C.F.R. » Title 34 » CHAPTER III—OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION › PART 300—ASSISTANCE TO STATES FOR THE EDUCATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES › Subpart B—State Eligibility

34 C.F.R. § 300.105

Assistive technology

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Each public agency must ensure that assistive technology devices or assistive technology services, or both, as those terms are defined in §§ 300.5 and 300.6, respectively, are made available to a child with a disability if required as a part of the child's—

(1) Special education under § 300.39;

(2) Related services under § 300.34; or

(3) Supplementary aids and services under §§ 300.42 and 300.114(a)(2)(ii).

(b) On a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased assistive technology devices in a child's home or in other settings is required if the child's IEP Team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to receive FAPE.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1), 1412(a)(12)(B)(i)) [71 FR 46753, Aug. 14, 2006, as amended at 82 FR 29759, June 30, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case: K.E. Ex Rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
K.E. Ex Rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 ; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(3)(B)(v).”
Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 v. Minnesota Dep't of Educ., 788 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. 2010). · cites it 4× “For example, 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 (b) (2010) states: "On a case-by-case basis, the use of school-purchased assistive technology devices in a child's home or in other settings is required if the child's IEP Team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to…”
Jerry M. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 379 F. Supp. 3d 570 (W.D. Tex. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 1400 (d)(1)(A) ; 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 (a). Defendants are correct in asserting that the IDEA does not explicitly require an evaluation for AT.”
Blake C. Ex Rel. Tina F. v. Dep't of Educ., 593 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Haw. 2009). “§ 1414 (d)(3)(B)(v) (requiring as part of the development of an IEP that an IEP team “consider whether the child needs assistive technology devices and services”) and § 1412(a)(12)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 (a) (“Each public agency shall ensure that assistive technology devices…”
William v. v. Copperas Cove Indep Sch Dist (5th Cir. 2020). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 . Appellants fail to show reversible error as to this conclusion.”
Dervishi v. Stamford Bd. of Educ. (D. Conn. 2023). “is required if the child’s IEP Team determines that the child needs access to those devices in order to receive [free appropriate public education].”
K.E. v. Ids No. 15 (8th Cir. 2011). “See 34 C.F.R. § 300.105 ; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (d)(3)(B)(v).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.