independence, quality of work, speed and accuracy of
performance, and student satisfaction, among others.
4. Effectiveness is evaluated across environments during naturally occurring and
structured activities.
Intent: Relevant tasks within each environment where the assistive technology is to be used
are identified. Data needed and procedures for collecting those data in each environment are
determined.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 66
5. Data are collected to provide teams with a means for analyzing student achievement
and identifying supports and barriers that influence assistive technology use to determine what
changes, if any, are needed.
Intent: Teams regularly analyze data on multiple factors that may influence success or lead to errors
in order to guide decision-making. Such factors include not only the student’s understanding of
expected tasks and ability to use assistive technology but also student preferences, intervention
strategies, training, and opportunities to gain proficiency.
6. Changes are made in the student’s assistive technology services and educational program when
evaluation data indicate that such changes are needed to improve student achievement.
Intent: During the process of reviewing evaluation data, the team decides whether changes or
modifications need to be made in the assistive technology, expected tasks, or factors within
the environment. The team acts on those decisions and supports their implementation.
7. Evaluation of effectiveness is a dynamic, responsive, ongoing process that is reviewed
periodically.
Intent: Scheduled data collection occurs over time and changes in response to both expected
and unexpected results. Data collection reflects measurement strategies appropriate to the
individual student’s needs. Team members evaluate and interpret data during periodic
progress reviews.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. An observable, measurable student behavior is not specified as a target for change.
2. Team members do not share responsibility for evaluation of effectiveness.
3. An environmentally appropriate means of data collection and strategies has not been identified.
4. A schedule of program review for possible modification is not determined before implementation begins.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 67
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Transition
Transition plans for students who use assistive technology address the ways the student’s use of assistive
technology devices and services are transferred from one setting to another. Assistive technology
transition involves people from different classrooms, programs, buildings, or agencies working together
to ensure continuity. Self-advocacy, advocacy and implementation are critical issues for transition
planning.
1. Transition plans address assistive technology needs of the student, including roles and training
needs of team members, subsequent steps in assistive technology use, and follow-up after
transition takes place.
Intent: The comprehensive transition plan required by IDEA assists the receiving agency/team to
successfully provide needed supports for the AT user. This involves the assignment of responsibilities
and the establishment of accountability.
2. Transition planning empowers the student using assistive technology to participate in the
transition planning at a level appropriate to age and ability.
Intent: Specific self-determination skills are taught that enable the student to gradually assume
responsibility for participation and leadership in AT transition planning as capacity develops. AT
tools are provided, as needed, to support the student’s participation.
3. Advocacy related to assistive technology use is recognized as critical and planned for by the
teams involved in transition.
Intent: Everyone involved in transition advocates for the student’s progress, including the student’s
use of AT. Specific advocacy tasks related to AT use are addressed and may be carried out by the
student, the family, staff members or a representative.
4. AT requirements in the receiving environment are identified during the transition planning
process.
Intent: Environmental requirements, skill demands and needed AT support are determined in order to
plan appropriately. This determination is made collaboratively and with active participation by
representatives from sending and receiving environments.
5. Transition planning for students using assistive technology proceeds according to an
individualized timeline.
Intent: Transition planning timelines are adjusted based on specific needs of the student and
differences in environments. Timelines address well mapped action steps with specific target dates
and ongoing opportunities for reassessment.
6. Transition plans address specific equipment, training and funding issues such as transfer or
acquisition of assistive technology, manuals and support documents.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 68
Intent: A plan is developed to ensure that the AT equipment, hardware, and/or software arrives in
working condition accompanied by any needed manuals. Provisions for ongoing maintenance and
technical support are included in the plan.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. Lack of self-determination, self-awareness and self-advocacy on part of the individual with a
disability (and/or advocate).
2. Lack of adequate long range planning on part of sending and receiving agencies (timelines).
3. Inadequate communication and coordination.
4. Failure to address funding responsibility.
5. Inadequate evaluation (documentation, data, communication, valued across settings) process.
6. Philosophical differences between sending and receiving agencies.
7. Lack of understanding of the law and of their responsibilities.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 69
Quality Indicators for Administrative Support of Assistive Technology Services
This area defines the critical areas of administrative support and leadership for developing and
delivering assistive technology services. It involves the development of policies, procedures, and
other supports necessary to improve quality of services and sustain effective assistive technology
programs.
