Montana Assistive Technology IEP: What Schools Must Consider and Provide

For many Montana students with disabilities — particularly those in rural areas where specialist access is limited — assistive technology can be the difference between falling further behind and meaningfully accessing the curriculum. Yet assistive technology is one of the most underutilized components of IEPs in Montana schools, often because parents don't know what the law requires and school teams don't raise it proactively.

The IDEA mandate is unambiguous: every IEP team must consider whether the student needs assistive technology devices and services. This isn't optional, and it isn't limited to students with the most severe disabilities. Here's what that means in practice.

What Counts as Assistive Technology Under IDEA

IDEA defines an assistive technology device as "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."

This definition is deliberately broad. Assistive technology spans a wide spectrum from low-tech to high-tech:

Low-tech AT: Pencil grips, lined paper overlays, highlighter tape, fidget tools, visual schedules, graphic organizers, large-print materials, color-coded folders

Mid-tech AT: Amplification systems for hearing, specialized calculators, text-to-speech software, word prediction tools, audio books and recorded text, digital timers

High-tech AT: Speech-generating devices (SGDs) and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems, screen readers, voice recognition software, specialized keyboards and mice, eye-gaze technology, adapted switches

In Montana's rural context, software-based AT and cloud-based tools have particular importance because they can often be deployed without waiting for a specialist to visit the district.

The Mandatory IEP Consideration Requirement

Under IDEA (34 CFR 300.324(a)(2)(v)) and incorporated into Montana's ARM framework, the IEP team must consider whether the student requires assistive technology devices and services as part of every IEP development or revision. This is a required consideration item — not something the team gets to skip because no one raises it.

If the IEP team has not discussed assistive technology at your child's most recent IEP meeting, this is a gap in the process. You have the right to request that the team formally address AT consideration at the next meeting, or to request a meeting specifically to address this issue.

The consideration does not require a full AT evaluation before it can result in AT being added to the IEP — it simply requires the team to actively discuss whether AT would help the student access the curriculum and make progress toward goals.

How to Request an Assistive Technology Assessment

If informal consideration at the IEP meeting produces no action but you believe your child could benefit significantly from AT, you can request a formal AT assessment. This request should be made in writing to the special education director.

A formal AT assessment is typically conducted by someone with specialized training in assistive technology — an AT specialist, occupational therapist with AT expertise, or speech-language pathologist for communication-focused AT. In rural Montana, these specialists may be available through the special education cooperative or via consultative services.

Your written AT assessment request should include:

• The specific functional areas where you believe AT could help (reading, writing, communication, mobility, organization)
• Specific observations about how the current lack of AT is limiting your child's access to the curriculum
• A request that the assessment include observation of the student in their natural educational environment and assess a range of AT solutions, not just the most obvious ones

Once you request an assessment, the district must either conduct it or issue a Prior Written Notice (PWN) explaining why it is declining. A refusal to even assess is unusual and generally difficult to justify legally.

AT in Rural Montana: The Equity Argument

Students in rural Montana districts receive up to 20 percent fewer specialized services than their urban peers, according to data from Disability Rights Montana. This gap is partly staffing-related, but AT can sometimes compensate. A student who needs intensive reading intervention but whose district sees the reading specialist only bi-monthly may benefit from evidence-based text-to-speech or decoding support software that provides daily exposure to intervention strategies.

When advocating for AT in a rural district, the equity argument is worth making explicitly: if the district cannot provide the same frequency of direct services that an urban student would receive, AT can partially bridge the gap and uphold the district's FAPE obligation. This is not a substitute for proper staffing — but it is a legitimate and documented AT application.

Ownership and Access to AT Devices

If an AT device is required for your child to receive FAPE, the school district must provide it at no cost to your family. The device belongs to the district, not the family — but the IEP can specify whether the device goes home with the student, stays at school, or is used in both settings.

If the IEP requires the device for homework, communication at home, or generalization of skills into non-school environments, the IEP should specifically state that the device is used at home and during non-school hours. Without this language, school staff may keep the device at school even when the child needs it for evening homework or communication.

Request explicit language: "Student will use [device] during school hours and at home for [specified purpose]."

What If the School Says the Technology Is Too Expensive?

Cost is not a legal justification for denying required AT. Under IDEA, a school cannot deny a required AT device because it is expensive. If the IEP team agrees that a specific device is necessary for FAPE and the child cannot access education without it, the district is required to provide it regardless of cost.

In practice, districts may push back on high-cost devices like AAC systems, which can cost several thousand dollars. When this happens, document that the team acknowledged the device is needed and then declined based on cost — this creates the basis for a state complaint.

If the dispute is about whether the device is actually necessary (the district claims a lower-cost option would suffice), you can request an IEE from an AT specialist to independently assess what level of technology is required.

Training for Staff and Parents

IDEA's definition of assistive technology services includes training for staff, students, and families in the use of AT devices. If your child receives an AT device and the staff who work with them haven't been trained to use it properly, the device sits unused — which defeats its purpose entirely.

When AT is added to your child's IEP, explicitly request that the IEP include:

• The name and training background of the person responsible for implementing AT
• A timeline for AT training for all teachers and service providers who work with the student
• Parent training so you can support AT use at home

The Montana IEP & 504 Advocacy Playbook includes an AT assessment request letter, IEP consideration checklist for assistive technology, and guidance on documenting AT implementation failures — the practical tools Montana parents need to make AT a real part of their child's plan, not just a checkbox on a form.

See more United States guides →