1997 IDEA Amendments: Assistive Technology
In the State Education Department policy memo 97-06, Lawrence Gloeckler writes: "On June 4, 1997, President Clinton signed Congressional bill S171 which reauthorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The amendments are substantial and represent a historic turning point for educational services to children with disabilities and their families. They are also remarkably similar to the Special Education reform proposal set forth by the New York State Board of Regents.
As a result of these amendments, the law now focuses on improving educational achievement and ensuring the success of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. It emphasizes participation in statewide and district assessment programs and requires States to report the results to the U.S. Department of Education and the public. Finally, it severs the relationship between federal funding and the number of students identified."
The section on assistive technology in the new IDEA is as follows:
"Sec.614(d) Individualized Education Programs
c. Development of IEP -- IEP Team shall:
(1) consider for child whose behavior impedes learning, interventions, strategies, and supports, including behavior management plans, to address behavior;
(2) consider for limited - English proficient child, language needs;
(3) for child who is blind or visually impaired, provide Braille instruction, unless Team determines that use of Braille is not appropriate;
(4) consider for all children, communication needs;
(5) consider for deaf or hard of hearing children, language and communication needs, opportunities for communication in child's language and communication mode, including direct instruction in that mode; and,
(6) consider whether child needs assistive technology devices and services."
Proposed Rules: A Commentary from Dr. Joel Mittler, NYCEC Governing Board Representative, October 24, 1997
While the law says that the IEP team must "consider" AT devices and services, this statement appears in the proposed rules:
"(c) Statement in IEP. If, in considering the special factors described in paragraph (a) (1) and (2) of this section, the IEP team determines that a child needs a particular device or service (including an intervention, accommodation, or other program modification) in order for the child to receive FAPE, the IEP team must include a statement to
that effect in the child's IEP." (page 55090)
"(1) Where the devices or services refer to Assistive Technology devices and services (as well as other interventions, accommodations and program modification), and where the special factors refer to
(i) The strengths of the child and the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; and
(ii) The results of the initial or most recent evaluation of the child.
(2) Consideration of special factors. The IEP team also shall--
(i) In the case of a child whose behavior impedes his or her learning or that of others, consider, if appropriate, strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address that behavior;
(ii) In the case of a child with limited English proficiency, consider the language needs of the child as these needs relate to the child's IEP;
(iii) In the case of a child who is blind or visually impaired, provide for instruction in Braille and the use of Braille unless the IEP team determines, after an evaluation of the child's reading and writing skills, needs, and appropriate reading and writing media (including an evaluation of the child's future needs for instruction in Braille or the use of Braille), that instruction in Braille or the use of Braille is not appropriate for the child;
(iv) Consider the communication needs of the child, and in the case of a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, consider the child's language and communication needs, opportunities for direct communications with peers and professional personnel in the child's language and communication mode, academic level, and full range of needs, including opportunities for direct instruction in the child's language and communication mode;"
A bit closer to desired language, but the law only says consider, not defend, not explain, not assume and then prove otherwise.
So, we still have a permissive section on Assistive Technology, but they must consider it for all, and if they determine Assistive Technology's need for the child to receive FAPE, then they must include a statement to that effect.
The lack of a statement, and resulting lack of an Assistive Technology determination, it seems to me, need not be defended. They need not "prove" they considered Assistive Technology, nor prove that they did find it unnecessary.
Assistive Technology is included in a section of law that talks about special factors, quoted above. I'm not sure these factors relate to one another, and in the law, they just seemed to be put there in a section as factors to be considered. But the proposed regulations seem to try to group them. Thus, the section seems confusing in trying to put all those factors together.
Bottom line: If the IEP teams determines that Assistive Technology is necessary for FAPE, it must be provided and the IEP team must consider it. This is a little clearer than the past, but not much stronger!
For access to the proposed rules, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN to request a copy of them.