Assistive technology (AT) devices and services must be considered every time a student's individualized education program (IEP) is developed, reviewed, or revised. That responsibility still applies as schools adopt artificial intelligence (AI) and other digital tools.
AT includes tools that help a child who has a disability do tasks such as writing, reading, or communicating with others. AT services help the child choose and use those tools and can include training for students and parents on how to use the AT tool, repairs, and other support.
U.S. Department of Education (ED) explained this in its January 2024 guidance, Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services and the Dear Colleague letter accompanying it.
This is supported by § 300.324(a)(2)(v), which states each IEP team must "consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services consider" and by § 300.324(b)(2), which states, "in conducting a review of the child’s IEP, the IEP Team must consider the special factors described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section."
What You Need to Know
IDEA Doesn’t Require Separate AT Evaluations for Every Student
A separate AT evaluation isn't required before every device or service is provided. A team may already have enough facts to choose a tool. In other cases, an AT evaluation may be needed. ED’s January 2024 Myths and Facts document gives this example:
“For example, a graphic organizer that assists a child to categorize ideas into topics, subtopics, and supporting facts generally would not require an evaluation prior to its use. An AT evaluation may be needed for a child when it comes to determining an appropriate AT device that the child would need to use throughout the school day, such as read-aloud software, or the use of peer readers during different academic periods.”
However, just because an AT evaluation isn’t required doesn't allow a school to leave a student's needs unidentified.
Parents and/or staff can request and/or propose an evaluation to determine a student's needs. For example, in Office for Civil Rights (OCR) case 01-21-1596, an alleged failure to provide an AT evaluation in a timely manner was one of the main focuses of the investigation into Greenfield Commonwealth Virtual School in Massachusetts. In this case, the evidence indicates the parent initiated the request for the evaluation.
A functional evaluation looks at how a student performs in daily settings. ED says it may:
"include observations of the child’s interactions across different locations in school and at home and identify strengths and weaknesses the child has in completing tasks. This evaluation can provide data and information to determine when and why an AT device and service is needed and could then be matched with an appropriate AT device and service based on the child’s needs."
IEP Teams Need People Who Know About AT and AI
IEP team members are required to make decisions regarding a student's needs for AT devices and/or services. The Myths and Facts document provides the following reminder:
"[I]f IEP Team members lack knowledge about AT options to support the child’s needs, they must engage other individuals who are knowledgeable about AT options in the decision-making process."
The IEP Must State the Help A Student Will Receive
Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(a)(4), IEPs must include:
"a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to enable the child—(i) To advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; (ii) To be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and (iii) To be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in the activities. . ."
To achieve all of this, IEP teams have to make informed decisions. While they might not be required to propose AT evaluations, they are required to identify and address the unique needs of students. This may require observing the student, collecting data related to the student, and administering evaluations to determine the needs of the student.
A Device May Not Be Enough
Jan. 6, 2025, a federal district court in Pennsylvania ruled in C.B. v. Nazareth Area School District. The student in this case used an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device to communicate. Although the device was available, staff didn't consistently demonstrate its use.
The school district argued that the IEP didn’t require staff to show the student how to use the device. The court noted that the IEP left out that support:
“While the IEP contained a “Guide to AAC Device Programming and Use,” it did not require modeling of the device.”
The court treated that omission as a flaw in the IEP, not as an acceptable reason to avoid modeling use. The court’s decision states:
“Successful use of the AAC device requires consistent modeling throughout the day with various communication partners.”
Required AT must be provided without charging the family. School-purchased devices must also be available at home or in other settings when the IEP team finds that access is needed for a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Parents and students may need training to use the device or its programs.
AI Can Qualify as Assistive Technology
IDEA defines an AT device by what it does for a child with a disability. Under § 300.5, 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. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.”
Under this definition, AI software may count as AT. The team must look at what it does for the student and whether it is needed.
For example, a student who struggles with executive functioning might use ChatGPT to break a long-term assignment into smaller tasks and create a schedule. For a research paper, the student could enter the deadline and available work time, then ask ChatGPT to suggest dates for choosing a topic, finding sources, drafting, and revising. The student would then review it with the teacher and adjust it as needed. *This is actually a chunking goal that can help a student learn to chunk long-term projects independently, but with the guardrails of having a teacher check the timeline until the student achieves the goal. In this case, AI, instead of the teacher, would help create the initial schedule.
July 22, 2025, ED issued guidance on using federal grant money for AI. It said grant funds could support AI uses that fit each program's rules.
The guidance lists five principles for responsible AI use:
“• Educator-led: AI should support teachers, providers, tutors, advisors, and education leaders.
“• Ethical: Within the K-12 realm in particular, educators should help students navigate AI to be able to evaluate the validity of AI outputs, to understand the appropriate use of AI in the context of social media, to learn with – rather than exclusively from – AI, and to leverage the promise of AI to be contributing members of a free society.
