Consideration

[Jeannette Van Houten]

OK - I have been asked to write an article on consideration for assistive technology in the IEP. I know this topic has been hashed out before. But I have a question:

What does consideration mean? I have found the dictionary definition of consideration, I have read articles written on consideration and I still have the same question. How do we define consideration when consideration isn't defined anywhere in IDEA? We can assume that they meant discussion. However, isn’t an IEP a legal document per say a contract between the school district and the parent/guardian so wouldn’t the legal definition be the one used?

In the legal definition there are 3 specific elements that must be met.
1) First, there must be a bargain regarding terms of an exchange.
2) Second, there must be a mutual exchange. In other words, both parties must get something out of the contract.
3) Third, the exchange must be something of value.

Now if I transform this into an AT conversation:
1) Is Assistive Technology needed? There is an exchange of information and beliefs of why or why not? There is a discussion of do we the teams skills are and if they are capable of making these decisions without further investigation.
2) The district and parents need to get something out of the mutual exchange. The mutual exchange would be FAPE and LRE.
3) The exchange has a value which doesn’t mean monetary. I would say that the IEP team would determine the value of the assistive technology.

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

To me it is defined by the SETT and trying to help kids we care deeply about.

[Jeannette Van Houten]

SETT is a wonderful tool. However, I am trying to get to the heart of what consideration really means. SETT is a process. You cannot perform SETT until you do consideration.

If I follow the definitions that have been shared Consideration is really only meant to be a conversation "Are we considering AT for this student and IEP?" AT cannot happen without an IEP. AT is not driven by the IEP = the IEP drives the AT.

I am struggling with how the assumption is that in IDEA that the definition of consideration is” the process of giving careful thought to something”. If the process is completed at the IEP meeting and the IEP is a contract I feel that the legal term consideration is more appropriate because “the inducement to a contract or other legal transaction; specifically : an act or forbearance or the promise thereof done or given by one party in return for the act or promise of another “. Isn’t consideration a promise between a district and a parent? If the team goes through the SETT process the team is making promise to trial and implements the possible solutions that are developed specifically for the student in question. The district also makes a promise to provide services if needed for the student and parent.

If consideration really is just a generic term and is equal to a conversation, how is it that districts can be brought to Due Process for not fulfilling their end of the deal. If it is just a conversation it really shouldn't be binding.

[Hindie Becker Dershowitz]

I like the legal definition of consideration. Since the I.E.P. is a legal document then we should be using the legal definition of consideration. I would love to see our local I.E.P. teams really consider if and what A.T. is needed. In order to do this, they need to understand what is A.T. They need to have tools available to consider A.T.

[Jeannette Van Houten]

Hindie: I love the legal definition of consideration because I believe that is what we truly do. I think my issue is that I can’t believe a bunch of legal minds that created IDEA turned to the dictionary for the definition especially when we are talking a law that protects and affects so many. Especially since the word consideration shows up so many times in the document. There is no way that consideration is a yes no question, without give and take on each party’s part and then an agreement needs to be reached. (Too much court TV for me, I think).

I agree that administrators, teachers and parents need a better understand of what AT is and isn’t. We are making progress but the progress is slow. I tried in vain to have the district that my niece attends to do “consideration” and they purchased an evaluation. The evaluation was so poorly done that had my brother reject the evaluation and the recommendations. Now we are battling over what the districts responsibility is for AT. Although I know what they are responsible for they still don’t get the concept.

[Hindie Becker Dershowitz]

Jeannette,

I like the idea that the legal minds are wanting us to "really" consider A.T. I think they wanted us to work together as a team. I live in my own dream world somedays where I see us all working to this concept.
In reality I have attended too many IEP meetings where they don't even talk about the A.T. consideration on the form. I have see some strange things completed on that part of the page.
I hope we continue to stress the need for the team to conduct a good faith effort in considering the needs for A.T.

[Jeannette Van Houten]

I am right there. Now if you look at the legal term of good faith it is defined as “honestly and without deception”. An agreement might be declared invalid if one of the parties entered with the intention of defrauded the other.

