Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams are required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to consider a student’s need for assistive technology (AT). Despite this legal requirement, AT supports are often not available to students with disabilities. Many students with disabilities and their families have addressed the failure to consider and provide AT supports through litigation. The purpose of this article is to examine the case law pertaining to the assessment, selection, and provision of AT learning supports for students with disabilities. A legal analysis was conducted to determine litigation themes. Based on these results, several recommendations for IEP teams are proposed.
Ada-Borup Independent School District #2854, 49 IDELR 55 (SEA MN2007)
2.
A.L. v. Chicago Public School District, No. 299, 57 IDELR 276 (ND IL2011).
3.
Anoka-Hennepin Independent School District #011, 48 IDELR 202 (SEA MN2007).
4.
Antelope Valley Union High School District, 110 LRP 33085 (SEA CA2010).
5.
A.S. and W.S. v. Trumbull Board of Education, 45 IDELR 40 (D.C. CT2006).
6.
Bethel Local School District, 59 IDELR 210 (SEA OH2012).
7.
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, 34 IDELR 163 (SEA NY2000).
8.
Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176 (1982).
9.
BouckE. C.MaedaY.FlanaganS. M. (2011). Assistive technology and students with high-incidence disabilities: Understanding the relationship. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 298–308.
10.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.MuhlA. (2013). Using audio recorders to promote independence in grocery shopping for students with intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 15–26.
11.
BruceD.DiCesareD. M.KaczorowskiT.HasheyA.BoydE.MixonT.SullivanM. (2013). Multimodal composing in special education: A review of the literature. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 25–42.
12.
CampbellPh. H.MilbourneS.DuganL. M.WilcoxM. J. (2006). A review of evidence on practices for teaching young children to use assistive technology devices. Teaching Early Childhood Special Education, 26, 3–13.
13.
Carlsbad Unified School District, 59 IDELR 87 (SEA CA2012).
14.
C.B. v. Pittsford Central School District, 54 IDELR 149 (WD NY2010).
15.
Center for Applied Technology. (2011). Universal design for learning guidelines (Version 2.0). Wakefield, MA: CAST.
16.
Chaffey Joint Union High School District, 59 IDELR 287 (SEA CA2012).
17.
ClaesC.Van HoveG.VandeveldeS.van LoonJ.SchalockR. L. (2012). The influence of support strategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality-of-life-related personal outcomes. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 96–103.
18.
Clark County School District, 111 LRP 60397 (SEA NV2011).
19.
Clark County School District, 63 IDELR 302 (SEA NV2013).
20.
CleesT. J.GreeneE. B. (2014). Discriminative stimulus social skills training: The effects of video-based exemplars of teacher requests on the compliance of students with behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 1–15.
21.
Collier County School Board, 44 IDELR 80 (SEA FL 2005).
22.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
CummingT. M.Draper-RodriguezD. (2013). Integrating the iPad into language arts instruction for students with disabilities: Engagement and perspectives. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 43–52.
24.
Cupertino Union School District, 112 LRP 1307 (SEA CA2011).
25.
DayJ. N.HuefnerD. S. (2003). Assistive technology: Legal issues for students with disabilities and their schools. Journal of Special Education Technology, 18, 23–34.
26.
DesidenL.RoentgenU.HoogerventE. J.de WhiteL. (2013). Recommending assistive technology for children with multiple disabilities: A systematic evaluation and qualitative synthesis of models and instruments for AT professionals. Technology and Disability, 23, 3–13.
27.
Doe ex rel. Doe v. Board of Education of Tullahoma City Schools, 20 IDELR 617 (6th Cir.1993).
28.
DouglasK. H.UpholdN. M. (2014). iPad or iPod touch: Evaluating self-created electronic photographic activity schedules and student preferences. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 1–14.
29.
DyalA.CarpenterL. G.WrightJ. V. (2009). Assistive technology: What every school leader should know. Education, 129(3), 556–560.
30.
East Whittier City Elementary School District, 34 IDELR 49 (SEA CA2000).
31.
EdyburnD. (2013). Critical issues in advancing the special education technology evidence base. Exceptional Children, 80, 7–24.
32.
El Paso Independent School District, 38 IDELR 26 (SEA TX2002).
33.
Eric H. v. Methacton School District, 38 IDELR 182 (E.D. PA2003).
34.
FisherK. W.ShogrenK. A. (2012). Integrating augmentative and alternative communication and peer support for students with disabilities: A social ecological perspective. Journal of Special Education Technology, 27, 23–39.
35.
FitzgeraldG.KouryK.MitchemK. (2008). Research on computer-mediated instruction for students with high incidence disabilities. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38, 201–233.
36.
Flour Bluff Independent School District, 37 IDELR 47 (SEA TX2002).
37.
