Assistive Technology in Special Education
A free, appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided to children and youth with disabilities when they are able to participate in the general education environment to extent that they are capable, given accommodations, instruction, and support that is indicated on their individual education plans. The federal definition of FAPE includes these two important concepts: 1) The free public education must be appropriate in that it is designed to meet the unique academic and functional needs of the individual student, in a manner that enables them to access the general education curriculum and grade-level standards of the state educational agency (SEA); 2) the free, appropriate public education must be provided according to the IEP and must be reasonably formulated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.
The ability to communicate is an essential human characteristic for meaningful participation in society. Communication is basic to academic instruction and is also important to functional training. Students must be able to understand instruction and they should be able to comment and participate by using their voice, sign language, or an assistive device. Students with disabilities need to be able to participate in their IEP process, as well as in their...
Without the assistive technology (AT) they needs, students with substantially impaired communication won't have a voice in their own educational processes or IEP development and evaluation. This is unconscionable.
One major problem is that the federal law gives considerable discretion to the State Educational Agencies (SEAs) and the Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) with regard to meeting the letter of this law. States with legislation like that in Texas miss the spirit of the law in ways that can negatively impact students and their families. Prior to the case of Rowley vs. The New York Board of Education, the Courts held that the FAPE provisions of the federal law, Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, just required public schools and districts to make educational programs accessible to people with disabilities.
The law did not go so far as to require that public education provide the individual educational services that would " maximize each child's potential commensurate with the opportunities provided other children" ("Rowley vs. Board of Education," 1982). Many variables are factored into a decision to provide assistive technology to a student with disabilities, and to include the AT device in the student's IEP. The federal law tolerates…
