|
|
Quality Indicators of Effective AT Needs
|
AT Services |
| Search
|
|
After reading about the quality indicators, please consider getting involved in their development by going to the Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology website at the Qiat Website. TAM '99 Keynote Presentation A Panel Presentation Joy Zabala, University of Kentucky Introduction Subsequently, over two hundred assistive technology service providers and consumers met at the 1998 Closing the Gap Conference to take a first step toward considering the need for a common understanding and national alignment of assistive technology services in school settings. A focus of the conversation was the possible usefulness of a set of quality indicators which could guide school districts in the development and provision of assistive technology services which are aligned to federal, state and local mandates and promote widespread educational gains for students with disabilities. The Closing the Gap session provided a clear sense of the complexity of identifying quality indicators that could be useful across a wide variety of educational environments and service provision options. Feedback from that conversation clearly pointed to the need for the widespread participation of people with a variety of perspectives and experiences as providers or consumers of assistive technology services. The following is a summary of the initial work begun by the Consortium for Quality Indicators in Assistive Technology (QIAT). You are invited to comment on the concept and on specific quality indicators. We want to stress that this is a work in progress. There is much yet to be done with this project. It is the intention of the Consortium to solicit additional feedback, complete additional edits and present the document for field review. Despite this fact, many people are finding the indicators useful as a "jumping off" place for review and refinement of activities which include the use of technology for students with disabilities. If you are interested in the project, you can keep yourself up to date and join the QIAT listserve by checking the QIAT website at Qiat.org. All Consortium members welcome your feedback, comments, and input regarding this exciting project. I. Quality Indicators during Consideration of Student's Need
for AT: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE FOR AT CONSIDERATION This fall, Ron's IEP team met to consider his needs for specially
designed instruction for the following school year. The team was
using the new requirements of IDEA '97 for the first time so there
were many changes from the previous year's IEP. When the team came
to the "special considerations" section of the new IEP
form the district had adopted, they were able to agree that Ron
did not need behavioral supports, alternative language instruction,
Braille, alternative communication, or transition planning Once Ron's mother understood the words, she was excited about the possibilities for her son. She had seen a television show that demonstrated a computer which wrote down the words that the user said. She remembered thinking how wonderful a computer like that would be for Ron but she did not know that the school might be able to provide him with one. Some people on the team had heard about computers like the one Ron's mother had seen but no one was knowledgeable about them. Use of Quality Indicators in AT Consideration Illustrative Case - Analysis Item number two was "The continuum of assistive technology devices and services is explored (considered). Team members discussed this item and agreed that Ron's trial with a standard word processing program had been rather limited. The resource room teacher knew about several other software solutions that students with learning disabilities use but had never thought to let Ron try them. There were items on the quality indicators list list that the team felt they had accomplished. They were discussing assistive technology in relation to Ron's IEP goals. They felt that they had good data about Ron's abilities and difficulties and about the tasks and environments where he needed to write. The last three quality indicators were related to team decisions. They included the use of a decision making process, decisions made in compliance with statutes and documentation of decisions. Ron's team felt that they did not have enough data to make a decision at the IEP meeting but did not want to hold up development of the rest of Ron's IEP in order to gather the information they needed. Ron's resource room teacher knew that one of the assistive technology services listed in the law was the assessment of need for assistive technology. The team agreed to check the box on their IEP form which indicated that there was a "concern addressed in IEP." Rather than develop goals and a plan for Ron's assistive technology use, the team listed an extended assistive technology assessment as a related service in Ron's IEP. Ron's mother signed a permission to evaluate form right away so that the assessment could be conducted as soon as possible. The assessment question on the form stated, "Ron has visual perception difficulties which make it very difficult for him to read and to write. Are there accommodations or modifications which might help with this problem? Is there assistive technology which Ron might use in order to access and produce print materials?" Ron's team agreed to meet again in two months to review the results