1. The education agency has written procedural guidelines that ensure equitable access to
assistive technology devices and services for students with disabilities, if required for a
free, appropriate, public education (FAPE).
Intent: Clearly written procedural guidelines help ensure that students with disabilities have the
assistive technology devices and services they require for educational participation and benefit.
Access to assistive technology is ensured regardless of severity of disability, educational placement,
geographic location, or economic status.
2. The education agency broadly disseminates clearly defined procedures for accessing and
providing assistive technology services and supports the implementation of those guidelines.
Intent: Procedures are readily available in multiple formats to families and school personnel in
special and general education. All are aware of how to locate the procedures and are expected to
follow procedures whenever appropriate.
3. The education agency includes appropriate assistive technology responsibilities in
written descriptions of job requirements for each position in which activities impact
assistive technology services.
Intent: Appropriate responsibilities and the knowledge, skills, and actions required to fulfill
them are specified for positions from the classroom through the central office. These
descriptions will vary depending upon the position and may be reflected in a position
description, assignment of duty statement, or some other written description.
4. The education agency employs personnel with the competencies needed to support
quality assistive technology services within their primary areas of responsibility at all
levels of the organization.
Intent: Although different knowledge, skills, and levels of understanding are required for
various jobs, all understand and are able to fulfill their parts in developing and maintaining a
collaborative system of effective assistive technology services to students.
5. The education agency includes assistive technology in the technology planning and
budgeting process.
Intent: A comprehensive, collaboratively developed technology plan provides for the
technology needs of all students in general education and special education.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 70
6. The education agency provides access to on-going learning opportunities about assistive
technology for staff, family, and students.
Intent: Learning opportunities are based on the needs of the student, the family, and the staff and are
readily available to all. Training and technical assistance include any topic pertinent to the selection,
acquisition, or use of assistive technology or any other aspect of assistive technology service delivery.
7. The education agency uses a systematic process to evaluate all components of the
agency-wide assistive technology program.
Intent: The components of the evaluation process include, but are not limited to, planning,
budgeting, decision-making, delivering AT services to students, and evaluating the impact of
AT services on student achievement. There are clear, systematic evaluation procedures that
all administrators know about and use on a regular basis at central office and building levels.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. If policies and guidelines are developed, they are not known widely enough to assure equitable application by
all IEP teams.
2. It is not clearly understood that the primary purpose of AT in school settings is to support the implementation
of the IEP for the provision of a free, appropriate, public education (FAPE).
3. Personnel have been appointed to head AT efforts, but resources to support those efforts have not been
allocated. (Time, a budget for devices, professional development, etc.)
4. AT leadership personnel try to or are expected to do all of the AT work and fail to meet expectations.
5. AT services are established but their effectiveness is never evaluated.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 71
Quality Indicators for Professional Development and Training in Assistive Technology
This area defines the critical elements of quality professional development and training in
assistive technology. Assistive technology professional development and training efforts should
arise out of an ongoing, well-defined, sequential and comprehensive plan. Such a plan can
develop and maintain the abilities of individuals at all levels of the organization to participate in
the creation and provision of quality AT services. The goal of assistive technology professional
development and training is to increase educators’ knowledge and skills in a variety of areas
including, but not limited to: collaborative processes; a continuum of tools, strategies, and
services; resource; legal issues; action planning; and data collection and analysis. Audiences for
professional development and training include: students, parents or caregivers, special education
teachers, educational assistants, support personnel, general education personnel, administrators,
AT specialists, and others involved with students.
1. Comprehensive assistive technology professional development and training support the
understanding that assistive technology devices and services enable students to accomplish IEP
goals and objectives and make progress in the general curriculum.
Intent: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires the provision of a free and
appropriate public education (FAPE) for all children with disabilities. The Individualized Education
Program (IEP) defines FAPE for each student. The use of AT enables students to participate in and
benefit from FAPE. The focus of all AT Professional Development and training activities is to
increase the student’s ability to make progress in the general curriculum and accomplish IEP goals
and objectives.
2. The education agency has an AT professional development and training plan that identifies the
audiences, the purposes, the activities, the expected results, evaluation measures and funding
for assistive technology professional development and training.
