You don’t have to start with low-tech assistive technology in order to use high-tech

Checked on February 3, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Starting with high‑tech assistive technology (AT) is a defensible choice when a student’s needs demand specialized electronic solutions, but it should be embedded in the same deliberate decision‑making, trialing, training, and planning that guides any AT selection across the low‑, mid‑, and high‑tech continuum [1] [2]. Policy and practice documents emphasize that successful use hinges less on tech level than on proper assessment, family and staff training, trial periods, and funding/repair planning [3] [4] [5].

1. You can choose high‑tech first — but only after needs, tasks and environment are mapped

Multiple guidance sources stress that AT should be selected to meet specific tasks and environments rather than by defaulting to low‑tech first; teams use frameworks like SETT or other consideration guides to map student, environment, task and tools before choosing solutions that may be low, mid or high tech [5] [4]. IDEA and state guides likewise define AT broadly — any item that improves function — and classify AT along a low–mid–high spectrum, making clear that complexity alone does not determine appropriateness [1] [2].

2. Trialing and evaluation are non‑negotiable whether tech is cheap or costly

Whether the option is a laminated communication board or a speech‑generating device, effective implementation calls for documented trials, rental/loan options, and evaluation periods to see if the device supports the intended outcomes, and these processes are specifically recommended in early intervention and school guidance [3] [5]. The Quality Indicators and state AT guides require that if teams are unfamiliar with potential devices the IEP or planning team consult specialists or conduct evaluations rather than assume a stepwise progression from low to high tech [4] [5].

3. Training and implementation planning matter more than the gadget’s price tag

Guiding documents repeatedly emphasize that training for the student, family, and staff is integral to AT success; a high‑tech device without adequate training and technical support will fail just as a low‑tech accommodation can be overlooked without clear implementation plans [4] [2]. The QIAT and multiple state guides recommend implementation plans that specify who will teach, maintain, and integrate the device across settings — a requirement that applies regardless of whether the tool is Velcro or an AI‑enabled communication app [4] [2].

4. Funding, repair and transfer logistics can push teams toward staged decisions, not dogma

Practical constraints show up in policy: procurement, funding streams, vendor relationships, and repair logistics are explicit considerations in state AT guides and early intervention materials, which is why some teams take staged approaches for financial or logistical reasons even if clinical need favors immediate high‑tech solutions [3] [6]. Documents encourage planning for funding and maintenance as part of the selection process, reinforcing that fiscal realities may shape timing but should not substitute for clinical judgment [3] [6].

5. Beware of simplistic “start low, then scale” slogans; aim for person‑centered fit

Many practitioner resources caution against rigid rules like "always start low‑tech," arguing instead for a continuum approach where the first option is whatever best achieves access and learning goals for that individual — sometimes that is low‑tech, other times it is high‑tech [1] [7]. Alternative viewpoints exist: some educators favor starting with inexpensive, easily implemented supports to test basic access, while assistive‑tech advocates and clinical evaluators warn that delaying required high‑tech can block learning and participation; the literature supports balancing those perspectives through assessment, trial, and documented need [2] [8].

6. Practical checklist for teams who want to start high‑tech now

The evidence base and guidance point to a short sequence: conduct a structured consideration/assessment (SETT or state checklist), identify specific tasks the AT must enable, arrange a trial or loan if possible, plan comprehensive training for student and staff, document AT in the IEP or implementation plan, and secure funding/repair pathways — all steps stressed across state and national guides and quality indicators [5] [4] [3]. If those steps are followed, starting with high‑tech is both permissible and often preferable; if they are skipped, even the most advanced device is likely to underdeliver [4] [2].

Want to dive deeper?
How does the SETT framework guide decisions between low‑tech and high‑tech assistive devices?
What funding and procurement pathways exist for school districts to acquire high‑tech assistive technology?
What evidence supports better student outcomes from immediate high‑tech AT versus a staged low‑to‑high approach?