ready meeting the requirements of FAPE in the
current program, staff or administrators may be
reluctant to include it within the IEP goals.
Day and Huebner (2003) extensively review
the legal precedents regarding students and assistive technology. Introducing the argument,
they note, "…Technology was not considered an
important feature at that time {in 1970} for general
education, nor was it on the agenda for the young
field of special education, a field that had scarcely
located space within the walls of the public school
building," (p. 23). Presently, assistive technology
plays a large role in the delivery of a free and appropriate public education for a special education
student. In contrast, in the field of visual impairment, Kelly (2011) notes that within his study only
42% of the academic oriented high school students were using high-tech assistive technology
products or devices. Additionally, in the field of
visual impairment, Johnstone, Altman, Timmons,
and Thurlow (2009) note that students in five different states were solely reliant on their teacher
(teacher of student with visual impairments, TVI)
to provide, advocate and teach them how to use
their assistive technology, if it was provided. In
the original definition cited of IDEA, assistive
technology also contains an "assistive technology
service" (IDEA, Alper & Raharinirina, 2006),
which is an important distinction. The service
component of assistive technology ensures access to potentially beneficial assistive technology
for an individual eligible for special education services, but this may not always be carefully maintained in districts with limited technology expertise. From Johnstone, et.al, it can be assumed
that students, who are visually impaired, requiring
specialized services through their TVI, are reliant
on their TVI to be a proficient assistive technology
user as well and evaluate them for potential assistive technology products or supports.
27