Although we don't won't to stand in the deception bucket, but the reality is that the districts often try to deceive because they know most parents don’t understand their rights.

[Hindie Becker Dershowitz]

Amen
I think though most IEP teams are just ignorant about the basic things. Now when it comes to high price items .....

[Samuel Charles Sennott]

This discussion seems to get to that starting point, what we are calling consideration of AT services.

Good point Jeannette about what is really agreed upon by the IDEA points about consideration of AT services. Hindie, that basic things question really seems to bring us back to the beginning.

To me, the greatest thing right now about UDL is not the excellent technology that we have, but this idea of integrating our thought process. We care about and teach all kids with a FAPE.

Free appropriate public education is a terrific thing. What a gift that is looking back at only the last 75 years.

I think that we are stuck in the mud. With virtually a nation of teachers undertrained in using technology for learning, I now am not surprised at our troubles integrating AT.

I am still upset about it, but all of the sudden I am not mystified by it. What do you all think?

I am torn as I am super grass roots in my work. Yet, this conversation is making me ever more realize that although we have to work AT considerations at the tables, we really need to find a way to set those tables up for success. I see two main components being teacher training at the college and graduate level and additionally an unprecedented grant funding program for software and hardware development and distribution.

Just my two cents! Good thread. Right on! At the end of the day, I still maintain the simplicity of FAPE, trying to help learners, and the SETT process.

[Jeannette Van Houten]

I haven’t even started on consideration of services. I am still trying to figure out consideration. If you can’t get the district to understand their responsibility for consideration and that consideration is a binding conversation then you can’t move forward toward services.

Free appropriate public education is a terrific thing when you can get it for students with special needs. I have a niece that has moderate to severe dyslexia and there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t have to micro-mange her IEP and the staff the supports her.

I agree that there is no surprise that we have trouble implementing AT when IT isn’t integrated into the curriculum or activities within the classroom. The educational establishments need look at the business model of implementation of technology. If you look at technology implementation the largest amount of money should go into training, then support, then repair/replacement and purchase of software and equipment.

I feel there are three components:
1) Administration understanding of the Law.
2) Teacher support and training
3) Parent support and training

I am just not sure how to get the tables set up so that we can get things moving.

I believe in SETT but the frustration is that if districts do not understand consideration how do you go forward with SETT?

As you can see I am stuck going in a circle.

[Jon Looney]

I don't really intend to revive a dead conversation, but this is a topic of interest to me. The term "consideration" as it applies to the AT process, is often misunderstood by teachers or even more often completely overlooked. In my experience, most teachers simply ignore that item, (which rarely amounts to more than a checkbox on the IEP, in most states). What I believe is necessary, besides better training in this area by Higher Ed, is some sort of process document or flowchart that can be used whenever AT is to be considered that will be simple, explanatory, and easy for Regular Ed and Special Needs teachers to utilize.

There are many "AT Consideration Guides" available that are designed to be used by someone who is fairly knowledgeable of AT and is willing to take the time to complete 5+ pages of documentation. What we really need is something that is written in layman's terms and, when complete, allows an IEP team to state 1 of 3 possible outcomes: The student does not require AT, The student requires AT (of a specified type), or The student will require an AT assessment. The process could be recorded in the meeting minutes and the form could be attached to provide further documentation. I facilitate a cadre of educators interested in Assistive Technology in my area and we have developed a tool to accomplish this. If this sounds appealing to you, please contact me and I will share it with you.

[Jeannette Van Houten]

Jon I would be interested in what your district is doing. Consideration is still a passion that I have but had to take a back burner to other things in my life. I agree that consideration needs to be more then a check box yes or no. We need to have areas in the IEP or 504 that are outlined in one document so it is transparent.

[Jon Looney]

Jeanette,

I thought there would be some form of private message system here, but if so, I can't find it. I will post a copy of the form we are presently using here. It is intended to be printed as a one page (front and back) document. This is a work in progress, so if you have any suggestions, please let me know.