Enhancing Access to Low Tech Assistive Technology (LTAT) Through State and Local Policies

By Sam Shepherd

Background 

Assistive technology (AT) is defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 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. The term does not include a medical device that is surgically implanted, or the replacement of such device.” (20 USC § 1401(1)(A). AT services are required to be considered for each student with an individualized education plan (IEP) under IDEA for a student to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). (20 USC § 1401(2)):

300.6 Assistive technology service.

Assistive technology service means any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. The term includes—

(a) The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability, including a functional evaluation of the child in the child’s customary environment;

(b) Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by children with disabilities;

(c) Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices;

(d) Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, such as those associated with existing education and rehabilitation plans and programs;

(e) Training or technical assistance for a child with a disability or, if appropriate, that child’s family; and

(f) Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing education or rehabilitation services), employers, or other individuals who provide services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of that child.

Despite these federal laws, assistive technology remains underutilized in the classroom (Edyburn, 2021), including a 2025 research report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicating the lack of knowledge existing among school personnel in the scope of assistive technologies. (GAO). While I agree with Dr. Edyburn that there doesn’t need to be data on whether the student used low tech or high tech (Edyburn, 20), there should still be widespread awareness and implementation of low tech assistive technology (LTAT) in school settings in preparedness and/or in response to needs. To add, supplementary aids are required under IDEA in an IEP based on the individual needs of the child. (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]). Dr. Edyburn argues in the aforementioned paper, “As a result, why not provide accommodations in advance? (Edyburn, 21). This brief paper will look specifically at low tech assistive technology (LTAT), inexpensive assistive technologies that don’t require batteries or electricity (The IRIS Center) such as adaptive writing tools, pencil grips, slant boards, reading guides, visual schedules, and more. This paper will argue how every classroom can have LTAT set up as an inclusive and cost effective measure through various recommendations.  

Trickling Down To School Districts

The US Department of Education sent a Dear Colleague Letter regarding misconceptions of assistive technology (AT) usage in the classroom (U.S. Department of Education) and a more thorough Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices that includes that AT doesn’t always require batteries, a common misconception about assistive technology. (U.S. Department of Education). Furthermore, in accordance with these assistive technology (AT) laws being enforced, research from the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI) argued that state departments of education (DOE) are responsible for local school districts successfully implementing AT policies and services (Bausch et al, 18). This paper’s recommendations will be split into LTAT Budget and Awareness and Capacity sections that can be initiated by the state DOE or school district.  

LTAT Budget 

There needs to be systems for acquiring low tech assistive technology (LTAT), especially in lacking school districts, with the following recommendations a school district can implement. 

One recommendation is for a school district to pilot a program that gives a $50 grant (on top of the school being required to fund AT used in schools) to each student receiving special education services to provide LTAT if needed. If not, money can roll over into the next academic year, thus needing less allocated for the next budget. Deliverables of this pilot study could include student success, teacher satisfaction, cost effectiveness for the school district, and other variables necessary.   

An alternative recommendation is for there to be a requirement for teachers receiving stipends for classroom materials to spend a set amount of money on low tech assistive technology (LTAT) for the classroom each year, with deliverables similar to the aforementioned recommendation. This would be preemptive and in route with Universal Design for Learning by having LTAT already present in classrooms. (CAST). 

Another recommendation (which would likely occur after either of the first two) is to request appropriations from the state legislature for a statewide education assistive technology access initiative to serve as supplemental to the federal funding already intended on covering AT costs and other federal requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1411).  

The last (and most feasible) recommendation is for a school district to seek low tech assistive technology (LTAT) from nonprofit organizations such as MakeGood (makegood.design), Makers Making Change (makersmakingchange.com), and others that 3D print (or by other means create) and donate LTAT. A school district could take it a step further and invest in a 3D printer to make LTAT on demand (and more customizable), albeit logistics vary. (Bañuls-Lapuerta et al.). 

Awareness and Capacity Building

Improving the personnel of teachers, staff, and administrators in K-12 settings instead of overreliance on assistive technology specialists, according to RESNA Position Paper on the Capacity-Building Role of Assistive Technology Specialists (Drelick, Cochrane, and Potts 2026, 65) is vital to improving assistive technology (AT) outcomes in schools. This RESNA paper covers all AT, but these following recommendations would greatly apply to the low tech assistive technology (LTAT) perspective, which should be easier to build capacity for. 