“• Accessible: AI tools or systems should be accessible for those who require digital accessibility accommodations, including children, educators, providers, and family members with disabilities.
“• Transparent and explainable: Stakeholders, especially parents, should understand how systems function and participate meaningfully in decisions about the adoption and deployment of new technologies.
“• Data-protective: Systems must comply with federal privacy laws including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.”
ED’s AI grant priority published April 13, 2026, includes special education, related services, and universal design for learning.
AI Supports Don't Replace Needed Teaching
An AI tool may provide help, but can’t replace needed instruction. The IEP team should identify the disability-related need AI would address and determine whether it helps the student access instruction, communicate, or demonstrate learning.
If the team determines that the tool is needed for the student to receive a FAPE, the IEP must document the required support. The school must also provide any AT services the student needs to use it, including training for the student, family, or staff when needed.
Feb. 3, 2025, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals issued its ruling for the case of William A. v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System. It upheld an award of 888 hours of extra reading instruction to make up for education William had been denied. He had finished high school with a 3.4 grade-point average but still couldn’t read.
The court described his use of ChatGPT, speech-to-text software, and Grammarly to complete written work:
“William graduated from high school without being able to read or even to spell his own name. That was because, per the terms of his IEPs, he relied on a host of accommodations that masked his inability to read. To write a paper, for example—as the ALJ described—William would first dictate his topic into a document using speech-to-text software. He then would paste the written words into an AI software like ChatGPT. Next, the AI software would generate a paper on that topic, which William would paste back into his own document. Finally, William would run that paper through another software program like Grammarly, so that it reflected an appropriate writing style. Not all these workarounds were specifically listed in his IEP, but all were enabled by an accommodation that was: 24 extra hours to complete all assignments, which allowed William to complete his assignments at home, using whatever technology tools he could find.”
Students Must Be Able to Use Digital Class Materials
April 24, 2024, Department of Justice (DOJ) published a web access rule that applies to public schools under Title II of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
DOJ set specific requirements for web content and mobile apps because they can create barriers for people with disabilities if they aren’t accessible. DOJ provided the following example:
“For example, individuals who are blind may use a screen reader to deliver visual information on a website or mobile app as speech. A state or local government might post an image on its website that provides information to the public. If the website does not include text describing the image (sometimes called “alternative text” or “alt text”), individuals who are blind and who use screen readers may have no way of knowing what is in the image because a screen reader cannot “read” an image.”
April 2026, DOJ extended the deadlines. School districts with populations of at least 50,000 must comply by April 26, 2027. Smaller districts have until April 26, 2028.
Schools still have duties under ADA before those dates. They must provide equal access, ways to communicate that work, and reasonable changes to their practices when needed.
Phone and Screen Policies Must Account for Students’ Needs
ED’s December 2024 Planning Together: A Playbook for Student Personal Device Policies guidance addresses school rules for personal devices. Some students need a device to receive a FAPE or take part in school. General phone rules must allow for those needs
ED’s Aug. 20, 2026, Dear Colleague letter urges schools to judge tools by how they help students learn:
“Technology also increases access for students whose education needs require additional supports. Students with disabilities often rely on assistive technologies such as text-to-speech, speech-to text, real-time captioning, and visual supports to access grade-level instruction. Virtual tutoring, adaptive instructional programs, and digital learning resources can provide individualized services, timely feedback, and additional instructional support that complements high-quality classroom teaching.
“These examples illustrate why education technology should not be evaluated solely by the amount of time students spend using it. The same technology that can distract a student during recreational use can also connect a student in a rural community to advanced coursework, enable a student with dyslexia to access complex text through assistive technology, or allow a homebound student to remain engaged in classroom learning. The core question remains whether a given technology strengthens instruction, expands opportunity, and improves student learning.”
Digital Safety Goals
ED’s January 2025 “Students with Disabilities Online” guidance asks schools to plan for online risks. These include bullying and threats to privacy. It suggests staff training and lessons that students with disabilities can use. It also asks schools to check that digital tools work with AT.
The guidance suggests involving IEP or Section 504 teams in goals for students when needed:
“What measurable goals have you established for the digital health, safety, citizenship, and mental well-being of students?
“When determining these measures, consider goals and objectives that address both the reduction in negative incidents against students with disabilities as well as strategies that increase their digital health, safety and mental well-being. When appropriate, include IEP and Section 504 team members in developing goals for specific students who utilize digital learning as part of their education.”
Parents Can Ask for the Decision and Its Basis in Writing
If a school refuses an AT evaluation, it must give the parent prior written notice. The same rule applies when it refuses an AT support as part of the child's FAPE.
The notice must explain what the school refused and why. It must list the information used and the other options considered. It must also explain why those options were rejected and tell parents about their rights. The notice must use language the public can understand.