Every year, I hear some version of the same concern:
‍
“We don’t have funding for AAC equipment.”

“We don’t use THAT AAC application in this district.”

“Can’t we just use a communication book?”

“Does he REALLY need it?”

I understand why those conversations happen. Special education is expensive. Self-contained programs are staffing-heavy. Needs are complex. Everyone’s trying to stretch resources.

But when it comes to assistive technology—and AAC in particular—we have to keep one thing crystal clear:

If a student needs AAC to access instruction and make meaningful progress, providing that support isn’t optional. It’s not an “extra.” It’s part of FAPE. It’s part of IDEA. It’s part of doing business in special education.

And the U.S. Department of Education’s IDEA AT guidance backs that up.

Most self-contained classrooms are communication classrooms.

Let’s say the quiet part out loud.

In many self-contained classrooms, most—if not all—students have significant language learning needs and/or complex communication needs. That might mean limited spoken language, unreliable speech, emerging symbolic communication, motor or sensory access needs, significant cognitive disability, autism, apraxia, or a combination of factors.

So if you’re running a self-contained program, communication support isn’t a side project. It’s the foundation the whole day sits on.

Because when a student can’t reliably:

• ask for help
• tell you what they know
• participate in a lesson
• refuse, request, comment, and engage socially
• show preferences, feelings, and ideas

…then “instruction” turns into guesswork. And “progress” becomes harder for everyone to measure.

That’s why AAC isn’t just about a device. It’s about access to learning.

What IDEA expects IEP teams to do (every time)

The Department of Education’s guidance makes it clear that assistive technology must be considered in the IEP process. Not sometimes. Not “only if someone asks.” Not “only if the student is non-speaking.” It’s a required consideration.

If the IEP team identifies that a student needs AT in order to receive FAPE, then the district has responsibilities—not suggestions.

That includes AT devices and AT services. Services matter because they’re often the difference between “we bought something” and “the student actually uses this successfully across the day.”

AAC is not optional when the IEP team determines it’s needed.

This is where districts can get themselves into trouble—usually with good intentions, but still.

You can’t say:

• “We don’t have that device.”
• “We only use what’s already in our inventory.”
• “Our district only approves X app.”
• “We’ll get it next year.”
• “We’ll try low-tech forever because high-tech costs too much.”

If the IEP team determines the student needs a particular form of AT/AAC to access instruction and make meaningful progress, then the district must provide it in a timely way. The “option” to simply not provide equipment and services after need has been identified is not acceptable.

And just to be very clear: district-wide standardization does not replace individualized decision-making. I understand the operational reasons districts standardize tools. But an IEP team decision has to be based on the individual student—not what’s easiest to purchase, manage, or already sitting on a shelf.

IEPs are individualized for a reason.

“AAC” isn’t just a device purchase. It’s a support plan.

If you want AAC to work in real classrooms, it usually takes more than handing someone a device and hoping for the best.

Implementation has a cost, too—and it should. Because support is what makes the investment worth it.

For many students, the true “AAC package” includes:

• the system (device + software and/or robust low-tech supports)
• set-up and customization for the student
• instruction that builds language (not just requesting)
• training for staff (teachers, paras, related service providers)
• support for families (so it can carry over outside school when appropriate)
• troubleshooting, maintenance, repair, and replacement planning
• data and IEP documentation that matches what the student actually needs across environments

If districts only budget for the hardware, AAC often becomes one more thing sitting in a closet. That’s not a technology problem. That’s an implementation problem.

A word about parents, private insurance, and “optional” funding

This one matters, and it’s where I want districts to be very careful.

Students are entitled to a free appropriate public education. That means a district cannot require or pressure parents to pay out of pocket, use private insurance, or “handle it themselves” in order for the child to receive what the IEP says they need.

Now—can families choose to pursue private funding? Yes, sometimes. And some families want to do that for a variety of reasons. Districts can absolutely provide support and guidance when families express interest in that path.

But it must be truly voluntary. No guilt. No expectation. No “this is the only way this will happen.” And it should never delay access at school. If the IEP team has identified a need, the district still has to ensure the student has access to the AT/AAC required for FAPE.

To be super transparent, DTA Schools almost always recommends that a family own their own AAC system.   We also recommend that the districts cover the cost of helping the families through the funding process. When families have control of their child’s AAC system, it always goes with them, without question, on weekends, over the summer, and especially if they move to a new district.  This should happen anyway, but many times it doesn’t.  When there is a repair that needs to happen, parents can make this happen without a bunch of bureaucratic red tape. Call about it, box it, fix it.  When random staff decide to completely change the system without discussion, parents can change it back, lock it down and protect programming.  Not that this is always an issue, but sometimes it is.

The “cost” question—reframed

AAC can be expensive. So can:

• specialized transportation
• adapted curriculum resources
• behavior support staffing
• OT/PT equipment
• accessible materials
• specialized classrooms and lower ratios
• Astroturfing football fields…
  

That’s not a complaint. That’s reality.

Special education has real costs because it is providing access, instruction, and supports that are individualized and intensive. AAC is one of those costs.

When a student requires assistive technology in the form of an AAC system in order to access instruction, participate meaningfully, and develop age-appropriate communication to the maximum extent possible, providing that access is simply part of serving that student appropriately.

It’s not “extra.” It’s not “nice if we can afford it.”
It’s part of doing the business of special education.

What districts can do (that’s both responsible and sustainable)

Districts don’t need to choose between compliance and sustainability. They need a plan.

A few things that help:

• Build an AAC/AT inventory plan with refresh cycles (instead of emergency purchases)
• Create clear procedures for trials, decision-making, and documentation
• Invest in training models that build staff capacity over time (not just one-off “device trainings”)
• Partner smartly: use state AT programs for loans/demos when that’s available, and use vendors ethically and wisely
• Budget for implementation (because that’s where success actually happens)

When districts plan for AAC the way they plan for other special education infrastructure, it becomes less chaotic, less reactive, and more effective.

If you only read one thing, read this

The Department of Education has put the guidance in writing. If you’re a special education leader, an SLP, an AT specialist, or a principal supporting self-contained programs, it’s worth reading directly.

https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/at-guidance/

Look for the “Myths and Facts” document on assistive technology devices and services, and share it with your team. It answers many of the questions districts wrestle with—especially the ones that tend to come up when budgets get tight.