We are currently remodeling

Skip Navigation

Main Navigation Bar (Deactivated)

Education

UCP’s Education Channel provides resources for parents, teachers, and others involved in the education of students with disabilities and other special needs.

Go back to top

Education

Scholarships / Funding

Excuse #6: This Computer Is The School's Property: You May Use It In School, But You May Not Take It Home

Response: Some school districts may provide computer access during the school day, but then state that the device cannot be removed from school property. It will not be permitted home after school, on weekends, or during school holidays. The school's reasons will most likely be that the device is school property, it is expensive, it is fragile, it is not portable, and it is not provided solely for the benefit of only one child.

These statements may have some superficial appeal, but they are nothing more than "excuses." Not one of these so-called rationales is valid. A 199 policy letter from OSEP confirmed the right for students with disabilities to take equipment home when the equipment was needed in order for the student to benefit from the educational plan. All can be identified as either "discrimination" in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, or a form of categorical denial of assistive technology, a violation of the IDEA.

A school that asserts its "ownership" of the computer as the reason to restrict the device to school grounds is making out a clear case of discrimination. It is relatively easy to point out that not all school owned property is restricted to school grounds:

    • School books are the property of the school, yet children are expected, even required to take them home to perform homework and continue their studies.

    • School supplies are the property of the school, yet which parents have not covered their refrigerator with their child's artwork? (Here is an example of the school not only allowing its property to leave school grounds, but to be given away.)

    • School owned musical instruments are another example of school property that are permitted, if not required to travel home with children.

All of this school property either is permitted, or even required to leave school grounds after the school day, on weekends, and during school holidays. For this reason, school ownership is being asserted selectively to restrict "certain" school property, that which is needed by a child with a disability.

Of course a school can counter this list by providing an even longer list of school property that does not leave school grounds: desks, chairs, chalkboards, etc. But a computer does not serve the same purpose for a child with a disability as does a chair or desk.

Instead, it is because the computer, software, and/or communication device has intended uses that are identical to those of other school property that can be taken home that the selective restriction constitutes discrimination and is a violation of IDEA.

For example, children with disabilities may use a computer and software as textbooks, as worksheets, as pen and paper. It may be the only means by which the child can write, or read. If the child is denied access to the computer outside of school, the child cannot do homework, cannot review material that was interesting or confusing, cannot study for tests.

In addition, refusing to permit the computer to go home will deny the opportunity for parents of these children to participate in their children's education. Yet these are very likely to be expectations of other children in the class, and an opportunity, if not an expectation imposed on other children's parents.

In such a case, providing opportunities and imposing demands on some children, while denying those opportunities to and demands on a child with a disability constitutes discrimination in violation of Section 504.

For a child who seeks to take home a school owned communication device, a similar case of discrimination can be established. Here, the child is being denied the opportunity to practice in home, social and recreational settings the rules of grammar, vocabulary, and other expressive communication skills that are a fundamental part of all children's education.

Children are not taught English, language arts, and spelling solely to be able to communicate in school. These subjects, indeed, all of a child's education is intended as preparation for life beyond the education system. Math, social studies, science are all required to permit the student to function as an adult in today's world. On what basis, then, can a school state that some students can utilize, practice, and refine those lessons only in the school building during the school day?

This too constitutes discrimination.

Schools also may claim that the computers are fragile, and will seek to prevent loss and/or damage by restricting their circulation. There are a number of possible responses to this claim. First, OSEP has issued a policy letter that clarifies the schools liability for devices. Second, the school probably has few, if any facts to base a claim that the device will be lost or stolen if it is allowed to be taken home.

Also, if the child's IEP is properly written to include specific at home goals related to the use of the device, including parental participation, the likelihood of misuse, damage or theft is far smaller.

Second, concern about loss or damage is no different than a concern about cost. Loss/damage control is nothing but a claim that it will be too expensive to fix or replace the computer if it is stolen or broken. Yet the school is not permitted to consider the cost of a service in its determination of what is appropriate for a child.

Cost factors are no more permissible a basis to refuse to allow an assistive device to go home than they are to refuse to provide the device at all. Also, schools can get and probably have insurance against such loss and damage, and neither cost, nor an insurance policy can interfere with a child's educational opportunities.

Another possible excuse is that the device used by the child in school is not portable. This will be an easy fact for the school to establish, but that is not the end of the matter. The schools may have purchased these devices, or had them donated, but no child with a disability is required to accept what is available as the measure of his or her educational opportunity.

The IDEA requires programs for children with disabilities to be individualized. If a child requires a service that the school does not presently have within its resources, it must acquire it.

Consider the possibility that a school's science teacher retired. Or that its special education teacher moved to another district. Will the school tell parents that their children are not going to be given science next year? Can the school refuse to provide any special education to children with disabilities?

The parallel extends to non-personnel resources as well. If the district has not computers, but one is identified as being needed by a child with a disability, it must acquire it. If the school has a computer, but the child with a disability cannot access it due to his or her sensory or physical limitations, the school must acquire a second one that can be accessed by that child.

And, if the school has a computer that can be accessed, but which is not portable, the school faces the identical duty: get another.

Finally, the school may assert that the computers in school are not provided for the sole use of any one child, and it is unreasonable to expect schools to provide computers to every child with a disability who may use one during the course of the school day. This is the "if for one, for everybody" excuse that children and adults are given whenever decision makers seek to avoid individualized solutions.

But such individualized decisions cannot be avoided for children with disabilities. Each child is entitled to an individualized education program ("IEP"), and each may have computer aided instruction goals that will necessitate access to a computer at home. Not every child may require access to a computer at home every night; in those circumstances, computers can be shared at home, as at school.

But this is no reason to justify refusing to permit a computer to be taken home by a child whose need for it can be established.

In general, if the computer can be justified for school use, there can be no valid basis to restrict it to that setting.

The 'school only' excuse may best be approached by careful crafting of the child's IEP. Here the goal must be to equate the device with other 'things' children are permitted/expected to take home with them. For example, an IEP goal should state that the child is to develop greater functional skill in the use of the device.

If this is present on the IEP, learning the device becomes a substantive part of the child's program. As such, the child would be able to take the device home to the same extent any other child can take home a textbook or other school resource to practice his/her lessons or further his/her learning.

Equally true, the IEP should ensure that the child will be assigned "homework" related to the curriculum, and to use of the device, just as other children receive homework in their academic subjects.

Another IEP goal must focus on a child's instructional partners, such as parents, siblings and friends. Use of assistive devices requires some skills on the part of these persons. The IEP should list goals and as needed, provide services to these persons so that they can assist the student to use and benefit from the device.

With IEP goals such as these, schools will be hard pressed to justify restricting computers, software and/or communication devices to school grounds. The 'can't take it home' excuse should be undercut by careful preparation of the IEP, and rejected out of hand if ever it is raised.

By Susan Goodman, Esq.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of the opinions expressed herein should be inferred.