Intent: The opportunity to learn the appropriate techniques and strategies is provided for each person
involved in the delivery of assistive technology services. Professional development and training are
offered at a variety of levels of expertise and are pertinent to individual roles.
3. The content of comprehensive AT professional development and training addresses all aspects
of the selection, acquisition and use of assistive technology.
Intent: AT professional development and training address the development of a wide range of
assessment, collaboration and implementation skills that enable educators to provide effective AT
interventions for students. The AT professional development and training plan includes, but is not
limited to: collaborative processes; the continuum of tools, strategies and services; resources; legal
issues; action planning; and data collection.
©The QIAT Community (Revised, 2012).
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/Indicators2012Rev.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 72
4. AT professional development and training address and are aligned with other local, state and
national professional development initiatives.
Intent: For many students with disabilities, assistive technology is required for active participation in
local, state and national educational initiatives. Content of the professional development and training
includes information about how the use of assistive technology supports the participation of students
with disabilities in these initiatives.
5. Assistive technology professional development and training include ongoing learning
opportunities that utilize local, regional, and/or national resources.
Intent: Professional development and training opportunities enable individuals to meet present needs
and increase their knowledge of AT for use in future. Training in AT occurs frequently enough to
address new and emerging technologies and practices and is available on a repetitive and continuous
schedule. A variety of AT professional development and training resources are used.
6. Professional Development and Training in assistive technology follow research-based models
for adult learning that include multiple formats and are delivered at multiple skill levels.
Intent: The design of professional development and training for AT recognizes adults as diverse
learners who bring various levels of prior knowledge and experience to the training and can benefit
from differentiated instruction using a variety of formats and diverse timeframes (e.g., workshops,
distance learning, follow-up assistance, ongoing technical support).
7. The effectiveness of assistive technology professional development and training is evaluated by
measuring changes in practice that result in improved student performance.
Intent: Evidence is collected regarding the results of AT professional development and training. The
professional development and training plan is modified based on these data in order to ensure changes
educational practice that result in improved student performance.
COMMON ERRORS:
1. The educational agency does not have a comprehensive plan for ongoing AT professional
development and training.
2. The educational agency’s plan for professional development and training is not based on AT needs
assessment and goals.
3. Outcomes for professional development are not clearly defined and effectiveness is not measured in
terms of practice and student performance.
4. A continuum of ongoing professional development and training is not available.
5. Professional development and training focuses on the tools and not the process related to determining
student needs and integrating technology into the curriculum.
6. Professional development and training is provided for special educators but not for administrators,
general educators and instructional technology staff.
Marsters, A. & Bowser, G., (2018)
Acquired from http://qiat-ps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Quality-Indicators-for-AT-within-Section-504-FINAL.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 73
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Within 504 Plans
(QIAT-504)
Project Leaders
Aaron Marsters: marsters.an@gmail.com
Gayl Bowser : gaylbowser@gmail.com
The QIAT-504 indicators are a set of statements that describe the characteristics of high quality assistive
technology (AT) services provided to preschool, elementary and secondary students with disabilities
who are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and receive protection under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act for K-12.
The indicators are divided into seven general areas which include descriptors of quality for each area.
Indicator Areas
1. Awareness of Reasonable 504 AT Accommodations
2. Determination of AT Needs as an Accommodation
3. Plan and Implementation
4. Evaluation of Effectiveness
5. Administrative Support
6. Professional Development and Training
7. Student Instruction about AT
1. Awareness of Reasonable 504 Accommodations: The Awareness area describes the steps
agencies take to make sure that 504 Teams are aware of the protections afforded to students with
disabilities under Section 504, the AT services that are available to those students, and the agency
processes to provide them.
● 504 teams reference approved guidance and resources to support the decision making process
for making reasonable student accommodations within the agency.
● AT accommodations are identified as an option for all students eligible for 504 protection.
● Teams are aware of potential AT tools readily available within the agency and acquire additional
AT when it is needed.
● Teams are aware and follow a process for acquiring recommended AT in a timely manner.
2. Determination of needs for AT devices and services as an Accommodation: The Determination
area describes the steps an agency takes to identify and document the need for student AT
devices and services as an accommodation to access FAPE.
● 504 decisions regarding the need for AT devices and services are based on equal access to
curricular and extracurricular activities, and progress in the general education curriculum.
