As early as 1990, a specific directive appeared requiring the consideration of assistive technology in connection with the development of Individualized Educational Programs (IEP) for children with disabilities. A policy letter from Judy Shrag, then Director of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the United States Department of Education stated:
if the participants on the IEP team determine that a child with handicaps requires assistive technology in order to receive FAPE and designate such assistive technology as either special education or a related service, the child's IEP must include a specific statement of such services, including the nature and the amount of such services. (1990, p. 2.)

Though Shrag's policy letter indicated that the provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for all students with disabilities must include the tools needed for the student to benefit from educational opportunities, laws pertaining to the education of students with disabilities did not explicitly include assistive technology devices and services until the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was passed later that year. IDEA not only mandated the provision of assistive technology devices and services, if determined to be required for the provision of FAPE, but also defined, in general terms, assistive technology devices and services. However, these definitions are so broad that there is continuing confusion as to what is and is not included under the definitions of assistive technology devices and services.

In the decade since the passage of the IDEA, much attention has been focused on the procedures and practices that school districts use to determine whether or not a student with disabilities requires assistive technology devices and services, and, if required, the nature of those devices and services. This focus has intensified since the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997. With the passage of IDEA '97, the responsibility of each IEP team to consider each student's need for assistive technology devices and services was explicitly included in the statute (IDEA, 1997). Unfortunately, members of IEP teams often are unprepared to implement this statute effectively and school districts often are unprepared to provide assistive technology support to IEP teams (Bowser & Reed, 1995; Hutinger, Johanson, & Stoneburner, 1996; Todis & Walker, 1993).