Assistive Technology Legislation

Webpage created for EDUC695, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Provision of assistive technology has been firmly established through various laws passed in the United States that address the rights of individuals with disabilities. As educators must consider employing appropriate services, accommodations, and modifications for students, they must also critically examine the possible role assistive technology devices may play in their consideration process.

To offer some background on how assistive technology came to play such a large part in assistance for individuals with disablities, the following is a brief summary of related legislation. This list is not comprehensive and intends to only highlight a few prominent laws.

The Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988 (Tech Act)

  • First law that brought use of AT devices to the forefront
  • Provided funding for states to develop consumer information and training programs that were meant to address the assistive technology needs of individuals with disabilities
  • Made the distinction between an AT device and an AT service
  • States received grants to support systems change and advocacy activities
  • amended in 1994

Telecommunications Act of 1996

  • Addressed right to equal access to the Internet
  • Guidelines provided requirements for accessibility, usability, and compatibility of telecommunications devices

Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998

  • Provided access to career and technical education for students with disabilities and the purchase of equipment to ensure access to the latest technology

Assistive Technology Act of 1998

  • Meant to support programs and grants to states to help them address the technology needs of individuals with disabilities

Assistive Technology Act of 2004

  • Redirected funding to individuals by providing direct aid to individuals with disabilities
  • Created greater accountability for how states use AT grants
  • Forces states to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs continually

(Johnston, 2007)