Fort Bend Independent School District, 34 IDELR 246 (SEA TX2001).
38.
GilletteY.DepompeiR. (2008). Do PDAs enhance the organization and memory skills of students with cognitive disabilities?Psychology in the Schools, 45, 665–677.
39.
Glendora Unified School District, 49 IDELR 172 (SEA CA2007).
40.
Hillsboro School District 1 J, 114 LRP 20386 (SEA OR2014).
41.
HouchinsD. E. (2009). Assistive technology barriers and facilitators during secondary and post-secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 73–88.
42.
Houston Independent School District, 34 IDELR 165 (SEA TX2000).
43.
In re: Student with a Disability, 56 IDELR 120 (SEA NY2011).
44.
In re: Student with a Disability, 59 IDELR 27 (SEA IA2012a).
45.
In re: Student with a Disability, 112 LRP 13318 (SEA ND2012b).
46.
In re: Student with a Disability, 12 ECLPR 16 (SEA NY2014).
47.
Jefferson County School District R-1, 39 IDELR 119 (SEA CO2003).
48.
J.S.K. v. Hendry County School Board, 18 IDELR 143, 941 F.2d 1563 (11th Cir.1991).
49.
KempC. E.ParetteH. P.HourcadeJ. J. (2001). Funding assistive technology and related health services in service settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 28, 189.
50.
Kerkam v. McKenzie, 882 F.2d 884 (D.C. Cir.1988).
51.
Kevin T. v. Elmhurst Community School District No. 205, 36 IDELR 153 (ND IL2002).
52.
KrippendorffK. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53.
LeCompteM. D.PreissleJ. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
54.
Letter to Fisher, 23 IDELR 565 (OSEP, 1995).
55.
Lessard v. Wilton-Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 592. F.3d 267 (1st Cir.2010).
56.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
57.
Los Angeles Unified School District, 46 IDELR 232 (SEA CA2006).
58.
Los Angeles Unified School District, 111 LRP 75098, (SEA CA2011).
59.
Los Angeles Unified School District, 60 IDELR 147 (SEA CA2012).
60.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61.
McMahonD. (2014). Universal design for learning features and tools on iPads and other iOS devices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 39–49.
62.
Milan Community Schools, 60 IDELR 28 (SEA IN2012).
63.
Minneapolis Special School District # 001, 62 IDELR 276 (SEA MN2013).
64.
Montgomery County Public Schools, 114 LRP 47714 (SEA MD2014).
65.
MorrisonK. (2007). Implementation of assistive computer technology: A model for school system. International Journal of Special Education, 22, 83–95.
66.
Newport-Mesa Unified School District, 11 ECLPR 55 (SEA CA2013).
67.
North Hills School District, 114 LRP 17110 (SEA PA2014).
68.
Okaloosa County School District, 114 LRP 46990 (SEA FL2014).
69.
OkoloC. M.DiedrichJ. (2014). Twenty-five years later: How is technology used in the education of students with disabilities? Results of a statewide study. Journal of Special Education Technology, 29, 1–20.
70.
PattonM. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
71.
Penn-Trafford School District, 115 LRP 7580 (SEA PA2015).
72.
Polk v. Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F .2d 171 (3rd Cir.1988).
73.
Prince George’s County Pub. Schs., 34 IDELR 95 (OCR2000).
74.
QuinnB. S.BehrmannM.MastropieriM.BauschM.AultM. J.ChungY. (2009). Who is using assistive technology in schools?Journal of Special Education Technology, 24, 1–14.
75.
R.P. v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, 60 IDELR 60 (5th Cir.2012).
76.
SchoeppK. (2005). Barriers to technology integration in a technology-rich environment. Learning and teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 2, 1–24.
77.
School Board of Independent School District No. 11, Anoka-Hennepin v. Pachl, 36 IDELR 263 (D.C. MN2002).
78.
School District of Philadelphia, 114 LRP 37532 (SEA PA2014).
79.
Sherman v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District, 39 IDELR 181, 340 F.3d 87 (2nd Cir.2003).
80.
Smith v. District of Columbia, 58 IDELR 155 (DC DC2012).
81.
Tuscaloosa City Board of Education, 34 IDELR 83 (SEA AL2000).
82.
VirnesJ.MarnaE.VellonenV. (2015). Review of research on children with autism spectrum disorder and the use of technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 30, 13–27.
83.
Warren County School District, 35 IDELR 22 (SEA PA2001).
84.
YakubovaG.Tabere-DoughtyT. (2013). Effectives of video modeling and verbal prompting on social skills embedded within a purchasing activity for students with autism. Journal of Special Education Technology, 28, 35–47.
85.
ZabalaJ. S.BowserG.BluntM.CarlD. F.DavisS.DeterdingC.…ReedP. (2000). Quality indicators for assistive technology services. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15, 25–36.
