Assistive Technology in New Mexico IEPs: What Schools Must Consider

If your child struggles with reading, writing, communication, or physical access to the classroom, assistive technology may be one of the most transformative services their IEP can include — and one of the most frequently overlooked. Under federal law, every New Mexico IEP team is required to consider assistive technology for every student with a disability. That consideration is not optional. What happens when it's skipped — or when the district considers it briefly and rejects it without adequate justification — is where parent advocacy becomes essential.

What Counts as Assistive Technology

Under IDEA, an "assistive technology device" is any item, piece of equipment, or product system — whether commercially acquired, modified, or customized — that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability. The definition is intentionally broad. It spans everything from low-tech to high-tech:

Low-tech AT: pencil grips, slant boards, picture communication symbols, highlighted paper, color overlays for dyslexia, large-print materials, fidget tools

Mid-tech AT: digital voice recorders, portable word processors (e.g., AlphaSmart), portable amplification systems, calculators with speech output

High-tech AT: text-to-speech software (e.g., Kurzweil, Read&Write), speech-to-text software, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices and apps (e.g., Proloquo2Go, TouchChat), screen readers, eye-gaze technology, switch-access devices for students with physical disabilities

"Assistive technology services" — evaluation for AT, training on AT use, maintenance and repair of devices, and coordination with providers — are separately required under IDEA and must also be included in the IEP when AT devices are included.

The Mandatory Consideration Requirement

Every New Mexico IEP team, at every annual IEP meeting, must explicitly consider whether the student requires assistive technology devices or services. This is not a suggestion — it is a federal mandate under 34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(v).

In practice, this consideration is often reduced to a checkbox on an IEP form: "Does the student need AT? No." That box-checking approach, without any documented analysis of the student's functional needs and how AT could address them, is legally insufficient. If your child has a disability that affects reading, writing, communication, or physical access to the learning environment, and the team's AT consideration consists of a single "no" with no discussion, you have grounds to challenge that determination.

Ask directly during the meeting: "What specific AT options did the team consider for [child's name]? What data did we review? What is the documented basis for determining AT is not needed?" If the team cannot answer these questions, put your request in writing that you are asking for a comprehensive AT evaluation.

Requesting an AT Evaluation

An AT evaluation is a formal assessment conducted by a qualified specialist — ideally a certified AT specialist or an assistive technology professional (ATP) — to determine what devices and services would support the student's access to the curriculum.

Submit the request in writing. Under NMAC 6.31.2.10, once you provide written consent for an evaluation, the district has 60 calendar days to complete it. If the district has not offered an AT evaluation and you believe your child needs one, your written request triggers that timeline.

An adequate AT evaluation should include:

• An assessment of the student's current functional abilities and limitations
• A review of current IEP goals and how they relate to AT needs
• Observation of the student in their actual educational environment
• Trial use of specific AT tools under realistic conditions
• Recommendations with rationale for each recommended device or service
• Training plan for the student, teachers, and family

If you disagree with the school's AT evaluation, you can request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) focused specifically on AT, at public expense. The district must either fund it or file for due process to defend its own evaluation.

Common AT Disputes in New Mexico Schools

"The student doesn't need text-to-speech — we'll try other interventions first." This is a delay tactic, not a legitimate team determination. AT is not a last resort. It can and should be considered alongside other interventions, not as a fallback if everything else fails. If a student is in 4th grade and still cannot independently access grade-level text due to a reading disability, waiting another year to try AT is denying them access to the curriculum right now.

"We can't afford the device." The district's budget is not your concern — FAPE obligations don't pause for budget cycles. If an AT device is required for the student to receive educational benefit, the district must provide it, maintain it, and ensure the student can take it home if needed for homework. Under IDEA, a device included in the IEP must be available for home use when the student needs it for FAPE purposes — not just at school.

"The student's parents haven't used it consistently at home." Parental consistency with AT training does not excuse a district's failure to implement AT in the school setting. The school's obligation under the IEP exists independently.

"We're still waiting on the AT specialist to be available." Given New Mexico's severe service provider shortages, AT specialists can be hard to access in rural and frontier districts. But the same principle applies as to all related services: staffing shortages do not suspend FAPE obligations. The district must explore contracted specialists, Regional Education Cooperative resources, or tele-consultation options.

AAC for Students Who Are Nonverbal or Minimally Verbal

For students with autism, cerebral palsy, down syndrome, apraxia, or other conditions affecting expressive communication, AAC devices can be transformative — and are among the most commonly under-provided AT in New Mexico IEPs. AAC encompasses any method of communication that supplements or replaces speech: from low-tech picture exchange systems to sophisticated speech-generating devices.

The research is clear: providing AAC does not reduce or replace speech development. The "we're waiting to see if speech develops before trying AAC" argument has no scientific basis and costs students years of communicative access.

If your child has limited or no reliable verbal communication and the IEP team has not evaluated AAC options, request an AT evaluation with explicit focus on AAC immediately. Include this request in your Parent Concerns Statement before the annual IEP meeting.

The New Mexico IEP & 504 Advocacy Playbook includes NMAC-specific language for requesting AT evaluations, demanding full AT consideration, and challenging improper denials — tools that go far beyond generic national templates because they're grounded in New Mexico's specific administrative framework.

Ensuring AT Is Actually Implemented

Having AT written into the IEP is step one. Having it actually function in the classroom is step two — and that's where many families hit another wall.

Common implementation failures include:

• Device is ordered but takes months to arrive
• Device arrives but no training is provided to teachers or staff
• Device is locked in a closet because "we don't know how to use it"
• Student is given the device only for certain classes or settings despite broader IEP language
• Device breaks and is not repaired or replaced for weeks

Each of these failures is a violation of the IEP. Document them in writing. If a device has been recommended in the IEP but not provided, email the special education coordinator with a specific timeline question: "The IEP dated [date] specifies [AT device]. As of today it has not been provided. Please confirm when it will be available and what the district's plan is for training staff in its use."

That email creates the paper trail for a state complaint if the district continues to stall. The full advocacy playbook at /us/new-mexico/advocacy/ gives you the complete documentation framework to move from "they're working on it" to formal enforcement — using the specific NMAC provisions and complaint processes available in New Mexico.

See more United States guides →