● 504 accommodation decisions including those related to AT are made through a deliberate and
collaborative decision making process that includes the use information provided by educators,
students, and family members such as:
○ formative assessments,
○ diagnostic assessments,
○ observation information,
Marsters, A. & Bowser, G., (2018)
Acquired from http://qiat-ps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Quality-Indicators-for-AT-within-Section-504-FINAL.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 74
○ annual assessments,
○ classroom work samples and,
○ previous use of AT or AT trials.
● 504 team members have the collective knowledge and skills needed to make informed AT
decisions and seek assistance when needed.
● AT is clearly documented as an accommodation within the 504 plan.
3. Planning and Implementation: The Planning and Implementation area describes actions that a 504
team must take to make sure that students are able to use AT devices as accommodations in
classrooms and other school settings.
● Everyone who works with the student knows how, when and where the AT accommodations
will be used.
● AT implementation is documented in a collaboratively developed 504 plan.
● The 504 plan is widely disseminated to the student’s teachers and others who are responsible
for making sure the plan is implemented.
● The student, family and staff have the information and training they need to ensure the student
can effectively use the AT identified in the 504 plan.
● AT accommodations are integrated into the curriculum and routinely used by the student in
relevant daily activities across environments.
● The 504 team facilitates problem solving and coordination when the student experiences
challenges using AT and/or current AT devices and services are not providing adequate access to
FAPE.
4. Evaluation of Effectiveness: Evaluation of effectiveness addresses activities that 504 teams engage
in to help ensure that AT is being effectively used by the student.
● The 504 team regularly reviews the effectiveness of the overall impact and effectiveness of
accommodations, including AT.
● Data are collected to provide 504 teams with a means to analyze the extent to which AT
provides student access to FAPE and to determine what changes, if any, are needed.
● Changes are made in the student’s 504 accommodations when the 504 plan review and data
indicate that changes are needed to improve student access to FAPE.
● The effectiveness and impact of the student’s use of AT and any needed changes within the 504
plan are communicated to all stakeholders, including the student and family, relevant educators,
and administration.
5. Administrative Support: This area defines the critical areas of administrative support and
leadership for developing and delivering AT services. It involves the development of policies,
procedures, and other supports necessary to improve quality of services and sustain effective AT
programs.
● The agency has written procedural guidelines for accessing and providing AT services that are
consistent with federal, state and local laws to ensure FAPE for students with disabilities served
under Section 504.
● The agency's written procedural guidelines about AT within the 504 process are broadly
disseminated.
Marsters, A. & Bowser, G., (2018)
Acquired from http://qiat-ps.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Quality-Indicators-for-AT-within-Section-504-FINAL.pdf.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 75
● The agency has a systematic process to handle grievances and complaints related to the use and
support of AT or inaccessible instructional and information technology.
● The agency employs personnel with the competencies needed to support quality AT services
within their primary areas of responsibility at all levels of the organization.
● The agency includes AT supports and services in the technology planning and budgeting process.
6. Professional Development and Training: Professional development and training describes critical
features of AT training efforts for all staff and other key players in the AT program.
● The agency provides staff with opportunities for professional development on AT including
ongoing learning opportunities that utilize local, regional, and, national resources.
● Professional development and training in AT follow research-based models for adult learning
that include multiple formats, delivered at multiple skills levels and are driven by individual
preferences and needs.
● AT professional development and training is aligned with other agency initiatives and/or
services.
● The 504 Office leads by example and offers assistive and accessible technology professional
development to all instructional staff.
7. Student Instruction About Section 504 AT Accommodations to Access FAPE: This area describes
actions an agency takes to help students enhance participation, increase self-awareness and
problem solving related to the selection and use of AT for access to FAPE.
● The agency ensures that student is actively involved in the 504 planning, implementation and
evaluation processes.
● The agency ensures that skills are explicitly taught so that the student can independently
advocate for, use and problem solve when appropriate when AT is provided as a 504
accommodation in classrooms and other school settings.
● The agency identifies an individual who the student can go to for assistance when AT is provided
as a 504 accommodation.
Our thanks to the many AT leaders who contributed to this work. We want to offer special thanks to
Janet Peters of the QIAT-PS project and , Joan Breslin-Larson, Penny Reed and Joy Zabala of the QIAT
Leadership Team for their excellent reviews and feedback during the development of the QIAT-504
Indicators.
