Assistive Technology in a New Hampshire IEP: What the District Must Consider

Assistive technology is one of the most frequently overlooked and most impactful IEP components for students with disabilities in New Hampshire. It is also one of the most misunderstood — both by parents who assume AT means expensive gadgets and by school teams that treat AT consideration as a checkbox rather than a genuine individualized assessment.

The law is clear and consistent with federal IDEA: IEP teams in New Hampshire must consider whether a student with a disability needs assistive technology devices and services to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education. Not might consider. Must consider. And when the answer is yes, the district must provide it.

What Counts as Assistive Technology

The federal definition in IDEA covers any item, piece of equipment, or product system — whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized — used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. Under that broad definition, AT includes:

• Low-tech tools: pencil grips, slant boards, visual schedules, communication boards, highlighted paper
• Mid-tech tools: audiobooks, recorded lectures, digital timers, calculators, text-to-speech apps
• High-tech tools: speech-generating devices (SGDs/AAC devices), screen readers, eye-gaze technology, electronic communication boards, specialized keyboards

AT also includes services: evaluating the student's AT needs, providing training to the student, training to school staff and family members, and coordinating with other professionals. These services are separately listed in the IEP and must be provided by someone qualified to deliver them — not by a general aide unfamiliar with the technology.

The Mandatory Consideration Requirement

IDEA requires that the IEP team consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services as part of every IEP development or review. This consideration must happen every year, not just at initial eligibility. If there is no record in your child's IEP meeting notes that AT was discussed, that is a gap in the process.

In practice, many teams treat "consideration" as "we mentioned AT exists." That does not satisfy the requirement. Genuine consideration means the team asks: Does this student's disability affect their ability to access learning, communicate, read, write, or participate? Would AT tools or services help? Has the student been evaluated to determine what would help?

If the team concludes no AT is needed without any formal evaluation and without specific data about the student's functional limitations, that conclusion is on shaky ground. Parents can challenge it.

Requesting an Assistive Technology Evaluation

If you believe your child may need AT — or if your child is already using AT strategies informally and you want the IEP to formalize this — you can request an AT evaluation in writing. This is a specific type of evaluation and should be requested separately from or alongside any other educational evaluation.

An AT evaluation looks at the student's functional abilities and limitations, the tasks the student needs to perform in the educational environment, and the tools that could close the gap between where the student is and what they need to do. A quality AT evaluation is not a product demonstration. It involves observing the student, trialing tools, and making individualized recommendations.

Under Ed 1107, the district must respond to your evaluation request, convene a Disposition of Referral meeting within 15 business days, and — if an evaluation is warranted — complete it within 60 calendar days of receiving consent. These timelines apply to AT evaluations just as they do to psychological or academic evaluations.

When Districts Resist AT Requests

The most common district objections to AT requests fall into a few categories:

"The student can already communicate verbally." This argument frequently surfaces when parents request AAC (Augmentative and Alternative Communication) devices for students with autism or language processing disorders. The relevant question is not whether the student can produce some verbal output — it is whether that verbal output is sufficient for the student to access their educational program and participate meaningfully with peers. If a student's spoken language is limited, inconsistent, or not functional in all settings, an AAC device may be necessary for FAPE even if the student has some speech.

"The student will become dependent on the tool." This is a variation of the dependency argument raised against 1:1 aides. For AT, it has even less traction: the entire purpose of AT is to support access and participation. A student who uses text-to-speech to access grade-level reading is not becoming dependent — they are accessing their curriculum the same way students with glasses access a whiteboard.

"We don't have the device." The district's failure to have a device already in inventory is not a basis for denying it. The district must procure the necessary AT — purchase it, lease it, or arrange access to it. If a specific device is required by the IEP, the district must ensure the student has it.

"That's something the family should purchase privately." AT devices needed for FAPE must be provided by the district at no cost to the family. A family may choose to purchase AT privately for home use, but the district cannot require this or substitute family-purchased AT for what the IEP requires the district to provide.

In every case where the district declines to provide or evaluate for AT, demand a Written Prior Notice under Ed 1120.

AAC Devices and the Home/School Boundary

For students who use AAC devices as their primary communication system, a specific and critical question arises: can the student take the device home?

The IDEA and New Hampshire rules indicate that if a student needs the device to benefit from their IEP, the student needs the device. A device that lives at school and cannot be used at home or in the community is not functioning as a primary communication system — it is a school-only tool in a framework that is supposed to support the whole child.

Many districts routinely deny home use because of concerns about damage or loss. These concerns are legitimate but not decisive. If the team determines the student needs the device as a communication system and home use is necessary for FAPE, the device must go home. Districts can address damage concerns through reasonable checkout policies, protective cases, and insurance — not by keeping the device in a locker at the end of the school day.

Put this question directly on the table at the IEP meeting if your child uses AAC. If home use is denied, request the WPN and, if necessary, explore dispute resolution.

Connecting AT to IEP Goals

AT should not be a standalone entry in the IEP that lives in a single section and is never mentioned again. The tools and services the student needs should connect to the goals the team has set. If the student has a goal to improve written expression, and the evaluation indicates word prediction software would support that goal, the AT recommendation and the goal belong together.

Look at your child's current IEP: are there goals that reference AT tools? Are the AT tools and services listed specific enough to be implemented (device name, settings, software, who provides training) or vague (e.g., "as needed technology supports")? Vagueness in AT provisions makes accountability nearly impossible.

The New Hampshire IEP & 504 Advocacy Playbook includes frameworks for requesting AT evaluations and WPN demands when AT requests are denied — with the specific citations from Ed 1107 and federal IDEA that establish the district's obligations.

See more United States guides →