The document summarizes an evaluation process for assistive technology that includes reviewing work samples, observing the student, conducting trials of assistive technology, and interviewing with a checklist. It then discusses maintaining, repairing, and replacing assistive technology. Two legal cases are summarized, one where a school district's failure to conduct an assistive technology assessment resulted in a denial of services and another where a refusal to conduct an assessment was found not to be a denial of services. The document concludes with recommendations for clearly documenting assistive technology needs and decisions regarding iPads in Individualized Education Programs.

1. Slide 16
___________________________________
Evaluation Process
___________________________________
Review
Work
Samples
AT
Trials
AT
Assessor
___________________________________
___________________________________
Observe
Student
___________________________________
___________________________________
Interview
Checklist
16
Slide 17
___________________________________
Evaluation
___________________________________
Purchasing
Training
___________________________________
Leasing
Assistive
Technology
Services
___________________________________
Fitting
Therapies
Services
___________________________________
Customizing
Adapting
___________________________________
Maintaining
Repairing
Replacing
17
Slide 18
___________________________________
Failure to Conduct AT Assessment and Provide AT as
Denial of FAPE: Student v. Glendora Unified School District,
OAH No. 2007080893
 15-year-old, oral-deaf student with profound bilateral
hearing loss
 Cochlear implant in right ear provided 50% hearing
capability
 Prior good grades but experiencing academic decline
in high school
 Student struggled to hear class discussions despite
use of FM system
 Deficits in spelling and writing also impacted student
18
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________

2. Slide 19
Failure to Conduct AT Assessment and Provide AT as
Denial of FAPE: Student v. Glendora Unified School District,
OAH No. 2007080893, cont.
 Mother requested AT assessment for CART
 District administrator unilaterally denied AT
19
Refusal to Conduct AT Assessment not a Denial of FAPE:
Grant v. Independent School District No. 11, 43 IDELR 219
(D. Minn. 2005)
 Student with SLD using spell checker and
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
calculator
 Parent requested AT assessment for computer
 IEP team found student making significant
progress and did not require AT assessment
 HELD: IEP team considered parent request,
data, and levels of performance; evidence did
not support use of computer for student to
make progress in his program
20
Slide 21
___________________________________
___________________________________
assessment on basis that Student “has access to his
instruction and is successful in his academic
program” with existing supports and
accommodations
 HELD: District’s failure to conduct AT assessment and
provide CART resulted in denial of FAPE as student
could not meaningfully access and participate in
general education
Slide 20
___________________________________
Clear Written Offer
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
 IEP must contain clear statement regarding
___________________________________
student’s AT needs
 IEP must include sufficient statement of AT
devices to be used by student (e.g., computer
software for writing; handheld electronic
organizer)
 Avoid too much specificity to allow for flexibility
in using alternative AT devices (e.g.,
Draft:Builder, Palm TX)
21
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________

3. Slide 22
___________________________________
iPad Decisions
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
22
___________________________________
Slide 23
___________________________________
Chaffey Joint Union School District, OAH No. 2012060829
___________________________________
 15-year-old NPS student making progress on all IEP
goals
 Parents requested iPad to be provided during 50
minute bus ride to school, and to access educational
applications at school
 District denied request on basis that Student did not
require an iPad to access curriculum at NPS
 Parents then requested an IEP goal which would
incorporate Student’s use of an iPad
 In response, IEP team offered to conduct AT
assessment
23
Slide 24
Chaffey Joint Union School District, OAH No. 2012060829,
cont.
 District provided parents with AT assessment
plan at end of school year; student filed due
process in summer while assessment pending
 Held: Student did not require iPad to manage
his behavior on bus or to communicate or
socialize; to access curriculum; to do
homework; or obtain educational benefit from
his NPS program
24
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________