# data[].attributes.headline
RESOLVING CONFLICTS: Helping Parents use alternatives to fund their desired AT.

# data[].attributes.subject
RESOLVING CONFLICTS: Helping Parents use alternatives to fund their desired AT.

# data[].attributes.body
In the situations, when schools deny  certain assistive technologies for students, parents can be supported by appropriate communication of other alternatives that they have to fund their desired AT.

Reference
Finding Alternative Sources of Funding for Assistive Technology. (2017, September 25). Retrieved from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/finding-alternative-sources-funding-assistive-technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding Alternative Sources of Funding for Assistive Technology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Info Brief provides information to help parents find and obtain alternative sources of funding for classroom- or home-based assistive technology when funds are not available through a child's school.

# data[].attributes.headline
CHOOSING AT: SHOULD IT BE NEED-BASED OR WANT-BASED

# data[].attributes.subject
CHOOSING AT: SHOULD IT BE NEED-BASED OR WANT-BASED

# data[].attributes.body
Assistive technology is a powerful tool that brings about equity in class. The implementation of assistive technology has been empowered by Individuals with disabilities education Act (IDEA) since 1997, ADA, National Education technology plan and Common core state standards, as it aims to be “the great equalizer” (Dell et al., 2017). The SETT framework is lucid and uncomplicated principle that guides the decision making and selection process of assistive technology. The primary and foremost criterion encompassed under SETT is the ‘student’. The disability rights movement proposes the student-centered decision-making model, wherein the student with disability and his/her family members in a collaborative process select and decide the required assistive technology tools to meet student’s needs and preferences (Dell et al., 2017). In alignment with this, In the Clark County school district (2011) due process hearing, court ordered AT/AAC expert evaluation because the school district failed to conduct formal AT evaluation leading to the student continually using low-tech devices. However, In Smith v. District of Columbia (2012), the school district did not have to provide the parent requested laptop on the basis that the student made adequate progress with current support systems (Etscheidt, 2016). There have been several legal cases wherein students have been denied AT. This brings forth the argument that how do courts decide on the appropriateness of student and their families demand of AT. According to Etscheidt (2016), “School districts were not required to provide the best-or most technologically advanced devices but rather AT that permitted the student to benefit from the educational program” (p. 190). Hence, it can be put forth that the ‘student’ is the most important factor in the decision-making process of AT, however, the student and their family do not have the exclusive right to choose AT of their choice. The choice of AT is based on the criterion that the school districts by law have to provide necessary AT that brings about education benefit as opposed to the ‘best’ AT.

References

Etscheidt, S. L. (2016). Assistive technology for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology,31(4), 183-194. doi:10.1177/0162643416673912

Dell, A. G., Newton, D. A., Petroff, J.G. (2017). Assistive technology in the classroom: Enhancing the school experiences of students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Columbus, Ohio: Pearson.