References
"Help Everyone Use and Implement Assistive Technology Better". (n.d.). Retrieved from http://qiat-
ps.org/
34 C.F.R. Part 104. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-
34cfr104.html
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://castpublishing.org/books-
media/quality-indicators/
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Home. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.qiat.org/
Student Self-Evaluation Matrix. (n.d.).
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 76
Appendix B: Forms for
Team Process Use
SETT Scaffold For Tool Selection
Assistive Technology Implementation Plan
Sample Agreement between Parent and District for Privately Owned
Equipment
QIAT Transition Planning Worksheet
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 77
SETT Scaffold For Tool Selection – Part 1 - Identifying Tools
Develop Descriptors of an Assistive Technology Tool System that Addresses Needs and Identify Possible Tools
STUDENT: AREA OF ESTABLISHED NEED (See SETT: Part I):
STEP 1: Based on S-E-T data, enter descriptors or functions needed by the student across the shaded top row - 1 descriptor per column
STEP 2: Enter promising tools in the shaded left column - 1 tool per row
STEP 3: For each tool, note matches with descriptors and functions to help guide discussion of devices and services
USE ADDITIONAL SHEETS IF NECESSARY
Descriptors
Tools
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 78
SETT Scaffold For Tool Selection – Part 2 - Prioritizing Tools
Establish Availability and Training Needs for Promising Tools that Match Student Needs
SHORT LIST OF TOOLS
TOOL
AVAILABILITY
SERVICES (training, planning, coordination, etc.) REQUIRED
FOR EFFECTIVE USE
JUSTIFY CHOICES WITH SETT DATA AND
DESCRIPTOR MATCH
S
P
A
STUDENT
STAFF
FAMILY
KEY: S= Systemically available tools - Currently available to ALL students served by this system
P= Programmatically available through special education services or other services for which this student is qualified
A= Additional tools that need to be acquired for this student.
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 79
Assistive Technology Implementation Plan
Student Name: ___________________________________ Grade: ________________ DOB: _____________________ Date Plan Written: _________________
School: ___________________________ District: ________________________ Plan Review Date: _________________________________________________
Tasks
Tools/Strategies
Where is it used?
Additional Comments
(e.g., set up needs, supervision level, restrictions, etc.)
Related
IEP
Goal(s)
Team Members
Name
Role
Contact Info (i.e., phone & email)
Name
Role
Contact Info (i.e., phone & email)
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 80
Student Name: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Date Plan Written: _________________
<<Tool>>
Manufacturer
Model Number
Serial Number
Version
Installation Code
Warranty
Purchase Date
Purchaser
Owner
Purchased From
Cost
Routine Maintenance
What needs to be maintained (e.g., batteries, ink, charging)?
Responsible Team Member
Team Member to Contact for
Training
Team Member to Contact for
Customization
Repairs
Team Member to Coordinate Repair
Repair Contact Info (e.g., manufacturer or reseller)
Funding Source for Repairs
Contingency Plan (Short Term and Long Term)
<<Tool>>
Manufacturer
Model Number
Serial Number
Version
Installation Code
Warranty
Purchase Date
Purchaser
Owner
Purchased From
Cost
Routine Maintenance
What needs to be maintained (e.g., batteries, ink, charging)?
Responsible Team Member
Team Member to Contact for
Training
Team Member to Contact for
Customization
Repairs
Other Considerations
©Joy Zabala (Revised 2005) PERMISSION TO USE OR MODIFY GRANTED IF CREDITS ARE MAINTAINED
SETT forms and additional resources are available for download at http://www.joyzabala.com.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 81
Team Member to Coordinate Repair
Repair Contact Info (e.g., manufacturer or reseller)
Funding Source for Repairs
Contingency Plan (Short Term and Long Term)
Developed by Gayl Bowser.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 82
Sample Agreement between Parent and District
To Use Privately Owned Augmentative
Communication Equipment at School
EFFECTIVE DATES OF AGREEMENT
TO ____
STUDENT NAME:
PARENT/GUARDIAN NAME:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
SCHOOL: XPS ID#:
DESCRIPTION OF PRIVATELY OWNED AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT:
DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT’S OFFER OF FAPE REGARDING AUGMENTATIVE COMMUNICATION:
1. ”Privately owned equipment” means augmentative communication equipment owned by the
parent(s) or augmentative communication equipment not owned by the parent(s) but provided by
the parent for the student to use at school.
