Assistive Technology in the IEP: Evaluation Guide

Quick Answer

The IEP Team must consider whether a student needs assistive technology, but consideration does not mean every student needs a formal AT evaluation or high-tech device. Start with the student, environment, tasks, and functional barriers; collect trial data when needed; then document the device, service, training, and implementation the team determines are required.

AT consideration should begin with a functional barrier, not a device name. Ask what task the student is trying to complete, in which environment, what current supports already do, and what feature would improve access or participation. IDEA requires AT consideration, but that is not the same as requiring a formal AT evaluation for every student or choosing high-tech equipment. The record should make the functional need and any trial evidence visible.

What a strong AT consideration process includes

AT consideration asks whether a device and any necessary AT services are required for the student to receive FAPE; the device itself is not an annual goal. If AT supports a goal, the goal should still measure the student’s educational outcome—communication, writing output, access, independence, or another observable skill—while the IEP separately documents the device/service and implementation details.

Federal anchors: the IEP Team must consider whether the child needs AT under 34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(v), and AT must be made available when required under §300.105.

Student — strengths, access needs, current skills: What the learner can do now. Environment — classroom/home/community demands: Where the tool must work. Tasks — specific reading, writing, communication, mobility tasks: What performance must improve. Tools — features/devices/services to try: Selected after the first three are understood.

For AT, the useful record is functional: identify the task barrier, the environments in which it occurs, what supports are already available, and what happened during any no-tech, low-tech, or higher-tech trials. If the team selects AT, document the device and necessary services such as training, setup, maintenance, or staff support clearly enough that implementation does not depend on one person remembering the discussion.

Once the functional barrier is clear, cross-check whether the support belongs under accommodations versus modifications, related services, and PLAAFP writing.

How to get a baseline

Start with the functional barrier, not a device wish list. Document the student, environment, tasks, and current tools/supports: what the student is trying to do, where the breakdown occurs, what has already been tried, and how independently the task is completed.

Collect work samples or observations with and without existing supports when that comparison is educationally appropriate. For writing, you might compare amount and quality of output across handwriting, keyboarding, or speech-to-text trials. For communication, record access, initiation, repair, and partner support across real routines rather than a single demonstration.

The U.S. Department of Education’s 2024 AT guidance emphasizes that the IEP Team must consider AT whenever it develops, reviews, or revises an IEP, but a formal AT evaluation is not automatically required before a device or service can be provided. When the team lacks enough information to choose an appropriate device or service, a functional AT evaluation may be part of the next step. See the Department’s AT guidance.

Example AT consideration decisions

The examples below illustrate how a team might document consideration and access needs; any annual goal that accompanies AT use must still be individualized from the student’s own baseline, tasks, and support data.

Use the examples to see how functional comparison data can be documented. The team still decides which access barrier, trial condition, device feature, service support, and follow-up measure fit the student's actual tasks and environments.

Access trial — Given a 500-word digital passage, compare comprehension and completion time with standard print versus text-to-speech across three matched samples. (Condition: matched reading tasks | Behavior: compare performance under two access conditions | Criterion: three comparable trials) How to measure: accuracy, time, and student effort notes.

Writing access — Compare a handwritten paragraph with a word-processed or speech-to-text sample using the same prompt and rubric. (Condition: same writing prompt and rubric | Behavior: compare output and quality | Criterion: at least three samples when feasible) How to measure: rubric, word count, editing independence.

Communication — During authentic classroom routines, record whether a student can initiate, respond, and repair communication with current supports before considering additional communication tools. (Condition: authentic communication routines | Behavior: measure functional communication access | Criterion: repeated opportunities across settings) How to measure: opportunity log and team observation.

Organization — Trial a digital reminder or visual scheduling tool and record independent task starts and missed deadlines before and during the trial. (Condition: same classes and deadlines | Behavior: measure initiation and completion | Criterion: compare baseline and trial periods) How to measure: assignment tracker and latency data.

Vision/access — Compare access to enlarged, high-contrast, audio, or other appropriately selected formats based on evaluation and student needs rather than assuming one format fits all. (Condition: matched instructional materials | Behavior: measure access and accuracy | Criterion: document which features improve performance) How to measure: work sample and observation.

IEP documentation — If the team determines AT is needed for FAPE, document the device and necessary services or supports in the appropriate IEP sections and define who will train, maintain, and support use. (Condition: team determination of need | Behavior: document AT device and service supports | Criterion: specific enough for implementation) How to measure: IEP review and implementation checks.

