Hawaii Assistive Technology IEP: How to Get the Tools Your Child Needs

Your child's IEP team told you the school does not have the budget for an AAC device. Or the evaluation was done by someone without AT specialization, who concluded that your child "does not require" assistive technology. Or your child has an AT device listed in the IEP but it sits in a closet because no one on staff knows how to use it. These are among the most common assistive technology failures that Hawaii families encounter — and all of them are addressable through federal law.

The HIDOE's Legal Obligation to Consider AT

Under IDEA, the IEP team must consider whether your child requires assistive technology devices and services as part of every IEP meeting — not just the initial one, but every annual review and reevaluation as well. "Consider" means the team must actually evaluate the question, not simply check a box. If your child has communication, motor, or access barriers that technology could address, that consideration needs to be documented.

Hawaii Administrative Rules Chapter 60 defines assistive technology broadly: any item, piece of equipment, or product system — whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized — that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a student with a disability. This includes low-tech tools like pencil grips and slant boards, mid-tech tools like text-to-speech software and amplified keyboards, and high-tech tools like augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, screen readers, and specialized switch-access systems.

Assistive technology services — meaning the evaluation, training, and support for use of the device — are also a required part of the IEP if the student needs them. Having a device listed in the IEP without training provisions for the student, the family, and the educational staff is a common gap that undermines the technology's effectiveness.

Requesting an Assistive Technology Evaluation

If you believe your child needs assistive technology and the school has not conducted a formal AT evaluation, request one in writing. The request should:

• Cite IDEA's requirement that the IEP team consider AT for every student
• Identify the specific functional areas where your child has barriers (e.g., writing, communication, reading, mobility)
• Request a formal assistive technology evaluation conducted by someone with specialized AT expertise — not just the general education teacher or resource room teacher doing an informal observation

In Hawaii, specialized AT evaluators may be scarce on neighbor islands, which creates an access problem familiar to any family outside Oahu. If the HIDOE's proposed evaluator lacks adequate AT expertise for your child's specific disability and communication needs, you have the same rights you have for any other evaluation: you can request an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense if you disagree with the school's evaluation methodology or findings.

Once the AT evaluation is complete, the IEP team must convene to review the results and determine what technology, if any, will be included in the IEP. This is not a unilateral HIDOE decision — you are a full member of that team.

When Schools Say "No" or "We Don't Have the Budget"

Cost is not a legally permissible reason for denying assistive technology. The HIDOE cannot tell you that a device your child needs is too expensive. If the evaluation and the IEP team's decision support AT as necessary for FAPE, the school must provide it — regardless of cost.

If the IEP team denies AT, you are entitled to a Prior Written Notice that explains:

• What was proposed or refused
• Why the school is refusing
• What other options were considered
• What data the decision is based on

Demand this Prior Written Notice in writing before you leave the IEP meeting. Verbal explanations — "we think she's doing fine without it" — do not satisfy the legal requirement and cannot be appealed or documented the way a PWN can.

Common denial arguments schools use, and how to counter them:

"Your child doesn't need it because they can communicate verbally." Having some verbal communication does not mean a student does not benefit from an AAC device. Many children with autism, cerebral palsy, or apraxia use combined systems. An AT evaluation should assess functional communication across all contexts, not just classroom performance.

"We'll see how it goes without it." Watching and waiting is appropriate during initial MTSS intervention for academic concerns. It is not appropriate as a substitute for an AT evaluation when the student already has a documented disability with functional limitations in accessing curriculum.

"The device is only available for use at school." Under IDEA, if a student requires an AT device for FAPE, the device must be available in all settings where the student needs it, including the home — unless the IEP team documents why home use is not required for the student to benefit from the IEP.

AT Training and Implementation: The Step Most Schools Skip

Even when schools agree to provide an AT device, implementation often fails because no one is trained to use it. The IEP must specify who is responsible for training, how training will be provided, and what the timeline is. If your child's teacher, aides, and family members do not know how to use the device consistently across all environments, the AT provision is failing in practice.

If the AT is listed in the IEP but not being used, document it. Note when the device is unavailable, when staff skip its use, and when training sessions promised in the IEP do not occur. That documentation supports a service delivery failure complaint and a claim for compensatory services.

For the specific language to include in an AT request letter and the escalation path when the HIDOE denies or delays an AT evaluation, see the Hawaii IEP & 504 Advocacy Playbook.

See more United States guides →