NCD's Report: What are the AT Implications?
A few weeks ago, the National Council on Disability released a report of their study of IDEA compliance, "Back to School on Civil Rights "Advancing the Federal Commitment to Leave No Child Behind." The results of the study were extremely discouraging. All fifty states were found out of compliance with special education regulations to some degree. The NCD also found that federal, state, and local procedures to insure that students with disabilities receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment were ineffective and without force.
Although assistive technology was not specifically addressed in the report, the findings do have important lessons for the parents and educators working with students who require AT to actively participate in learning.
The NCD also found that the main way that schools were cajoled into providing required services was through parent's demanding that they do so through formal complaint procedures, due process hearings, and time-consuming litigation. One lesson that parent's who believe their children need assistive technology devices and services can take from this is to not be afraid to question the schools assessment and to ask for an independent evaluation of AT needs. It is time consuming and emotionally and often financially draining to keep up the battle. However, it looks as if confrontational tactics may be the only way many children will receive the AT and other services to which they are entitled until more effective monitoring and compliance procedures are implemented at all levels. No parent should have to go to such great lengths for their children to be educated, just like all other children. But "fighting the system" appears the only recourse at this point.
Lesson I = Parents must keep advocating and not give up!!
The NCD made the following observation concerning the training and working conditions of educators serving students with disabilities:
Regular and special education teachers in many states are frustrated by the mixed messages regarding compliance from school administrators, local special education directors, state oversight agents, school district attorneys, and federal oversight agents. Teachers ultimately bear the responsibility to implement interventions and accommodations for students with disabilities, often without adequate training, planning time, or assistance. They must function within an educational system that often lacks adequate commitment, expertise, or funding to deliver appropriate services to every child who needs them.
Those of us who know the state of affairs surrounding in public schools are not surprised by these comments, especially in the area of AT service delivery. Teachers and service providers are not prepared to help students with disabilities access the curriculum through AT.
However, as Church and Glennen (1992) and Todis (1996) point out, few preservice programs in special education or related services offer sufficient training in AT, with some not offering even one course or class session on this topic. In Parette’s (1991) study, 68% of special education and related service providers indicated that their college training in using technology with individuals with disabilities was insufficient. Sixty-six percent of those surveyed by Behmann, McClellen, and Morrissette (1993) reported a great need for beginning training in AT. Information in all areas of AT was needed by the participants in Parette’s (1991) study.
Lesson II = Teachers and Service providers must demand adequate training!
For me, the findings of the NCD study are depressing because they demonstrate that, for many students with disabilities, their parents, and their educators, little progress has been made. Parents must fight for their children's right to education, just as mine did over 20 years ago. Furthermore, although I had great teachers, they received little, if any support in how to accommodate my needs in the typical classroom. It is sad to think that nothing has changed!
References
Behrmann, M. M., Morissette, S. K., & McCallen, M. H. (1993). Assistive technology issues for Virginia schools [Technical report]. Submitted to the Virginia State Special Education Advisory Committee. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 370 339).
Church, G. & Glennen, S. (1992). The handbook of assistive technology. San Diego: Singular Publishing Company.
Parette, H.P. (1994). Professionals working with people with disabilities: Technology training implications for teacher education. Little Rock, AR: University of Arkansas University Affiliated Program. (ERIC Document Retrieval Service No. ED 333 679).
Todis, B. (1996). Tools for the task? Perspectives on assistive technology in educational settings. Journal of Special Education Technology, 13(2), 49-61.
Please share your comments on the NCD study and your IDEA compliance experiences below.
Articles in this Topic
