At a Crossroads: The Intersection of AT, AAC, and AI in the Education of Learners with Varied Needs

Forum Facilitators

Andrew Hinkle (CCSSO)

Kristin Liu (NCEO)

Virginia Ressa (NCEO)

Sandra Warren (Independent Consultant)

Forum Notetakers

Jacy Skelton Carringer (CCSSO)

Sheryl Lazarus (Independent Consultant)

Darrell Peterson (NCEO)

Mari Quanbeck (NCEO)

Forum Conveners

Andrew Hinkle (NCEO & CCSSO ASES Advisor)

Forum Organizers

Jacy Skelton Carringer (CCSSO)

Andrew Hinkle (NCEO & CCSSO ASES Advisor)

Mari Quanbeck (NCEO)

Forum Presenters

Sheila Bolling (Alabama)

Ivonne Aguirre-Hernandez (Tucson Unified School District)

Rui Hernandez (Sunnyside Unified School District)

Mia Laudato (CITES at CAST)

Forum Participants

Omran Akasha (New Mexico Public Education Department)

Kelsey Black (Minnesota Department of Education)

David Brauer (Ohio Department of Education and Workforce)

Molly Britt (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction)

Tiffany Christopher (Kentucky Department of Education)

Katelynn Crow (Ohio Department of Education and Workforce)

Jennifer Denne (Iowa Department of Education)

Jane Donohue (Curriculum Associates)

Andrea Faulkner (North Carolina Department of Public Instruction)

Mechelle Ganglfinger (Maine Department of Education)

Melissa Gholson (ATLAS, University of Kansas)

Tim Guy (Maryland State Department of Education)

Antoinette Hallam (Wyoming Department of Education)

Sharon Heater (Nebraska Department of Education)

Kelly Ickes (New Hampshire Department of Education)

Iris Jacobson (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction)

Helen Jones (Kentucky Department of Education)

Meagan Karvonen (ATLAS, University of Kansas)

Rose Kilmurray (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction)

Sheryl Lazarus (Independent consultant)

Regina Lewis (Maine Department of Education)

Jay Meadows (Exemplars)

Krista Mullins (Kentucky Department of Education)

Elisabeth Newell (Alabama State Department of Education)

Sonja Phillips (West Virginia Department of Education)

Rosalyn Rice-Harris (CCSSO)

Tabitha Riendeau (Arkansas Department of Education)

Cary Rogers (Kansas Department of Education)

Gene Shi (Learning Genie Inc.)

Bethany Spangenberg (Arizona Department of Education)

Pamela Speaks (Bureau of Indian Education)

Stacie Stensrud (Minnesota Department of Education)

Wendy Stoica (Ohio Department of Education and Workforce)

Russell Swinburne-Romine (ATLAS, University of Kansas)

Elle Talbott (Wyoming Department of Education)

Kim Varnell (WIDA)

Sandra Warren (Independent consultant)

Erica Wiseley (New Jersey Department of Education)

Background

On June 25, 2025, nearly 40 participants from state education agencies (SEAs), assessment vendors, and other educational organizations met in Denver, Colorado. They gathered for a forum to discuss how assistive technology (AT), augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, artificial intelligence (AI), and accessibility intersect in education. The forum followed the Council of Chief State School Officers’ (CCSSO) National Conference on Student Assessment (NCSA). It was a joint effort of the Assessment, Standards, and Education for Students with Disabilities (ASES) Collaborative and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO).

A goal of the forum was to bring together experts from SEAs, assessment vendors, and the AT, AAC, and AI fields. They discussed the implications of these quickly evolving technologies on instruction and assessment. Participants explored the intersection of these tools and the opportunities and challenges it presents.

Purpose

The forum aimed to help participants understand how AT, AAC devices, and generative AI are converging. This convergence is rapidly changing the educational landscape for learners. It creates new opportunities and complex challenges for students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities. Each of these technologies has traditionally operated somewhat separately. Their convergence, however, requires a new approach to understanding how they can work together to improve accessibility. This must be done while maintaining assessment validity and instructional quality.

The forum addressed critical questions about how SEAs, assessment vendors, and other stakeholders can manage the practical and policy implications of this technology shift. The discussion focused on three key areas:

• How can educators and policymakers develop implementation strategies that harness the combined potential of AT, AAC, and AI while preserving assessment validity?
• What considerations should guide the integration of these technologies in classrooms and in high-stakes assessment environments?
• What does responsible innovation look like when these technologies intersect in educational contexts for all learners?