2. I, the undersigned, agree with XXX Public Schools (XPS) that my child may use at school the
privately owned equipment described above.
Developed by Gayl Bowser.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 83
3. I agree that XPS will not be responsible for any damage or loss of any privately owned equipment
while such equipment is in the care, custody or control of XPS.
4. XPS agrees that it will take reasonable precautions to protect the privately owned equipment but
that it is in no way responsible for damage to or loss of this equipment.
5. XPS staff have explained to me that the school is required to offer my child a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) under the law which includes providing necessary augmentative
communication equipment. I understand that the District’s offer of a FAPE for augmentative
communication equipment is described above. I also understand that the privately owned equipment
I am authorizing my child to use at school may be more technologically advanced than that which the
District is required to provide to my child under the law.
6. I understand that at any time I may revoke my consent for my child’s use of privately owned
equipment at school and that this revocation must be in writing. I may then request that XXPS
provide appropriate augmentative communication equipment to my child in accordance with the law.
I understand that the augmentative communication equipment XXPS offers may be different than
and may be a lower level of technology than the privately owned equipment my child has been using
at school.
7. I agree that XXX Public School staff have sole authority to decide how the privately owned
equipment is used at school.
8. I understand that this Agreement will be in effect until my child’s annual IEP meeting. At that
time, a new Agreement will need to be executed by me and the District in order for my child to
continue to use privately owned equipment at school.
______________________________________________ _________________________
Signature of Parent or Guardian Date Signed
______________________________________________ _________________________
Signature of Authorized District Staff Date Signed
______________________________________________
Position of Authorized District Staff
QIAT Leadership Team, 2013.
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/resources/Transition_Planning_Worksheet.pdf
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 84
QIAT Transition Planning Worksheet for AT Users
www.qiat.org
Student __________________________________ Age ________________ Date ____________
Indicate Transition: Early Childhood to School Program to Program
School to School School to Post Secondary
Persons completing this worksheet ________________________________________________
Name of Program and/or School
Current Placement & Services:
Future Setting & Services:
Name the primary point of contact (e.g., services coordinator, supervisor, etc.) with contact
information (e.g., phone number, email address, etc.).
Current Setting:
Future Setting:
General Transition Tasks to be Completed
Person
Date
Adults observe in future setting
Student/family visit to future setting
Meeting between staff from both settings
Arrange enrollment in needed non-school services (e.g., DD, VR)
Other:
Device Specific Tasks to be Completed
Name/type of AT Used: ______________________________________
Person
Date
Arrange transfer of technology including manuals, service records
Create artifacts to demonstrate current level of use and independence
(e.g., video tape, work samples, etc.)
Identify any new technology that may be needing in future setting
Identify sources of funding for new technology
Identify person(s) to do troubleshooting in future setting
Other:
Services Needed in Future Setting
(e.g., OT, PT, Speech/Language, transportation, medical, etc.)
Person
Date
QIAT Leadership Team, 2013.
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/resources/Transition_Planning_Worksheet.pdf
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 85
AT Skills to Increase Student Independence —
To be included in IEP as necessary
Device specific use/operational skills: Knowing how to operate the technology
Functional Use Skills: Using AT to accomplish meaningful tasks across settings
Strategic Skills: Choosing the right tool for a specific task
Social Skills: Using technology effectively and appropriately around other people
AT Skills to Increase Student Self Determination —
To be Included in IEP as necessary
Choice-making:
Decision-making:
Problem-solving:
Goal setting/attainment:
Self-regulation/self-management:
Self-advocacy/leadership
QIAT Leadership Team, 2013.
Acquired from https://qiat.org/docs/resources/Transition_Planning_Worksheet.pdf
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 86
Transition to Post-Secondary Settings
Coordinated Plan for Transition Activities Summary
Transition planning teams should consider how the student’s current or future AT use will impact success
in each of these transition areas.
Instruction - Is instruction needed to prepare the student for new settings? Is the current AT
appropriate? Will additional devices or services be needed for new settings?
Related Services - Is there a need for additional related services to prepare the student for post-
secondary life? Are the current related services supporting AT use needed in future settings? Who will
provide these? How can the student/family connect with necessary services?
