Assistive Technology: The New Big Thing or Not?

I thought that when IDEA was amended to require assistive technology in the 1997 amendments that a large explosion in gadget litigation was on the horizon. I predicted cottage industries in specific gizmos. When I learned about interactive whiteboards, I thought that many children with disabilities would benefit. Here is an example of how whiteboards can be used. This is an eSchool News article on whiteboards. Better yet, here is a video of how whiteboards (a combination of chalkboards, the internet and some kind of Cajun magic) work. There is even a federally funded center on Technology and Disabilities.

As often is the case, however, my crystal ball was a bit,... er foggy. There have been some developments but very little caselaw. I'm not sure why.

Image by Sammy0716 via Flickr

I just came across a study in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy that concludes that assistive technology is a more effective intervention than many others. An abstract of the study may be reviewed here. Unfortunately, one must "purchase" the entire study. If any of you do purchase it, please consider recycling it to me if that is not an intellectual property law violation. I'd like to read it.

In any event, what has been your experience with AT? Is it being used? Is it working? Am I just jonesing for a fight for no good reason? Has there been any litigation out there?

Related articles by Zemanta

• CES 2010: The op ten gadgets (telegraph.co.uk)
• The Livescribe Smartpen Project Final (slideshare.net)
• DIY Touchscreen Analysis (Sabrina/labs.moto.com) (techmeme.com)
• CES, Reporter Breaks "Unbreakable" Mobile Phone (mobile.slashdot.org)
• Ten gadgets that defined the decade (engadget.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Alexa Posny Interview - Part VIII

My recent interview with Dr. Alexa Posny, the new Assistant Secretary of Education for OSERS (the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services) covered a lot of ground. This is the eighth in a series of occasional posts concerning the interview over the next few weeks. "JG" indicates that I am speaking. "AP" indicates that Secretary Posny is speaking.

In this post, Dr. Posny talks about the assessment of children with disabilities for NCLB purposes and related issues:

JG: Okay. That's interesting. Yeah, I didn't see the connection there to that before, but I think that's very interesting. Another thing they (the principals association) proposed was that for students with disabilities, for purposes of the AYP and NCLB-type data, that they be assessed at their instructional level rather than their grade level. How do you react to that?

AP: Well, okay, that would be all well and good, if the kids have really been taught at their instructional level to the best of their ability. The fear of some is that we're going to not expect as much from them again, if we don't do that. I think the idea is - - you know, I understand exactly what they're talking about because I'm the one who is the big proponent behind the 2%. Okay? What I refer to is the 2% assessment because I do think that they're a number of our kids who aren't at grade level, they're not. I mean, it's in the light of their disability. The issue and what the concern of the field is right now is, if we go back and open the Pandora's box again, are we going to have too many that aren't going to be pushed, you know, not to that level? And that's why I'm saying, if we can come up with a way of doing the growth model and being able to establish the potential growth for every child, really and truly do that, then I think we've go a model that would work and then, I agree with them. But we've gotta come up with that model.

JG: You're not satisfied with what's been proposed under the growth model so far is what I'm hearing.

AP: Well, no. I'm not disagreeing. It's the state of art and the research we have, it's so limited. That's all I'm saying. And I look at what the Fuchs have done out of Vanderbilt and I think that there's great merit in what they've got, but we need to expand this and just have more information. But I am all for student growth model, absolutely, as long as we know that it is honing kids to their highest potential possible and that's the key. How do we establish that trajectory and how do we know that it really is challenging for every student and that we're not low-balling it?

JG: And you mentioned the 2% and again, do you think that those exceptions for children with cognitive disabilities are big enough to cover the numbers - -

AP: Yes.

JG: Yes.

AP: Oh, absolutely.

JG: Okay.

AP: Oh, yes. And then that's because we put it in place in Kansas in 1998. So - - and I know people are saying, well, where'd that number come from? I mean, for us, that number has been more than sufficient.

JG: Okay.

AP: I do. But do we have enough research on it? Absolutely not.

JG: Okay.

AP: Yeah.

JG: Yeah. I have wondered where the number came from and I've heard parents of children with severe disabilities sort of claim that no child left behind has not been so good and I hear parents of children with relatively mild disabilities claiming it's the best thing they've ever seen.

AP: Yes.

JG: Do you think that's fairly true? Has it been better for kids with mild disabilities - -

AP: Well, I do because so many states did not develop the 2%. You know, they automatically have to be in general ed and they're putting a lot of time, effort and energy into making sure that happens. I think what we're hearing - - first of all, I think there's confusion in terms of the 1%, long before the 2%. I think there are a number of kids who are not significantly cognitively disabled who may have been put into the 1% or on the other hand, they were put into general and that's not appropriate and my typical example is a child who we have referred to as mentally retarded, in the past, who chronologically is a fifth grader but is really operating at a first grade level. That child does not belong in the 1%, not at all. That's the child I was trying to get at in terms of the 2%.

JG: Okay.

AP: Okay? But still, we need to push them. So, they'd be in grade level content. Yes, but it's going to look different. Okay? It's going to be at the lower end of the continuum when you think about the sequence of learning.

