Assistive Technology in Wisconsin IEPs: How to Request It and What Districts Must Consider

At every IEP meeting in Wisconsin, the team is legally required to consider one question: does this student need assistive technology devices or services to receive a free appropriate public education? That consideration is not optional, and it applies to every student with a disability — not just students with the most significant needs.

In practice, many IEP teams run through this item on the form as a checkbox: "Assistive technology considered — not needed." Parents often don't know enough to push back. By the time it becomes clear that their child needed AT all along — that the AAC device would have transformed their communication, that text-to-speech would have unlocked independent reading — months or years have passed.

What Assistive Technology Actually Covers

The federal definition of assistive technology under IDEA is broad. An assistive technology device is 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.

That definition covers a wide range:

• Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, from low-tech symbol boards to high-end speech-generating devices
• Text-to-speech software and screen readers
• Word prediction software
• Electronic graphic organizers
• Audio books and listening supports
• Specialized keyboards, mice, switches, and input devices
• Calculators and math tools for students with dyscalculia
• FM systems and sound field amplification for students with auditory processing needs
• Video modeling for students with autism

Assistive technology services are equally broad: they include evaluation of the student's AT needs, selection and customization of AT devices, training of the student and staff in using the device, and technical assistance with maintenance.

The key point for Wisconsin parents: if your child cannot access the curriculum, communicate effectively, or demonstrate their knowledge without a tool or modification, that gap is an AT question — and the IEP team is required to address it.

The Legal Consideration Requirement

Under IDEA (34 CFR § 300.324(a)(2)(v)) and Wisconsin Administrative Code PI 11, the IEP team must consider whether the child needs AT devices and services as a special factor in developing every IEP. This is not limited to students with physical disabilities. Students with learning disabilities, autism, emotional behavioral disabilities, and speech-language impairments may all have legitimate AT needs.

"Consider" has meaning. The team cannot simply check the box without genuine discussion. If AT has not been tried with a student who clearly struggles with a functional area the technology addresses, documentation that the team "considered and rejected" AT needs to explain why. When that explanation is absent or inadequate, it can support a DPI state complaint.

If AT needs are identified, they must be documented in the IEP — both the specific devices or services and how they will be implemented during the school day.

How to Request an AT Evaluation

If you believe your child has unmet AT needs and the IEP team has not adequately addressed them, you can request an AT evaluation in writing. This is a specific type of evaluation, and districts are obligated to respond to it under the same framework as other evaluation requests: 15 business days to issue consent forms or a Prior Written Notice explaining refusal.

An AT evaluation conducted by a qualified specialist should include:

• Observation of the student in multiple environments (classroom, lunch, specials) to understand functional barriers
• Trial periods with candidate devices or tools to assess fit
• Collaboration with the student's teachers, SLP, and OT as relevant
• A written report documenting findings and specific recommendations

If the district evaluates and concludes that no AT is needed, but you disagree, you have the right to request an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense. When the IEE covers areas the district's evaluation failed to assess (for example, if the district conducted a reading evaluation but never tested any text-to-speech tools), the district is still responsible for funding the IEE for those areas.

Common District Resistance and How to Address It

"We don't have that device." The IEP determines services based on the student's needs — not on what the district currently owns. If an AAC device is the appropriate tool for your child's communication needs, the district must provide it. Cost and existing inventory are not legally valid reasons to deny AT.

"The child needs to demonstrate they can use it first." This is a circular argument. A student who has never had access to a communication device cannot demonstrate proficiency with one. Appropriate AT is determined through trial and evaluation, not by requiring students to self-demonstrate need without support.

"We'll try it at home first." AT that is documented in the IEP must be available at school. If a student uses an AAC device, it travels with the student. If a student needs text-to-speech during reading assessments, that tool must be available during reading assessments. "Try it at home" is not IEP implementation.

"We don't send devices home." For a student who uses a device for functional communication — not just academic support — refusing to send the device home can be a FAPE violation. A student who communicates via AAC does not stop needing to communicate when the school day ends.

When AT Is in the IEP but Not Being Used

If AT devices and services are documented in the IEP and are not being consistently used or provided in practice, that is an implementation failure. Document the gaps: dates when the device was not available, times when staff did not implement the AT protocol, incidents where your child could not access an activity because the tool was absent.

Failure to implement documented AT is one of the more straightforward categories for a DPI state complaint, because the gap between what the IEP says and what is happening is concrete and documentable.

The Wisconsin IEP & 504 Advocacy Playbook includes templates for requesting AT evaluations and for addressing implementation failures when AT is not being used as documented. Get the complete toolkit at /us/wisconsin/advocacy/.

Your child's ability to access learning should not depend on whether the IEP team remembered to check a box. AT is a right, not an add-on — and the law gives you tools to enforce it.

See more United States guides →