When additional AT assessment makes sense

Request or conduct more focused AT assessment when the team cannot answer key functional questions with existing information. Signs include repeated failure of ordinary accommodations to provide access, a large gap between what the student knows and what the student can produce, communication barriers across settings, excessive adult dependence for routine school tasks, or a tool that works in one setting but not another.

The assessment process should be feature-focused. Instead of asking “Does the student need an iPad?” ask whether the student needs text-to-speech, word prediction, alternative access, symbol-based communication, auditory output, visual scheduling, or another functional feature. Trial more than one option when reasonable and collect comparable performance data.

Also plan for implementation. Identify who will train the student and staff, how the tool will be available across relevant settings, what happens when it fails, and how data will show whether it remains effective.

Include the student in AT trials whenever appropriate. Comfort, portability, stigma, speed of setup, and willingness to use a tool can affect real-world access even when a device performs well in a controlled trial. Student feedback should supplement—not replace—observable performance data.

Compare performance with and without the support

An AT trial is most useful when the team compares the same meaningful task under two conditions rather than asking whether the student “likes the device.” For a writing concern, compare independent output, time to completion, error pattern, and prompt level with the usual tools and with the proposed support. For communication or access, record whether the support increases successful opportunities across actual routines. A tool that improves speed but creates heavy adult dependence may not solve the access problem. Keep the trial tied to the student’s educational tasks, environments, and barriers, then document what changed and what did not.

How to write the matching present level

Describe the access problem in functional terms. Example: “During 20-minute written assignments, Sam produces an average of two legible sentences by handwriting and requires repeated scribing support; when allowed a keyboard with word prediction during a structured trial, Sam independently produces six to seven sentences with comparable idea quality.”

That present level does not predetermine a device. It gives the team evidence about the task, current performance, and what changed during a trial. If AT is selected, document the device or feature precisely enough for consistent access and include needed training or technical assistance when the team determines those services are required.

Progress monitoring

Measure the educational outcome the AT is intended to support, not whether the device was merely present. Track access, independence, accuracy, output, communication success, or task completion using the same task definition used during trials.

Also monitor implementation: availability, charging or maintenance, staff knowledge, student access across settings, and whether training occurred. The Department’s AT guidance notes that AT services can include selection, fitting, customization, coordination, and training for the student, family, and professionals when needed.

If performance is poor, separate a device mismatch from an implementation failure. A tool cannot be judged fairly when it is unavailable, inconsistently configured, or used only during isolated practice.

Common mistakes

Watch for these drafting traps:

Treating AT consideration as a checkbox with no discussion. Assuming AT means only expensive electronics. Recommending a device without identifying the task barrier. Failing to plan training and implementation. Removing a tool because the student still needs instruction. Claiming federal law requires a formal AT evaluation for every IEP.

Before closing the AT decision, verify that the IEP identifies enough implementation detail to survive staff turnover: the device or functional feature, where it is available, any required AT services or training, who supports use, and how effectiveness will be reviewed. If the team still cannot choose among options from existing data, document the need for further functional assessment rather than pretending the checkbox settled the question.

FAQ

Does every IEP have to consider assistive technology?

Yes. Under 34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(v), the IEP Team must consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services. 'Consider' does not mean the student automatically needs a device. The team should discuss the student's tasks and barriers and decide whether existing information is sufficient or whether trials, additional data, or evaluation are needed.

Does IDEA require a formal assistive technology evaluation for every student?

No. Federal IDEA requires AT consideration and requires AT to be made available when needed for FAPE, but it does not say every IEP must include a separate formal AT evaluation. A team may request or conduct an evaluation when the available information is not enough to determine needs or identify an effective feature match.

Can assistive technology be low-tech?

Yes. AT is not limited to tablets, software, or sophisticated devices. Depending on the student's need, useful tools can include low-tech visual, writing, positioning, communication, or organizational supports. The team's focus should stay on the functional task and the features the student needs, not on whether the solution looks technologically advanced.

Where does assistive technology go in the IEP?

AT can be provided as part of special education, related services, or supplementary aids and services when required, depending on the student's need and how the IEP is organized. Write the device or service clearly enough that staff understand what must be available, where it is used, and what training or support is necessary.

What data should a team collect during an AT trial?

Compare performance on the actual task: accuracy, speed, output, independence, fatigue, communication success, or another relevant measure. Also record setup time, prompts, environments, and student usability. A tool that improves a one-time trial but is not available, acceptable, or sustainable in daily instruction may not solve the access problem.

Need goals customized to your student?

Paste your assessment data and generate an IDEA-compliant, individualized goal in seconds.

Try it free →