Participants aimed to look beyond each technology in isolation. The goal was to reach a full understanding of their combined impact on educational access.

Agenda

The meeting began with a welcome, followed by three presentations from four speakers. The agenda was:

Welcome

• Andrew Hinkle, NCEO & CCSSO ASES Advisor
• Ben Irwin, CCSSO
• Kristin Liu, NCEO

Presentations

• Assistive Technology and AAC: An Alabama Perspective (Sheila Bolling, Alabama Department of Education)
• Multilingual Students and AAC (Ivonne Aguirre-Hernandez, Tucson Unified School District & Rui Hernandez, Sunnyside Unified School District)
• AI, AT, and Assessment: Navigating Legal, Ethical, and Practical Pathways for Use (Mia Laudato, CITES at CAST)

Breakout Discussions

• Learners with high incidence disabilities (Facilitator: Virginia Ressa, NCEO)
• Learners with sensory disabilities (Facilitator: Sandra Warren, Independent Consultant)
• Learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities (Facilitator: Andrew Hinkle)
• English learners and English learners with disabilities (Facilitator: Kristin Liu)

Reporting Out

· Andrew Hinkle

Evaluation and Next Steps

· Virginia Ressa

Forum Introduction

Andrew Hinkle, the co-director of NCEO and the ASES advisor for CCSSO, welcomed everyone. He gave an overview of the agenda and introduced the co-hosts, CCSSO and NCEO. He noted that the forum topic developed from discussions at previous ASES meetings over the past year. States continue to struggle with how to effectively implement and integrate AT, AAC, and AI technologies. The goal is to support the accessibility needs of all students, including students with disabilities, English learners, and English learners with disabilities. Ben Erwin, director of assessment and accountability at CCSSO, and Kristin Liu, co-director of NCEO, welcomed participants on behalf of their organizations.

Presentations

Presenters from varied backgrounds and areas of expertise shared their thoughts on how AT, AAC, and AI affect accessibility in education.

Assistive Technology and AAC: An Alabama Perspective

Sheila Bolling, a special education expert from the Alabama State Department of Education, presented the state’s comprehensive approach to AT and AAC support for students with disabilities. She highlighted several key initiatives and partnerships. Ms. Bolling outlined Alabama’s “Road Show” training program. This provides staff training on working with students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities. The two-day format covers learning spaces, structured teaching, and AT reviews.

Alabama enhanced their annual Educational Technology Conference by adding an AT strand with hands-on training. A major new feature was the addition of AI chatbots to provide participants with practical experience in conducting AT assessments. The conference also added training focused on AAC assessments, filling a gap in preparation for school-based speech- language pathologists.

Ms. Bolling emphasized Alabama’s collaboration with the Alabama Department of Rehabilitation Services through the “Accessing Potential Through Assistive Technology” (APTAT) lending library. This partnership lets educators try devices for 30 days before purchase. It also provides demonstrations, training, and support across Alabama’s regional service areas. The library helps with decision-making, temporary accommodations, staff training, and device repair loans.

The presentation also highlighted Alabama’s AT task force, which is developing an AT manual, resource guide, and training materials. Ms. Bolling stressed the importance of correcting myths about students with disabilities, especially the false idea that physical or communication limits indicate cognitive impairment. She emphasized that AT provides access and independence, which improves student outcomes by enabling participation in classroom activities and assessments.

Key challenges identified included cost, lack of awareness, and the need for ongoing professional development among educators. Looking ahead, Ms. Bolling noted emerging technologies like robotics, AI, and smart device integration that will continue to enhance accessibility and independence for students with disabilities.

Multilingual Students and AAC

Ivonne Aguirre-Hernandez (Tucson Unified School District) and Rui Hernandez (Sunnyside Unified School District), two speech-language pathologists and AAC/AT specialists, presented on multilingual students with disabilities and AAC. They shared important insights on the challenges faced by students who require AAC in more than one language. Their presentation focused on necessary practices and critical changes for assessment and support.

There is a common misperception that students with disabilities who are exposed to more than one language may have a harder time learning in English. Ms. Aguirre-Hernandez and Ms. Hernandez challenged this myth, particularly for AAC users. Growing up bilingual does not create or worsen language disorders. Children are not confused when they use multiple languages. Bilingual children maintain separate but interacting language systems and use them systematically. They demonstrate a sophisticated ability to communicate through code-switching. English learners with disabilities who use AAC must also be supported to become sophisticated multilingual communicators. AAC devices should be set up to access and support all of a student’s languages.

