Due in large part to the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), individualized education program (IEP) teams increasingly are identifying assistive technology (AT) for students with disabilities to ensure the provision of free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Though this law requires that AT must be considered when developing the IEP of a student with a disability, the high costs of AT devices and services may lead some IEP teams to conclude that such technology is not accessible.
IDEA remains the primary funding source for assistive technology that is identified as an educational necessity. However, because funding of AT devices and services through IDEA remains limited, school administrators, parents, and IEP team members need information on other funding resources. Alternative options and guidelines for accessing these possible additional funding resources often are not well known by school professionals. This article provides an overview of several AT funding resources, notes basic requirements for eligibility, and offers suggestions for making successful claims.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Advocacy, Inc. (1994). Your right to assistive technology: A guide for individuals with disabilities. Austin, TX: Author.
2.
Assistive Technology, Inc. (1998). Funding guide: Tips, techniques, and resources for successful funding of assistive technology. Boston, MA: Author.
BowserG., & ReedP. (1998). Education tech points: A framework for assistive technology planning. Winchester, OR: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon.
5.
ChambersA. C. (1997). Has technology been considered? A guide for IEP teams. Reston, VA: Council of Administrators of Special Education/Council for Exceptional Children.
6.
CraddockJ. A.McNealD.SomervilleN., & WilsonD. J. (1995). Tips on breaking the funding barrier: How to get assistive technology for your child. Downey, CA: Rancho Rehabilitation Engineering Program.
7.
Developmental disabilities Assistance and Bill of rights Act Amendments of 1987, P.L. 100-146. 42 U.S.C. 6000 et seq. (1987).
8.
DeWittJ. C. (1991). The role of technology in removing barriers. In WestJ. (Ed.), The Americans with Disabilities Act: From policy to practice (pp. 331–332). NY: Milbank Memorial Fund.
9.
Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment (EPSDT) Services, Final Rule, 42 CFR 441.50; 42 CFR 440.40 (1993).
10.
GalvanJ. (1998). Professional conduct and public policy. In RESNA (Ed.), Fundamentals in assistive technology (2nd ed.) (pp. 3–20). RESNA: Author.
11.
GoldenD. (1998). Assistive technology in special education: Policy and practice. Reston, VA: Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE) and the Technology and Media (TAM) Division of the Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
HagerR. M. (1999). Funding of assistive technology: The public school's special education system as a funding source: The cutting edge. Washington, D.C.: Author.
HuefnerD. S. (2000). The risks and opportunities of the IEP requirements under IDEA '97. Journal of Special Education, 33, 195–204.
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1401[25], 1997 (1997).
16.
IngeK.J., & ShepherdJ. (1995). Assistive technology applications and strategies for school system personnel. In FlippoK.F.IngeJ.J., & BarcusJ.M. (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource for school, work, and community (pp. 133–166). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
JudgeS.L. (1998). Providing access to assistive technology for young children and families. In JudgeS. L. & ParetteH. P. (Eds.), Assistive technology for young children with disabilities: A guide to providing family-centered services (pp. 1–15). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
19.
JudgeS. L., & ParetteH. P. (1998). Assistive technology decision-making strategies. In JudgeS. L. & ParetteH. P. (Eds.), Assistive technology for young children with disabilities: A guide to providing family-centered services (pp. 127–147). Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
20.
KempC.E. (1998). Parental involvement in assistive technology (AT) service delivery for students with disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
21.
MargolisL., & GoodmanS. (1998). Assistive technology services for students: What are these? (Assistive Technology Funding & Systems Change Project, Contract # HN94044001) Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Medicaid Amendments for Special Education Related Services of 1988, P.L. 100-360. 42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq. (1988).
23.
Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Amendments of 1989, P.L. 101-239. 42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq. (1989).
24.
MenloveM. (1996). A checklist for identifying funding resources for assistive technology. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28 (3), 20–24.
25.
Meyers v. Reagan, 776 F.2d 241, 243 (8th Cir. 1985).
26.
National Heritage Insurance Company. (1996). School health and related services (SHARS). Austin, TX: Author.
ParetteH. P.HofmannA., & VanBiervlietA. (1994). The professional's role in obtaining assistive technology for infants and toddlers with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(3), 22–28.
30.
ReedP., & BowserG. (2000). Assistive technology pointers for parents. Winchester, OR: Coalition for Assistive Technology in Oregon.
31.
RESNA Technical Assistance Project. (1992). Assistive technology and the individualized education program (RESNA TA Project Contract No. HN89045001). Arlington, VA: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
32.
RESNA Technical Assistance Project. (1994). Technology and the individualized education program: A primer for parents and professionals. Technology and Disability, 3, 100–108.
33.
SheldonJ. R., & HagerR. (1997). Funding assistive technology for persons with disabilities: The availability of assistive technology through Medicaid, public school special education programs, and state vocational rehabilitation agencies [On-line]. Available: http://www.mctos.com/funding.htm
34.
Social Security Act Amendments of 1965, P.L. 89-97, 42 U.S.C 101 et seq. (1965).
35.
Social Security Act Amendments of 1984, P.L. 98-369, 42 U.S.C 101 et seq. (1965).
36.
Texas Assistive Technology Partnership. (1996). The ARD and you: A parent's guide to assistive technology and the individualized program plan [Brochure]. Austin, TX: Author.
37.
Texas Department of Health. (1997). Medicaid administrative claiming: A guide for participating agencies. Austin, TX: Author.
38.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission, State Medicaid Division. (1997). Texas Medicaid in perspective (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Author
39.
TodisB. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 49–61.
40.
TodisB., & WalkerH. M. (1993). User perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(3), 1–16.
41.
TurnbullH. R., & TurnbullA. P. (1998). Free appropriate public education (5th ed.). Denver: Love.
42.
WallaceJ. F. (1995). Creative financing of assistive technology. In FlippoK.F.IngeK. J., & BarcusJ. M. (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource guide for school, work, and community (pp. 245–260). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
43.
WallaceJ. F.FlippoK. F.BarcusJ. M., & BehrmannM. M. (1995). Legislative foundation of assistive technology policy in the United States. In FlippoK. F.IngeK. J. & BarcusJ. M. (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource for school, work, and community (pp. 3–21). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
44.
Washington Assistive Technology Alliance. (1999). Paying for the assistive technology you need. A consumer guide to funding sources in Washington State [On-line]. Available: http://www.wata.org/funding/
45.
ZabalaJ. (1995). The SETT framework: Critical issues to consider when making informed assistive technology decisions. ERIC Document Reproduction Service (No. ED381 962).