Alexa Posny Interview - Part VII

My recent interview with Dr. Alexa Posny, the new Assistant Secretary of Education for OSERS (the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services) covered a lot of ground. This is the sixth in a series of occasional posts concerning the interview over the next few weeks. "JG" indicates that I am speaking. "AP" indicates that Secretary Posny is speaking.

In this post, Dr. Posny talks about standards of care for disability categories (which was proposed by the National Association of Secondary School Principals) and related issues:

JG: Okay. That's very interesting. I'm going to go back to some of the other reauthorization issues, but again, at some point, I want to try to give you some time to just talk about other things that are important to you. But the National Association of Secondary School Principals announced their recommendations for what they'd like to see in the reauthorization of IDEA. I found some of them very interesting. One of them was that they - - and I can see some merit to this; on the other hand, I have a real violent, bad reaction to this - - it's that they would like to see standards of care based on disability categories, under IDEA, so that a school would know, if they had an autism program that it was a good autism program. I think you can probably guess why that bothers me a little bit. I mean, it just kinda takes the "I" out of IDEA, doesn't it?

AP: Well, it does that. The other thing is, is that when you look at any of the 13 disability categories, you have a full range of mild to moderate to significant. So, you couldn't come up with just one standard of care based upon a disability category. It won't work. What it needs to be is standards of care based upon the needs of the child, regardless of what they are. You know, and even that's difficult because every child is so different. I mean, I taught learning disabled kids, as well. Well, everyone one of them was different as night and day. So, if I had one standard of care, that would not have been useful to me at all, not at all.

JG: And it's interesting, a lot of folks that are actually out there practicing don’t get this sometimes, I think, because they - - and I don't think that they're trying to be difficult, I think it's something they don't completely understand. But I had hearing once where the child was already eligible, under speech/language needs, and they then had the whole hearing based on whether he was also eligible under autism. And I kept saying, what difference does it make?

AP: What difference does it make?

JG: Yeah. Whatever his or her needs are, pretty much you have to meet them once you put them in, right?

AP: And that's my whole thing, you know, and it's strictly for funding right now to have to put them in a disability category. Who cares?

JG: Right.

AP: It makes no difference whatsoever.

JG: Right.

AP: You can call them whatever you want. What is it that we need to provide?

JG: Yeah, and again, I think if you got to the model you were just talking about, you'd eliminate a lot of that problem too.

AP: Yes. And we've gotta get to the point though where parents will trust us.

JG: Right.

AP: That we are going to do the right thing. And I think that's where RTI can really - - RTI and EIS, I think, can be very helpful to us, that they will see that their child's needs are being met, even though we didn't have to label him or her.

JG: Okay. That's interesting. Yeah, I didn't see the connection there to that before, but I think that's very interesting.

Tech Update:Facebook, Twitter, Mobile Website, and Street Cred

Image by cogdogblog via Flickr

In large part, this blog has dragged me (virtually kicking & screaming) into the 21st century. Before the blog, I was slightly technically challenged. I thought that Facebook was a chart with pasted on photographs used by angry professors to determine which student to call on in class. I was so out of it, that I use phrases like "high tech."

But the writing of this blog has opened technological doors. First I discovered the world of blogs. The availability of Blogger, the free Google blog platform, and its ease of use really helped. Then as I got used to posting on the blog, and as you started to react favorably, I got creative. Posting links to some other excellent websites was really appreciated by readers.

Then I discovered the social networking sites. The first and most successful of the special education law groups was the Facebook group, which now has grown to 667 members. Then I added the Ning, Twitter, Plaxo, and LinkedIn special education law groups which also became places to share information and resources regarding special education law. Than I started summarizing my posts with mini versions on Twitter where we now have a bunch of additional followers. When added to the followers and subscribers of the blog, we now have over 1800 regulars in the special education law posse. I know that there may be some duplication here, but that is still an impressive number. Especially when added to the 100 to 2500 other people who click on this blog every day, we have some serious street cred. This is the big reason that this blog was selected for the blockbuster exclusive interview with Alexa Posny, the new Assistant Secretary of Education for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

Our commitment to content has resulted in this blog receiving awards, such as First Place for Best Education Blog in the 2008 Blogger's Choice Awards and a Best Blog of the Day Award

Later we added news sources, like the CEC widget, and various other resources for special education stakeholders. We also feature our ongoing polls, which may not be scientific, but still are a lot of fun. The current poll seeks your input on IDEA reauthorization issues. (Regulation of seclusion and restraints now has a thin lead; make your voice heard - vote.)

We have developed three methods to subscribe to our posts, by email; through an RSS feed for feed readers or aggregator, and as a widget in the subscriber's own blog or website. Please keep subscribing and keep spreading the word.

Our newest gadget is our mobile website through which you can read the text of our posts of this blog on your Blackberry, I-Phone or other web enabled mobile phone. All of the links for the resources referred to in this post are on the lefthand side of the blog.

So thank you for reading, and by doing so, encouraging my techno-boldness! Rock on!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Yahoo and Facebook extend tie-up (guardian.co.uk)
• After Yahoo integrates Facebook, Google integrates Twitter (guardian.co.uk)
• You may dis the bride: Man tweets from altar at his own wedding (nationalpost.com)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">