A significant point of the presentation was the sheer amount of language input needed to develop communication proficiency with AAC. Drawing on information from speech-language pathologist Jane Korsten, the presenters offered a powerful comparison. An 18-month-old child typically gets 4,380 hours of oral language exposure. In contrast, a child using AAC who only receives therapy twice a week would take 84 years to reach that amount of exposure in one language. If the child is exposed to more than one language it may take longer. This dramatic difference emphasizes the importance of consistent AAC modeling by adults across home and school environments. If a child with a disability is exposed to multiple languages, this AAC modeling should happen in all of the languages.

There is, however, a significant research gap. Multilingual AAC use is under-researched compared to studies of monolingual AAC use. This research gap requires clinicians to rely heavily on expert judgment and classroom observations for guidance on bilingual AAC use. To address this reality, the presenters emphasized several critical education practices. First, speech-language professionals must assess and serve students in all their languages. Second, educators need to collaborate with language interpreters. Third, educators must ensure AAC systems provide access to multiple languages with relevant symbols. Fourth, it is important to maintain strong family-school collaboration.

The presentation outlined important considerations for student assessment. Thorough preparation is critical. It is important to conduct a comprehensive history of the student’s language and communication skills to know how students use each language. Professionals must also verify the functionality and compatibility of the AAC system with the testing platform. Further, it is necessary to implement all appropriate accommodations listed in the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP). Finally, educators should also consider using a team-based approach to administer assessments, including teachers, speech-language pathologists (SLPs), and paraprofessionals as test administrators familiar to the student.

Additional recommendations for improvement of assessment include incorporating principles of Universal Design for Assessment. It is also important to hire more specialized staff focused on AT/AAC and give educators and test administrators targeted training on AT/AAC use. Schools should develop creative ways for staff to collaborate and support students with disabilities who are English learners. Ultimately, a student's skill with their AAC device greatly affects their performance on tests. Therefore, a more nuanced understanding is required regarding the complicated relationship between disability, language acquisition, and communication technology.

AI, AT, and Assessment: Navigating Legal, Ethical, and Practical Pathways for Use

Mia Laudato, the Co-Project Director of CITES (Center on Inclusive Technology and Education Systems) at CAST, outlined the intersection of AT, AI, and assessment. Her focus was on legal, ethical, and practical pathways to use these technologies. CITES works to empower districts to create inclusive technology systems. These systems foster collaboration and coordination between education technology (EdTech), AT, and IT. This collaboration benefits students with disabilities and all students.

The presentation emphasized the urgent need to address AI in education. Ms. Laudato noted the explosion of AI tools in schools. This explosion is increasing legal scrutiny under:

• The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA, 1974)
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1975)
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or schools receiving federal funding)
• Various state laws

She also highlighted that one in ten English learners also have disabilities. There is a critical need for integrated solutions and policies to address students’ multiple needs. Policy often fails to reflect the overlap between students with disabilities and English learners.

Ms. Laudato highlighted AI’s potential for accessible assessment. Examples included AI-enhanced personalized learning for formative assessment and AI-translated procedural safeguards. The presentation highlighted various assistive and accessible technologies, such as AAC systems (like Glint), speech-to-text, leveled/multilingual texts, and facial recognition logins. The Oregon Department of Education was highlighted as a model for AI use in K–12 schools.

The presentation also addressed major concerns about AI’s limits and unintended consequences of AI. Potential issues identified included:

• Altering what is being assessed
• Masking authentic student voice through the language processing of AAC devices
• Introducing algorithmic bias
• Creating policy gaps that affect English learners with disabilities most often

Ms. Laudato emphasized the importance of legal and ethical safeguards (guardrails). These safeguards must cover data use, accessibility, language access, and student privacy.

The presentation closed with several key recommendations. Ms. Laudato urged schools, policymakers, and technology developers to work together. These groups should ensure that AI tools are designed and used responsibly. She also recommended providing teachers with professional learning related to making AI tools accessible for all learners. AI should be treated as part of inclusive technology within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Finally, she noted that families should be involved in discussions about AI use, data collection, consent, and privacy.