of the assessment. If at that time, assistive technology had been identified that was useful to Ron, it would be included in the IEP. Everyone agreed that the district's quality indicators had been a valuable tool in considering assistive technology for Ron. The team finished developing Ron's IEP in thirty minutes and each team member left with a clear understanding of the role they would play in future considerations of Ron's need for assistive technology. II. Quality Indicators for AT Assessment: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE FOR AT ASSESSMENT The IEP team completed all of the necessary referral information and provided background information to the district team regarding John's abilities/needs, his environments, and the tasks within each of the environments. The IEP team was especially concerned about John's limited motor skills and how they would impact his ability to use an augmentative communication device. Due to limited time and a large number of referrals that were received by the district assessment team, they often sent a single person out to complete assessments. In this case they assigned a speech-language pathologist with experience in augmentative communication. However, this individual did not have experience in working with students like John who required a microswitch in order to effectively access an augmentative communication device. Use of Quality Indicators In AT Assessment III. Quality Indicators during AT Intervention: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE-DESCRIPTION FOR INTERVENTION Sam's general education teacher and classroom assistant were very
concerned about his behavior and its effects on Sam's learning and
that of the other children . They consistently used all of the strategies
in the behavior management plan and were anxious to learn to use
the VOCA. The SLP demonstrated the use of the device to them, but
they were not able to implement the specific one- to-one instructional
strategies she suggested in the classroom. They were unclear about
what they were Other team members had different ideas about the value of the VOCA.
Sam's resource teacher did not have to use any of the strategies
in the behavior management plan because neither she nor the other
children in the classroom were bothered by Sam's acting-out behavior.
The SLP used the VOCA in pull-out therapy sessions twice weekly.
During that time, Sam was an active participant in language activities
and used the VOCA with increasing independence. The occupational
therapist did not use the Progress reports sent home indicated erratic progress with both behavior and use of the communication aid at school. At home, Sam's parents attempted to work on the IEP by using both the strategies in the behavior management plan and the VOCA. They saw increases in the Sam's communication and decreases in acting-out behavior. They were puzzled by the reports from school and requested a meeting with school staff to review Sam's program. Use of the Quality Indicators for AT Intervention In this illustration, the staff did not have a set of quality indicators from which to work. Failure to develop an action plan which identified tasks which occurred in Sam's natural instructional environments and specified instructional strategies, expectations, responsibilities and time lines resulted in the lack of several AT intervention quality indicators. Sam's communication and behavioral needs were not met. IV. Quality Indicators during Evaluation of the Effectiveness
of AT Services: ILLUSTRATIVE CASE FOR EVALUATION OF EFFECTIVENESS Samantha's IEP goals for the last three years have included her
need to learn to operate a computer to do written work. While the
district's assistive technology team has worked with her several
times a year to identify an alternative way for her to operate the
computer, they have never been successful at determining a solution
to her specific needs. As a result, Samantha has had the same long
term goal for computer use for all three years. Each year when the
IEP team met, the staff assigned to Samantha's case reported that
they were still working on a plan. The specific computer access
goal on Samantha's IEP In this year's IEP team meeting, Samantha's parents were unwilling to accept this goal for the fourth time. They insisted that the district provide a computer for Samantha on a full time basis and asked that an independent contractor be hired to identify the alternative computer access that Samantha needed. The LEA representative for the district stated that the proposed IEP goal for Samantha was adequate and that the district did not have the funds to hire an outside consultant. Samantha's parents requested mediation in this disagreement and stated their intention to file a due process complaint. Use of the Quality Indicators in Evaluation of Effectiveness A more proactive approach could have occurred if the team had quality
indicators for evaluation of effectiveness to use to identify the
places where the process was breaking down. Had this been done,
the team might have decided to collect data on what had already
been tried for Samantha, what specific writing tasks she needed
to accomplish, what district resources had already been accessed,
and what internal or external resources were needed. A more capable
and responsive evaluation team might have been identified and data
regarding Samantha's performance on options she had already tried
might have Conclusion |
|
|
