Parent written consent is required by law to trial assistive technology
Executive summary
Federal special-education law requires that assistive technology (AT) be considered and provided when necessary as part of a child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP), and many federal and state procedures treat AT evaluations and trials as special-education assessments that generally require parental consent before they begin [1] [2] [3]. However, nuances and statutory silences—especially under Section 504 and privacy laws—create exceptions and operational workarounds (for example, COPPA and certain FERPA interpretations allow schools to act on parents’ behalf for some classroom technologies), so the answer is: usually yes for AT trials tied to IEP evaluations, but with important limited exceptions and procedural differences [4] [5] [6].
1. Federal special‑education rules make AT evaluations and provision part of the IEP process
IDEA requires public agencies to consider and make available assistive technology devices and services whenever they are necessary for a child to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and Part B regulations explicitly treat AT as part of the evaluation/IEP process—meaning AT assessments and any resulting trials typically flow from that IEP process and its consent requirements [1] [2].
2. Parental consent is built into the evaluation timelines and procedures used for AT
State guidance documents and special‑education Q&As mirror IDEA’s approach by tying evaluation and trial timelines to the receipt of parental consent—examples note that evaluations must be completed within statutory windows “upon receipt of parental consent,” and some states explicitly state that parental consent must be obtained before assessments or trials of AT are completed [3] [4].
3. Section 504 is less explicit; written consent is accepted but not uniformly required
Unlike IDEA, Section 504 is largely silent on the specific form of parental consent required for evaluations, though the Office for Civil Rights has accepted written consent as compliance; recipients must secure informed parental permission for initial evaluations under Section 504, but the statute does not prescribe identical procedural bars to services that IDEA does [5].
4. Privacy statutes create practical exceptions for classroom technology but not for clinical AT evaluations
COPPA allows schools to consent on behalf of parents for student use of certain educational technology when the service is used “solely for the use and benefit of the school,” a carve‑out that privacy advocates warn could be broadened by vendors and complicate the consent landscape for edtech tools used in classrooms [6]. FERPA also contains exceptions that permit school‑official disclosures in narrow circumstances, which vendors and districts sometimes rely on to deploy technology without explicit parental opt‑in [7].
5. Operational reality: districts cannot delay AT pending outside funding and must inform families
State guidance emphasizes that districts may not delay or deny access to AT while pursuing Medicaid or other funding sources, and must notify families about school‑based billing programs and consent requirements—reinforcing that parental consent is a procedural gate for billing and evaluation actions even when the district is responsible for providing necessary AT [3].
6. Disputes and parents’ rights provide additional avenues if consent is withheld or denied
When parents disagree with a district’s AT determination or when consent issues arise, IDEA and related guidance permit independent evaluations at public expense and due process mechanisms; several advocacy and legal sources stress parents’ ability to request AT evaluations and to challenge district decisions through formal procedures [8] [9] [10].
7. Bottom line and reporting limits
The legal landscape supports the proposition that parental consent is generally required before schools conduct formal AT evaluations or trials tied to an IEP—this is reflected in IDEA regulations and state practice—but statutory silences, privacy law carve‑outs for classroom edtech, and variable state rules mean there are context‑specific exceptions and operational workarounds; this summary relies on the provided federal regs, state guidance, and privacy analyses and does not attempt to catalogue every state variation or court decision beyond those sources [1] [3] [6] [5].