Key Themes from Presentations

Several important themes emerged from the presentations:

1. Building Stronger Professional Development: All presenters agreed there are major gaps in how educators are prepared. Successful use of AT and inclusive practices requires a sustained investment in educator capacity building. Training must be systemic, ongoing, and cover both technical skills and core concepts.
2. Technology As a Bridge to Participation: Presenters viewed AT not just as an accommodation for special populations but also as essential infrastructure for student engagement. Technology should be a fundamental tool that removes barriers and creates authentic opportunities for all students to participate meaningfully in learning and assessment.
3. Creating Integrated Systems: Effective support requires integrated partnerships across disciplines, agencies, and stakeholder groups. Complex student needs cannot be addressed through separate efforts; they demand coordinated teamwork that uses everyone’s expertise and resources to create effective support systems.
4. Ensuring Authentic and Valid Assessment: Traditional assessment approaches may not capture true student abilities, especially for those with intersecting identities. The field has a critical need for more nuanced testing methods that provide authentic assessment—measuring what students actually know through multiple communication modes and learning approaches—while keeping measurement rigorous and meaningful.
5. Addressing Time and Exposure Gaps: Students with disabilities often receive dramatically less learning exposure than their peers. Achieving quality instruction requires recognizing these exposure gaps and making systematic efforts to provide intensive, sustained support.
6. Presuming Potential Across All Populations: All presenters challenged negative assumptions about student capability. They argued for asset-based approaches that build on student strengths. The core shift needed is moving from focusing on what students cannot do to leveraging what they can accomplish when provided with the right support and opportunities.

Breakout Discussions

Following the presentations, meeting participants split into four discussion groups of their choice. Groups were formed around areas of interest (i.e., learners with high incidence disabilities; learners with sensory disabilities; learners with the most significant cognitive disabilities; English learners, including English learners with disabilities).

Discussion Questions

Discussion questions were provided to offer a starting point and guide conversations. There were three sets of questions, each focused on a different facet of the topic:

Technology Integration and Implementation:

• What specific AI, AT, or AAC tools are currently being used or piloted in your state/organization for assessment purposes? What has been the impact on accessibility and validity of assessments?
• How do you determine which AI, AT, or AAC tools are appropriate accommodations for different assessment contexts? What criteria guide these decisions?
• What implementation challenges have you encountered when introducing these technologies, and how have you addressed them? What would you do differently?

Ethical Considerations:

• What ethical concerns arise when using AI in assessment contexts? How do you address issues of bias, privacy, and data security?
• How do you ensure access to AI, AT, or AAC tools across different districts, schools, and socioeconomic contexts?
• What role should student choice and agency play in determining which technologies are used during assessment?

Future-Focused and Emerging Practices:

• Envision assessment systems where AI, AT, and AAC are seamlessly integrated. What fundamental changes in assessment design, administration, and interpretation would be necessary to realize this vision?
• How would you design professional development and cross-disciplinary collaboration to prepare teams for the convergence of AI, AT, AAC, and assessment? What expertise needs to be developed, and how would different professionals need to work together?
• Consider the policy and regulatory frameworks needed to govern the intersection of AI, AT, AAC, and assessment. What guidance would you want to see developed, and how would you balance innovation with the protection of student rights and assessment integrity?

Learners with High Incidence Disabilities

The high incidence disabilities breakout group focused closely on how AT, AI, and assessment practices intersect. They paid particular attention to policy development and implementation challenges. Participants noted that some states are already taking action on AI. Some have created early guidance documents or hired dedicated AI staff. One has developed templates for districts to use. The group stressed the need to “prime” AI systems using premium accounts. These accounts can learn about users and tailor responses. Knowing how to use AI is a new form of literacy requiring specific skills and professional development.

The discussion revealed major tensions between innovation and fair testing. How do we allow students to use helpful technology while keeping standardized tests consistent? For example, a key challenge is students who require smartwatches during assessments to monitor their health (heart rate or glucose levels). This shows the need for nuanced policy approaches that consider individual student needs. The group noted that strict security rules for college readiness assessments often cause school staff to be overly worried about what technology is allowed. This fear and misunderstanding makes it harder for students to get the access they need.

A critical issue is the disconnect between those who write policies and those who carry them out. Policy developers often lack understanding of actual use cases and student needs. The group advocated for policies to consider unusual and exceptional cases. They also emphasized the importance of professional development that teaches staff how to request non-standard accommodations. Participants discussed a problem where students are often given alternate assessments when general education teachers lack the time or knowledge to implement appropriate accommodations. They suggested this represents a systemic failure.

