Assistive Technology Consideration and Services

[KarenJanowski]

It is my experience that even 10 years since the Reauthorization of IDEA added AT as a consideration at every IEP meeting that this is still not happening at team meetings. In addition, AT is typically brought up and requested by parents. When it is parent driven, then students have a chance at having AT added to their IEPs.
Is this your experience? What has worked in your district? There has to be a better way that will benefit all students.

[Jodi Nibbelin]

In our area, we were blessed to participate in a 5 year grant a couple years ago to increase AT awareness, use and tools. There are 4 different entity's (school distirct and coops) who used this grant to buy equipment, host workshops/training, and pay stipends to attendees. Many of our schools are now doing a very good job having access to AT and utilizing it with children. As always some schools, especially the smaller ones, are not as advanced in this area as some others. We have also increased our designated AT staff to have a half-time SLP in one school district, a half-time SLP and full time teacher/AT Coordinator in another and a half-time AT coordinator consulting to all schools. One if the issues I am noticing is how can we make "quidelines or protocals" to be followed to determine when extra or specialty AT services are required over and above what happens with a team (teacher, OT, PT, SLP). I have run across some teams asking for AT services where I feel the needs are being covered by current team. There are other cases where AT services were requested before fully considering the current team's skills or how to improve that teams skills for future cases. Similar to the teach a man to fish philosophy. We have also encouraged and instituted the use of the SETT process for team decisions. Then the question arises about the necessity of a full SETT if the team is "taking care of needs". What might be some ways that local therapists/teachers/team members can become more competent or classified as more competent so administrators are more likely to trust their decisions. Locally, our school districts have a flat rule of not paying for any out-of-state conferences and finding good, local conferences is very difficult. Are there any questionnaires or quidelines out there that local staff could review to show competency?
Complex issues with most likely complex answers.
Jodi

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

Yes, teaching for four years in Massachusetts, I found the same thing. AT consideration at IEP meetings in Massachusetts is often overlooked for a few reasons I have seen:

Teachers having misperception regarding what is learning technology consideration.
The fact that it is simply a little box among a bunch of other vague little boxes in PLEP A and B.
Administrators steering the team away from the considerations.
Virtually everyone not knowing that it can and often times should be considered.

What can we do about it?

Word of mouth has worked well in my district. Families that received AT evals from my team and I, tell other families. Speaking at PAC meetings could help. Sending out a informational one sheet to all families in the district or consortium could be cool. Having a free info session for families, where you send a flyer home could be cool.

Teacher training seems to be the other avenue. Working with teacher training programs at the undergraduate level, as well as the graduate level is what most interests me personally.

[Brian Wojcik]

OK...going out on a limb here...

I have been a long time advocate of the SETT Process. I think it gives the team the tools necessary to go through a good consideration process. However, recently, I have been plagued with the question from administrators about when to SETT and when not to SETT. Unfortunately, IMHO, SETT is often used in my area as a 'gateway' to AT and is perceived as more of a bureaucratic hurdle than a problem solving and decision making process. So, I throw these questions out to you dear colleagues:

1. What, if any, are the instances that require a team to go through the SETT framework and what, if any, are instances that a team should not?
2. Is SETT applicable to all populations of students served in special education or should other considerations models be used for specific populations?

I have no answers to these...only some opinions...but would love to hear others perspectives!

Brian

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

Gosh, off hand, I can't think of a time considering an individual, that student's tasks, and how to help them? This is an interesting question to considsr. It will be cool to see what will come out of the dialogue.

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

I think that this question brings up the important funding considerations. I think that the reason the problems arise is that we have trouble funding the services and the tools.

Recently, I have had exposure to the CARD organization that serves students with autism and related disabilities. I really like their model because virtually all of their services are free to the consumer.

The freedom of that is great. Someone is still paying for it, but it is a chartered organization. I think often times people get wary of the SETT process when it usually ends up in them getting out their check books and buying tools.

Creative funding for software, hardware, and services might help the AT consideration process greatly in that the pressure would be off the people making both the financial and instructional decisions.

[Brian Wojcik]

"I think often times people get wary of the SETT process when it usually ends up in them getting out their check books and buying tools."

WOW...I can't agree more, and reading the post for Kirsten below, seems to underscore this as well. It does seems like assessment is becoming a barrier or a hurdle for assistive technology to actually get to a student. I wonder why that is... Is it only a funding issue? Is it a time issue? These may be valid. However, I am wondering if it is more an integration issue. I find that many times, IEP teams go through the IEP process and then consider AT as a bit of an afterthought (mostly, when they come to that line in the IEP that says...has AT been considered?). I wonder if we are really looking at issues where teachers and other education professionals really don't have the content knowledge about AT, don't have the technical knowledge of AT, and/or don't have the pedagogical knowledge to actually consider and implement AT in the classroom. It seems like with all of the readily accessible AT that is out there, access should no longer me an issue.