An alternative recommendation is to create legislation (as Illinois did in 2018), new state administrative law, or pilot in a school district to require written notice with information on the state’s assistive technology (AT) program for an individualized education plan (IEP) if AT is not found to be necessary for a student with an IEP. (Center for Assistive Technology Act Data Assistance 2020). This Illinois law pertains to all AT, but awareness would be enhanced if additional information was such as low, mid, and high tech definitions and examples in the written notice.  

Another recommendation is to require (or modify) annual assistive technology (AT) training for teachers and administrators either legislatively, administratively, or piloting within a school district that details low, mid, and high tech AT and the feasibility of implementing it for students.  

A more ad hoc recommendation (which may be difficult for larger school districts) is for school district AT personnel (or outside AT consulting) to visit every individualized education plan (IEP) team meeting with low tech information for the entire IEP team.

The last recommendation is for school districts that don’t have an AT specialist or AT office to create a lab or workroom for AT, either broadly or low tech specific to increase personnel knowledge, as research shows positive results doing so in a university setting (Laarhoven et al, 36). A state department of education (DOE) could take it a step further by creating a low tech lab (or broadened AT lab) for school district personnel to visit, albeit budget limitations may persist.

Conclusion

This paper is brief and covers various solutions that state departments of education or school districts can implement. Further research should include case studies of implementing any of the aforementioned recommendations (or other strategies) at the school district level and projecting larger scale implications.  

Sources

United States, Congress. United States Code. Title 20, sec. 1401(1)(A). Office of the Law Revision Counsel, uscode.house.gov. 

United States. United States Code. Title 20, section 1401(2), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1401. 

Edyburn, Dave. “Revisiting Assistive Technology Advocacy.” Advocacy Institute , Oct. 2021, www.advocacyinstitute.org/advocacyinaction/AT_Advocacy_Update.shtml.

“Students with Disabilities: Assistive Technology Challenges and Resources in Selected School Districts and Schools | U.S. Gao.” U.S. Government Accountability Office , 29 Jan. 2026, www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107506.

Edyburn, Dave L. "Inclusive Technologies: Assistive Technology for All Learners." Forum Pedagogiczne, vol. 10, no. 1, 2020, pp. 17–30. 

Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a) (4) (2006). 

The IRIS Center. n.d. "Assistive Technology: An Overview." Perspectives & Resources. Vanderbilt University. Accessed July 25, 2026. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/at/cresource/q1/p02/. 

U.S. Department of Education. Dear Colleague Letter on the Provision of Assistive Technology Devices and Services for Children with Disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. January 22, 2024. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/DCL-on-Myths-and-Facts-Surrounding-Assistive-Technology-Devices-01-22-2024.pdf. 

U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs and Office of Educational Technology. Myths and Facts Surrounding Assistive Technology Devices and Services. 22 Jan. 2024, sites.ed.gov/idea/files/Myths-and-Facts-Surrounding-Assistive-Technology-Devices-01-22-2024.pdf. PDF download. 

Bausch, Margaret, et al, “Assistive Technology in Schools: Lessons Learned From The National Assistive Technology Research Institute” In Efficacy of Assistive Technology Interventions, edited by Dr. Dave Edyburn, 16-21. Bingley, UK; Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015. 

CAST. 2024. "Interaction: Assistive Technologies." Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/action-expression/interaction/assistive-technologies/. 

20 U.S.C. § 1411. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/20/1411. Accessed 27 July 2026. 

Bañuls-Lapuerta, Francesc Antoni, Vicent Marti-Miralles, Rómulo Jacobo Gónzalez-García, and Gabriel Martínez-Rico. "Effectiveness of 3D Printed Custom Assistive Devices in the School Environment." Scientific Reports 15 (2025): 39520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-23325-z. 

Drelick, Alicia M., Daniel P. Cochrane, and Linda Potts. 2026. "RESNA Position Paper on the Capacity-Building Role of Assistive Technology Specialists in PreK-12 Educational Settings." Assistive Technology 38 (1): 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2022.2105057. 

Center for Assistive Technology Act Data Assistance. "New Law Helps Ensure Assistive Technology for Students Who Need It." Innovative AT Practices Series, issue 4 (September 2020). https://catada.info/assets/files/innovativeAT_issue4_Illinois_F.pdf. 

Laarhoven et al. “Integrating Assistive Technology into Teacher Education Programs” Trials, Tribulations, and Lessons Learned” in Focused Issue: The Role of Higher Education in the Preparation of Education Professionals to Use Assistive Technology, edited by Jeffrey P.

Bakken and Howard P. Parette, 32-47. Special Education Assistive Technology Center at Illinois State University and Assistive Technology Industry Association, 2012.