The group stressed the need for better collaboration between general and special education teachers, as well as related service providers. They noted that many general education teachers leave the responsibility for accommodations to others. Participants suggested that universities must do a better job of teaching pre-service teachers about accommodations. SEAs should also focus professional development on helping general education teachers understand accessible classroom assessment practices. The discussion concluded that effective implementation requires ongoing professional development and system-wide support, not just a single training session.

Learners with Sensory Disabilities

The sensory disabilities breakout group began by focusing heavily on ethical considerations. Key issues included technology costs, data security, and ensuring everyone has access. The group firmly rejected the idea that expense justifies denying AT. They emphasized that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires schools to provide necessary accommodations regardless of cost.

The discussion identified growing problems with emerging technologies like smart glasses. While some students require smart devices for daily life activities and classroom learning, using them during assessments raises significant security concerns. These concerns cover issues like data collection, corporate access to student information, and assessment validity.

Access issues were a major part of the discussion. Participants acknowledged that the digital divide still creates unfair differences between rural and urban areas, as well as across income levels. Several SEAs have developed AT lending libraries and partnerships with student advocacy groups to provide access to specialized equipment and alternate versions (like braille, or large-print versions of practice materials). However, it was noted that practice tests are often not fully accessible for students who use screen readers. This means SEAs must keep collaborating with test vendors to improve accessibility features.

The group strongly supported student choice and agency when determining assessment technologies. The discussion emphasized that regional specialists should work with individual students to select the right accommodations. It is important to allow students to use AT tools during classroom and interim assessments. Doing so helps them build familiarity and reduces stress during high-stakes statewide testing. Participants stressed the need for IEP teams to prioritize the student’s input about what they need for instructional access, and they must consider how students use AT daily when making assessment decisions.

The group’s forward-looking discussion centered on the need for fundamental changes in assessment design. Participants argued that test developers must consider the needs of specific student populations during the design phase, rather than adding accessibility features later (retrofitting). The group identified the complexity of cross-disciplinary collaboration. Both IEP teams and IT staff must be involved in decisions about AT and its use. However, these two groups often use different terminology and may not recognize that they share responsibilities.

Finally, participants emphasized that policy frameworks must be written at a high enough level to handle rapidly changing technology. This includes maintaining appropriate security measures and addressing potential bias across geographic, socioeconomic, and demographic groups.

Learners with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities

The breakout group discussing students with significant cognitive disabilities stressed the vital importance of early intervention and consistently using AAC technologies. Current security restrictions create major barriers to authentic assessment of what the students know. There is a need for testing platforms that can handle AAC devices while keeping the assessment secure. Students who use AAC must be central to the design process of assessments. Decision-makers and users must be involved in these discussions from the beginning.

A central theme was the need to start using AAC systems when a child is as young as 18 months old. Both simple (low-tech) and advanced (high-tech) systems should be introduced in preschool. Participants advocated for a “language system first” approach. Districts should select robust language systems and then use them fully and consistently across all settings, rather than trying to support many different, fragmented systems. This approach would allow educators to effectively support any AAC user once they have mastered one system, creating more efficient and lasting support.

The group highlighted significant gaps in professional development and pre-service training. Specifically, SLPs need to collaborate directly in classrooms and higher education institutions must improve their AT curricula. Participants emphasized using federal resources and stressed that the constructs, or underlying ideas, that assessment items are designed to measure should include AAC and AT users from the beginning. They identified the ethical principle of “nothing about us without us” as the core idea that should guide all policy and practice.

The discussion covered challenges in integrating technology. These issues included problems with Spanish translation capabilities, test security concerns related to AI, and the need for educators to change their way of thinking (mindset changes). The group noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Title II requirements will greatly impact assessment practices. These requirements may give states additional influence for ensuring accessibility. Access to the right technology should not be viewed as optional; it is a fundamental requirement for students who need these supports.

English Learners and English Learners with Disabilities

This breakout group discussion focused on the intersection of language accessibility technologies and assessment accommodations for English proficiency. Although the discussion was broad, the group paid particular attention to the challenges of supporting English learners with disabilities. Participants from several states and organizations highlighted current technology uses. An assessment consortium shared its use of speech synthesizers for proper pronunciation. One state discussed its use of speech-to-text and text-to-speech tools with word prediction capabilities. The group identified significant coordination challenges. For example, in one state, students with both English Learner Plans and IEPs often do not receive comprehensive accessibility features and accommodations on assessments. This occurs because the two plans, and the related service systems, are separate.