Seems like we have to change a system....

[Kirsten Haugen]

Brian, I love these discussions because of their domino effect - each person's thoughts prompting someone else's 'til we all think a bit more clearly and broadly.
You're on to something with many educators not having the content knowledge, technical knowledge and/or pedagogical knowledge (funny, I was just browsing the ATSTAR web site this morning!). How can anyone consider or justify the (sometimes) added time & expense of AT if they don't know what purpose, process or potential of it actually is? Often when I'm in my consultant/trainer role and I try to offer new, easier ways of doing things (often involving web 2.0), people balk at the (perceived) learning curve. The old way offers the path of least resistance whereas the 'new' way means that people might have to change both their habits and their expectations of themselves and their students.
More and more, I think we might work our way around to an understanding of AT consideration through the back doors of universal design and differentiated instruction. In other words, as flexible tools for multiple means of representation, expression and engagement become a more and more common part of our classrooms, then it's not so far a leap to take that next step toward AT consideration. And I'd prefer this path, actually, because if our classrooms had the flexibility to fit more kids, fewer would actually need the often detrimental label of "resource kids," "special needs kids," or "IEP kids" that come with the accommodations they often so badly need in our more traditional settings.

[KarenJanowski]

Kirsten,
I agree with you that the way to go is through universal design and differentiated instruction. For example, I recommend "Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age" by Rose and Meyer all the time. It's available in it's entirety online and it's good 21st century teaching.
Differentiated instruction is one of the educational "buzz words" making the rounds right now and I do not believe it is possible to differentiate instruction without technology.
When technology is seamlessly embedded, then all kids benefit and no one sees themselves as different.
Is it the ideal? I hope not. I want it to be the reality.

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

I loved that book! Also, the fact that it is online and shared is a great gift.

Yet, I think these broad scope ideas must shift to programs that work.

I recently had a great conversation with two teenagers from Maine who participate in their one laptop project. It nearly floored me as I mentioned WordMaker and they knew it like it was old hat. We contrasted PowerPoint and Keynote. They talked about how it helped them. They were able to speak easily about this.

I think one to one computing for all students and "major" grants to the best AT/ AAC companies for the creation of some unbelievable open source software is something that would be awesome. Obviously it is a pie in the sky dream, but in some ways I think it can happen.

[Brian Wojcik]

I think UDL is part policy, part curriculum material design, and part pedagogy. I think we need to, as education professionals, take a more active stand in demanding features in the curriculum materials that allow us to differentiate our instruction. Without this, I feel that we are constantly searching for things that allow us to supplement and adapt...which is not entirely bad...but it is not entirely efficient either.

I agree...UDL...it is the way in and should be the standard of practice, not an elusive goal.

[Linda Schleef]

Another resource I really like is a small, inexpensive book called Universal Design for Learning: A Guide for Teachers and Education Professionals. It is available through the Council for Exceptional Children.

[Kirsten Haugen]

It's my experience that AT consideration is completely driven by parents. Case in point - last year, I pointed out to our school psychologist our son's success with audio books we'd gotten from the library and audible.com. I asked if my son could have access to audio books through his IEP. Her reply was, "But then we'd have to do an AT assessment!" I was taken aback (but not surprised) that the need to assess could be seen as a barrier to providing a service that not only was his legal right, but would also have made my son more successful and therefore require less direct intervention!!!

I have to take issue with the idea that being parent driven gives kids a chance at AT. Most parents don't know their rights or the possibilities of AT. I know both quite well, but even still, as a parent trying to get what my child needs and deal in a positive way with these folks for his educational life time, I often find myself prioritizing, passing up one thing for something that's more urgent.

What has worked for us is simply building relationships with everyone who sees our child on an educational or professional basis, and quite honestly, avoiding the people who don't understand him. Really good things have usually happened through informal channels. I feel a bit guilty about that. My kid ends up with what he needs and people who know, care about and understand him. However, when I work through informal channels, I don't feel I'm doing as much for other kids down the road whose families might not have the same awareness or willingness to ask for what we need.

What's the better way? It's got to be driven by the district personnel. We also have to have better funding so that district personnel aren't stretched so thin and don't end up parceling out equipment and services on an "ability to know" basis. (I know that's only a partial answer, but I'm hoping others out there can flesh it out!)