Community Experiences - What opportunities need to be provided for the student to use AT in
community experiences to prepare for post-secondary life, including government, socialization,
recreation, banking, transportation, etc.?
Employment - If AT will be used as part of the student’s employability, what services and strategies
need to be considered? What activities using AT are needed to develop work related skills, including job
seeking and retention skills, career exploration and paid employment?
Post-school Adult Living - What activities will be needed to prepare the student to use his AT in
developing independence in adult living, including accessing medical services, registering to vote,
accessing transportation, paying rent and other bills?
Daily Living Skills - What activities will be needed to prepare the student to use his AT in developing
independence in daily living, such as cooking, dressing, shopping, maintaining health and hygiene,
housekeeping, etc.?
Functional Vocational Evaluation - How is the use of AT incorporated into the vocational
evaluation? Do the evaluation results indicate a need for continued use of AT or the use of new AT?
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 87
References
Federal Register (2006). 71(156), 46547. Retrieved from
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/20060814-Part_B_regulations.pdf#page=9
AbleData (n.d.). AbleData tools and technologies to enhance life, National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research. Retrieved from http://www.abledata.com
Asselin, S. (2014). Learning and assistive technologies for college transition, Journal of Vocational
Rehabilitation, 40, 223–230
A.U. v. Roane County Bd. of Educ., 48 IDELR 3 (E.D.Tenn. 2007)
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)
Bowser, G., & Castillani, J. (2006). Transition Planning Assistive Technology Supports and Services,
Technology in Action, 2:3, Arlington, VA, Technology and Media Division of the Council for
Exceptional Children
Bouck, E. C., Maeda, Y., & Flanagan, S.M. (2012). Assistive Technology and Students With High-incidence
Disabilities: Understanding the Relationship Through the NLTS2, Remedial and Special
Education, 33(5), 298 –308
Bowser, G., & Reed, P. (2018). Leading the Way to Excellence in Assistive Technology Services: A Guide
for School Administrators, CAST Professional Publishing, Wakefield, MA
Brennan, J. K. (1998). AT: It takes a team. The Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 64(2), 24–28
Brody, J. M. (2004). Building bridges: Accessible technology for ALL students. The 2004 CoSN
Compendium. Retrieved from
http://www.cosn.org/Portals/7/docs/compendium/2004/Executive%20Summary/BuildingBridg
esExecSummary.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) (n.d.) What is universal design for learning? Retrieved
from http://www.cast.org/udl
Chambers, A. C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: CASE/TAM.
Day, J. N., & Huefner, D. S. (2003). AT: Legal issues for students with disabilities and their schools,
Journal of Special Education Technology, 18(2), 23–34
Edyburn, D. (1998). Part III: A map of the technology integration process. In B. Hagen (Ed.) Closing the
Gap: Computer technology for people with special needs, 1, 6, 40. Henderson, MN
Edyburn, D. L. (2000). Assistive technology and students with mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 32(9), 1–23
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 88
Edyburn, D. (2005). AT and students with mild disabilities from consideration to outcomes
measurement. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of special education
technology research and practice (239–272). Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by Design
Edyburn, D. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for
new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41
Endrew, F. v. Douglas County (U.S. Supreme Court)
Finkel, E. (2012). Buying in Bulk. District Administration, 48(1), 64
Fried-Oken, M., Bersani, H., Anctil, T & Bowser, G. (1998). TechTransmitter. Portland, OR: Oregon Health
Sciences University
Hasselbring, T. S., & Bottge, B. A. (2000). Planning and implementing technology programs in inclusive
settings. In J. D. Lindsley (Ed.), Technology and Exceptional Individuals (3rd ed.), 91–113. Austin,
TX: Pro-Ed
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), P.L. 108–446. 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et
seq.; 34 C.F.R. § 300.1 et seq.
Inge, K. J., & Shepard, J. (1995). AT applications and strategies for school system personnel. In K. F.
Flippo, K. J. Inge, & J. M. Barcus (Eds.), AT: A resource for school, work, and community, 133–
166. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
ISTE (n.d.). Technology standards for school administrators. Retrieved from
https://id.iste.org/docs/pdfs/20-14_ISTE_Standards-A_PDF.pdf
King, T. W. (1999). AT: Essential human factors. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership.
