The Impact of the Economy on Assistive Technology and the IDEA

Jennifer L. Corbett The University of Alabama Luke M. Cornelius, PhD, JD The University of North Florida
1

IDEA & Assistive Technology

Assistive technology is widely regarded as holding potential for enhancing access, inclusion, productivity, and the quality of life of individuals with disabilities. (Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth 1996)

Five Special Factors

Assistive technology has been included as one of the five special factors that all Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams must consider when developing an IEP (Sec. 300.324(a)(2)(i)-(v)) and a childs instructional program since the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997.
3

AT Device & AT Service

(300.5) Device any item, piece of equipment, or product system used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities (300.6) Service any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an AT device

Changes in 2004
Every IEP should consider whether a child needs assistive technology (AT) services and devices Must be included during the revising and reviewing of an IEP Includes students with an IEP prior to 2004 Must be documented in IEP

Legal Mandates
AT Act of 2004 requires states to spend majority of grant funds on services for individuals with disabilities Two options

Option One
Use 60% of AT state grants on direct aid programs, including assistive technology reutilization programs, AT demonstration programs, alternative financing programs, and device loan programs
6

Legal Mandates
AT Act of 2004 requires states to spend majority of grant funds on services for individuals with disabilities Two options

Option Two
Use 70% of AT state grants on direct aid programs Choose to allocate remaining funds on at least two of the previously mentioned programs

Budget Research
In 2011 at least 34 states and the District of Columbia proposed budget cuts to K-12 schools Survey revealed monetary issues as barriers to assistive technology use (Derer, Polsgrove, & Rieth 1996) Administrators may need to pursue alternative funding with *Medicare, *private insurance, corporate grants, fraternal originations

AT Act Section 2

Assistive technology can reduce expenditures and benefit all ages of individuals with disabilities

Budget Research

In 2011 the Center of Budget and Policy Priorities reports that at least 36 states plus the District of Columbia enacted cuts to K-12 education budgets due to the recession. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided states an additional $10 billion in education. These funds are estimated to be exhausted by the end of FY 2011 (Johnson, Oliff ,& Williams 2011).
10

Budget Research
A study on K-12 budget changes from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 reports that 46 states have cut the education formula funding since the start of the recession. Nearly two-thirds of all states are providing less per-student funding for k12 education in FY 2012. According to Oliff & Leachman (2011), State-level k-12 spending cuts of this magnitude have serious consequences for the nation.

11

Alternative Funding

State Grants
The U.S. DOE funds the AT Technology State Grant Program for all 50 states and the District of Columbia The U.S. DOE funds the Protection and Advocacy for Assistive Technology
Title I grants to LEAs Teacher Quality State Grants Career & Technical Education State Grants Special Education Grants to States
12

A.T. v. Gary Community School Corporation

Civil No. 2:11cv37 United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Fort Wayne Division November 2011

13

Discussion
A.T. is a student eligible for special education as a student with autism spectrum disorder and a language impairment At the end of 2008-2009 school year, the system suffered budget cuts and school closings A.T. was in a self-contained class for students with severe cognitive impairments

14

A.T. v. Gary Community School Corporation

School system moved the selfcontained class to another school A.T. did not have access to the same benefits and privileges he had at previous school No IEP meeting took place to discuss the new placement A.T. was not provided services that would allow him to educationally progress

15

Discussion
A.T. was not receiving speech services, assistive technology services, behavior services, or specialized instruction services Plaintiff filed request for due process in September 2010 IDEA Article 7 resolution session Hearing officer declared that A.T. had been denied FAPE

16

A.T. v. Gary Community School Corporation

Compensation A.T. was to receive a private education at public cost School did not appeal Plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement of attorney fees and tuition at private school School did not comply within 30 days and made no contact with plaintiffs for two months

17

Discussion
March 2011 transition meeting was held Considered incomplete since school did not agree to a private assistive technology evaluation Did not discuss a transition plan, summer placement, or transportation Numerous mistakes on IEP Four months after hearing officers decision

18

A.T. v. Gary Community School Corporation

May 2011 school claimed that Plaintiffs never filed due process action Denied that

due process hearing was held the court had jurisdiction A.T. has autism A.T. had attended their school A.T. is entitled to special education protection
19

Extension
School system requested an extension to pay private school bill until June 2011 June 24 summary judgment motion To ease the financial burden on parents making claims, the IDEA contains a fee-shifting provision that allows attorneys fees to the parents of a child with a disability who are the prevailing party in any action brought

20

A.T. v. Gary Community School Corporation

A.T. still needed

assistive technology evaluation Adjusted IEP to include extended school year Liaison between new school and previous school

June 2011 Plaintiffs received notice that school would pay for AT evaluation Plaintiffs counsel ensured that hearing officers orders were

21

Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs awarded $43,974.00.

22

Conclusion
More research is required to see if IDEA requirements are not being met and if there is a correlative connection between budget cuts and shortfalls in meeting assistive technology requirements. From a review of the literature, there appears to be sufficient evidence to support a perceived impact on assistive technology due to budget problems.

23