# data[].attributes.headline
Before the 1997 amendment it was not required for IEP teams to consider AT devices or services but thanks to them they are able to do so now. This amendment opened up opportunities for children with disabilities as IEP teams can now find devices or services that fit into their individual goals and allows them to further progress in their academic goals. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Before the 1997 amendment it was not required for IEP teams to consider AT devices or services but thanks to them they are able to do so now. This amendment opened up opportunities for children with disabilities as IEP teams can now find devices or services that fit into their individual goals and allows them to further progress in their academic goals. 

# data[].attributes.body
(Dell et. al. 2017, p. 6)

# data[].attributes.body
school districts have numerous responsibilities under statute with respect to AT devices/services. The most basic of those obligations are: (1) the student's ARD committee must consider the potential AT needs of the student; (2) the ARD committee must determine if an AT evaluation of the student is necessary to complete its consideration of the AT needs of the student; (3) if determined necessary, an AT evaluation must be performed in order to assess the specific educational needs of the student; (4) if the ARD committee decides AT devices/services are necessary, the team must make the provision of the device and/or services a component of the child's IEP; and (5) the district must implement the provision of the AT device/service to the student ( Dell et al. 2017, P.5).

# data[].attributes.body
The 1997 amendment mandating

# data[].attributes.body
The 1997 amendment mandating that all IEP teams consider AT devices for all students with disabilities is important because it opened the door to more students being able to use AT as resources to learning. It also helps close the gap on students that need resources but are missed or overlooked. - Kandece

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the 1997 amendment, assistive technology was only limited to students with severe disabilities. IDEA 1997 requires the "consideration of AT needs of every student receiving special education services" (Dell et al. 2017, p. 6). After the 1997 amendment the number of students which are considered for AT increased drastically.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1997 amendment was important because it significantly increased the number of students for which AT is now considered. This amendment also increased the range of disabilities when considering the use of AT (Dell et. all, 2017, p.6).

# data[].attributes.body
IDEA prior to 1997 did not mandate that all IEP teams consider AT devices or services for students with disabilities. However, the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 significantly changed the situation. it adopted the definition of AT, and by inserting AT consideration into every IEP, IDEA 1997 dramatically increased the number of students, as well as the range of disabilities, for which AT solutions are now considered. If you think about it, without the consideration for each student to receive devices or services, many students could fall through the cracks.

Dell, A.G., Newton, D.A., & Petroff, J.G. (2017). Assistive Technology in the Classroom: Enhancing the School Experiences of Students with Disabilities. Boston: Pearson

# data[].attributes.body
By inserting assistive technology consideration into every individualized education program (IEP) development process, IDEA 1997 significantly increased the number of students, as well as the range of disabilities, for which assistive technology solutions are now considered.

Dell, Amy G.; Newton, Deborah A.; Petroff, Jerry G.. Assistive Technology in the Classroom: Enhancing the School Experiences of Students with Disabilities (What's New in Special Education) (Page 6). Pearson Education.

# data[].attributes.body
The 1997 amendment added the specific language to IDEA that allowed all students the right to be considered for an AT device. Without this amendment students who did not "obviously" need an AT device weren't legally required to be considered for one. That is to say, only students with what would be considered a severe disability were evaluated for an AT device (Dell et al., 2017, pg. 6). The 1997 amendment opens up this service to all students. Now every student has the potential to be considered for an AT device, though, as Melissa stated, the law still lacks in that not every student is entitled to an AT device.

# data[].attributes.body
"The IDEA mandates that during the development of an IEP, the IEP team must consider whether the student requires AT devices/services in order to   receive FAPE. It is unacceptable for an ARD committee to ignore the possible AT needs of a special education student, even when it might seem readily apparent that AT devices/ services are not needed. If a school district never even considers the need for an AT evaluation of a student who is eligible for special education services, a hearing officer or court could very likely determine that the district had violated the IDEA."

# data[].attributes.body
Hi Lexy!
I love that this amendment happened. Sometimes change is truly for the better, and I believe this change in the 1997 amendment allowed for great progression in the world of disabilities.
"Reauthorizations of IDEA prior to 1997 mentioned assistive technology only in provisions related to supplementary aids and services. As a result, consideration of assistive technology was typically limited to students with severe disabilities. The reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 dramatically changed this situation by clearly defining assistive technology and requiring consideration of the assistive technology needs of every student receiving special education services."

Dell, Amy G.; Newton, Deborah A.; Petroff, Jerry G.. (2017). Introduction to Assistive Technology. In Assistive Technology in the Classroom: Enhancing the School Experiences of Students with Disabilities (pp. 6). Pearson Education.

This amendment now requires a more in depth check of IEPs and each child's access to an Assistive Devices, if needed. It is getting closer and closer to equalizing the playing field in education and with those in the disabled community with the rest of the world.

# data[].attributes.body
The fact that in the textbook it states that the IEP teams are mandated to consider AT devices for their students, is a big step forward from where AT started. All students with disabilities are now able to be considered for assistive technology if necessary. The downside of the term "consider" means that although devices may be considered, not everyone is entitled to an asssitive device, unless necessary(Dell et al., 2017, p. 7).