School Leadership & Management 28(1), 27–42
Lewis, R. B. (1993). Special education technology: Classroom applications. Pacific Grove, CA:
Brookes/Cole
Light, J., Beukelman, D., & Reichle, J. (2003). Communicative competence for individuals who use AAC:
From research to effective practice. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Inc.
Male, M. (2003). Technology for inclusion: Meeting the special needs of all students. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to
results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Mishra P., & Koehler, M. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher
knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108, 1017–1054. https//doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9620.2006.00684.x
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 89
Moore, B. J. (2019). The Endrew F. Standard: Ensure That an IEP Complies, ASHA Leader, 24(6), 34–35
OCALI (2013). Assistive Technology Resource Guide, OCALI, Retrieved from https://ataem.org/at-
resource-guide
Office of Educational Technology (2017). National Education Technology Plan. Retrieved from
https://tech.ed.gov/netp
Parette, H. P., & Peterson-Karlan, G. R. (2010). Using assistive technology to support the instructional
process with students with disabilities. In F. Obiakor, J. P. Bakken, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Current
issues and trends in special education: Research, technology, and teacher preparation. Advances
in special education, 20(73–89). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.
Parette, H. P., Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Wojcik, B. W., & Bardi, N. (2007). Monitor that progress! Teaching
Exceptional Children, 40(1), 22–29
Peterson-Karlan, G. R., Hourcade, J. J., Parette, H. P., & Wojcik, B. W. (2007). Special education
professionals and assistive technology: Requirements for preparation in a Digital Age. Journal of
the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 5, 68–82
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. (2012). Petit v. United States Department of
Education. Retrieved from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1598816.html
QIAT Consortium. (2012). Quality indicators for assistive technology services. Retrieved from
http://natri.uky.edu/assoc_projects/qiat/documents/qiatqualityind00.html
QIAT Leadership Team. (2015). Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology: A comprehensive guide to
assistive technology services, CAST Professional Publishing, Wakefield, MA
Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive technology and universal design for
learning: Two sides of the same coin. In D. Edyburn, K. Higgins, & R. Boone (Eds.), Handbook of
special education technology research and practice, 507–518. Whitefish Bay, WI: Knowledge by
Design
Scherer, M., MacLachlan, M., Khasnabis, C., (2018). Introduction to the special issue on the first Global
Research, Innovation, and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit and invitation to
contribute to and continue the discussions, Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology,
13(5), 435–436, Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/17483107.2018.1471170
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.
Smith, R. O. (2000). Measuring AT outcomes in education. Diagnostique, 25, 273–290
Smith, R. O., Benge, M., & Hall, M. (1994). Technology for self-care. In C. Christiansen (Ed.), Ways of
living: Self-care management for people with special needs, 379–422. Rockville, MD: American
Occupational Therapy Association Inc.
Illinois Assistive Technology Guidance Manual | 2019–20 Edition Page 90
Targett, P., Wehman, P., West, M., Dillard, C., & Cifu, G. (2013). Promoting transition to adulthood for
youth with physical disabilities and health impairments. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,
39(3), 229–239
Technology and Media Division (2005). Has assistive technology been considered? Policies, guidelines,
and strategies for including technology on individualized education plans. Technology and
Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, Arlington, VA
Tomlinson, C., & Cunningham Edison, C. (2003). Differentiation in Practice: A resource Guide for
Differentiating Curriculum Grades K-5, ASCD, Alexandria, VA
U.S. Department of Education (2006). Letter to Honorable Judd Gregg, 48 IDELR 17 , Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/revpolicy/tpspedrel.html
U. S. Department of Education (2017). National educational technology plan for 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
Ubben, L., & Hughes, L. (1997). The principal. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon
Wehmeyer, M. & Field, S.L. (2007). Self-determination: Instructional and assessment strategies, 58.
Thousand Oaks, CA, Corwin Press
Wojcik, B. W. (2005). AT for students with behavior and emotional difficulties. Paper presented at the
Illinois Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders Winter Conference, Niles, IL
Wojcik, B. W. (2011). Voices from the field: Issues and lessons from the QIAT listserv. (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Illinois State University: Normal, IL
Zabala, J., Bowser, G., & Korsten, J. (December 2004/January 2005). SETT and ReSETT: Concepts for AT
implementation. Closing the Gap, 23(5), 10–11