The discussion revealed growing concerns about the misuse of AI technologies. One state shared its experience with increased AI-assisted cheating on English Language Proficiency assessments. This challenge highlighted the need for enhanced training. Additional training is especially important for English language development teachers who may feel overwhelmed when participating in IEP team processes. More flexible translation tools are needed. These tools should move beyond rigid, literal translations to capture nuanced meaning. At the same time, vendors should integrate comprehensive translation services directly into their testing platforms rather than treating them as external accommodations.

Ethical considerations focused on the balance between technological innovation and assessment integrity. Participants questioned whether AI-assisted language translation differs from human translator services in privacy and data security implications and in the potential for translation error. The group noted the inherent imbalance between machine and human translation capabilities and the need for careful consideration of these differences when developing accommodation policies. Participants advocated for former English learners to maintain access to the same technology tools available to current English learners. Doing so would recognize that language support needs may persist beyond formal classification.

The group discussed policy and implementation challenges. One state’s Spanish language assessment accessibility features served as an example of emerging practices still in the development stages. The group emphasized that lack of collaboration between different educational teams creates significant implementation barriers. They advocated for comprehensive training materials, including video demonstrations of proper technology accommodation usage. Participants suggested that organizations like NCEO could play a crucial role in developing and disseminating guidance on effective implementation of technology accommodations for English learners. Doing so would bridge the gap between policy development and classroom practice.

Key Themes Across Breakout Groups

After the breakout discussions, Andrew Hinkle led a brief sharing session. A reporter from each group gave a summary of the group’s key points. Several important themes emerged:

1. Early Implementation and System-Level Planning: Proactive technology integration should begin in early childhood rather than introducing reactive accommodations only during later high-stakes testing.
2. Gaps in Professional Development: There are major gaps in pre-service training for teachers and in ongoing professional development for practicing teachers. These gaps are especially true for technology accommodations and collaboration across disciplines.
3. Policies Do Not Match Practice: Policy developers often do not understand how technology is used in the real world. This lack of understanding creates barriers between written policies and actual classroom use.
4. Tension Between Security and Access: It is challenging to balance test security requirements with authentic student access needs. This is particularly true for AAC devices, smart glasses, and AI-assisted tools.
5. Focus on Student Choice: Students should have more say in choosing their accommodations. Decisions about accommodations should be individualized, not standardized.
6. Collaboration Barriers: There are challenges in collaborating across disciplines. These challenges include communication gaps between general and special education teachers, IEP teams and technology staff, and English learner specialists and special education service providers.
7. Vendors Must Integrate: Accessibility features should be built into assessment platforms, not just added on later. Doing this would require better collaboration between assessment and technology vendors.
8. Ongoing Accessibility Gaps: There are continuing differences in who gets technology access across income levels and geographic contexts. The field needs systemic support structures to address these gaps.

These themes highlight that effective AI, AT, and AAC integration in assessment requires coordinated changes. These changes must happen in teacher preparation and training, policy development, and technology systems. The focus should be on collaborative practices rather than separate, one-time fixes.

Conclusion

The meeting concluded with remarks from Andrew Hinkle. He thanked CCSSO and NCEO for their collaboration in holding the forum and the participants for their attendance. He confirmed that a report with forum proceedings would be available later in the year. Virginia Ressa shared a link to an evaluation of the forum and strongly encouraged participants to share their feedback.

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

Quanbeck, M. K., Hinkle, A. R., Ressa, V. A., & Liu, K. K. (2025). At a crossroads: The intersection of AT, AAC, and AI in the education of learners with varied needs. National Center on Educational Outcomes.

The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G210002) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. Consistent with EDGAR §75.62, the contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but do not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government. Project Officer: David Egnor

In collaboration with:

NCEO Core Staff

Andrew R. Hinkle, Co-Director

Kristi K. Liu, Co-Director

Jessica Bowman

Gail Ghere

Linda Goldstone

Michael L. Moore

Darrell Peterson

Mari Quanbeck

Virginia A. Ressa

Kathy Strunk

Yi-Chen Wu

National Center on Educational Outcomes

University of Minnesota

2025 East River Parkway, Room 1-330

Minneapolis, MN 55414

Phone 612/626-1530

http://www.nceo.info

The University of Minnesota shall provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.

This document is available in alternative formats upon request. Direct requests to nceo@umn.edu.

NCEO is an affiliated center of the Institute on Community Integration