Skip to main content
Create interactive lessons using any digital content including wikis with our free sister product
. Get it on the
Pages and Files
CoLab III Webscope
6 Generic Steps
Round 1 - Responses to Triggering Question
Round 2 - Clarification Statements
Round 3 - Amendment of Clusters
Amended Clusters (5-3-10)
Round 4 - Voting
CoLab III Voting Results
Round 5 - Root Drivers Mapping
Information for Synchronous, Virtual Map Construction of Action Options
Influence Map of Root Drivers
MITS-AT Summary of Statistics
What's on your Mind?
Clarification of Barriers
Table 2 List of Barriers with Clarification
To download, double-click on file:
Triggering Question: "What are barriers to what "ought to be done" to create a sustainable model of assistive technology to support students in accessing and
progressing in the general education curriculum?"
Barrier 1: UNCLEAR ROLE OF ASSISTIVE TECH IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION
I think that there are many different areas in general education where Assistive Technology can fit in but they are not aware of it. But Assistive Technology can go along in many areas from drop-out rate.
Many districts have one Assistive Technology person and it is hard for us to get the word out to general education.
C - When that barrier came up I wondered about special education but did you meant that?
A - No I did not mean special education just general education.
Barrier 2: LACK OF PROCEDURES AND POLICIES THAT WILL DRIVE THE UTILIZATION OF EXISTING RESOURCES
There are a ton of existing resources out there but are not being utilized. With a lot of other disciplines, example: pt, ot, speech,
everyone has a clear idea on the policies and procedures that drive the services. They're not cooperating.
Q-specifically talking about local procedures?
A -could be ISD, local or statewide actually
Barrier 3: FAILURE OF DISTRICTS AND/OR IEP TEAMS TO RECOGNIZE THE NEED TO BE TRAINED AND ABLE TO
FULLY ADDRESS ASSISTIVE TECH
So no matter how much training we do or the resources we make available if the local district or school does not see a need to
address Assistive Technology in the IEP then we have accomplished naught. I think it is important to have an Assistive Technology
model that is based on the IEP
Barrier 4: SHORTAGE OF KNOWLEDGEABLE STAFF TO IMPLEMENT TECH DAILY AT THE CLASSROOM LEVEL
One of the ideal things would be to have implementation daily at the classroom level. Staff is not trained and capable of carrying
Barrier 5: DILEMMA OF ADDING ASSISTIVE TECH DUTIES TO STAFF ALREADY WEARING MANY HATS
I think especially in our rural area that we have staff that commit a number of duties both administratively and otherwise.
Our local district staff wear many hats so it is difficult to add duties.
Barrier 6: LIMITED SHARED VISION ACROSS DISCIPLINES
The AT folks, the instructional technology folks, and the curriculum folks don't have a shared vision across disciplines. They know
their own particular stuff and don't necessarily share AT for students, they kind of do it on their own.
Barrier 7: SHORTAGE OF TEACHER COLLABORATION TIME
I think this is a barrier to a lot of our "ought to be’s" because teachers don't have time to sit together and share visions and they don’t
have time to sit and share information.
Barrier 8: RELIANCE ON QUESTIONABLE FUNDING SOURCES
Comes from a state level. Never know what our funding sources are. We write for grants, get them for so many years and then on
the dockets again. Questionable on how to move for AT.
Barrier 9: NEGLECT TO IMPLEMENT ASSISTIVE TECH INTO THE CLASSROOM BY THE TEACHERS EVEN AFTER
I think it is self-evident. After you spend the time training the barrier is whether the teacher realizes what they don’t know or whether
it is a high priority. Most teachers are very good and they continue with it but some don’t. I don’t know how you can get them to
C- If teachers refuse there are some clear barriers - they are not compliant
A - They take the training but do not follow up.
Change to neglect to implement. I think there are a number of barriers to that one. Why they neglect, time, unsure of themselves,
failure to communicate but there are many issues.
Barrier 10: FINDING THE BALANCE BETWEEN LOCAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE AREA OF ASSISTIVE TECH
Need the state involved and locals involved. Sometimes when the state is involved there are restrictions and this interfers with it
Barrier 11: INABILITY TO ARTICULATE A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT VISION OF ASSISTIVE TECH AND UNIVERSAL
DESIGN FOR LEARNING
Picking up on what Cathy said I find I have to explain what Assistive Technology and UDL are within my district. I wish there were a
way to articulate this clearly by my superintendent and the curriculum leaders. And I think we need to articulate that word clearly and
completely so that we can get it out to people.
Barrier 12: LACK OF RESOURCES - PEOPLE, ASSETS, MATERIALS, CAPITAL, ETC. TO BE USED TO ACCOMPLISH A
What we don't have to do the job we need to do. Can be with many different things.
This is a definition to cover all those things we wish we had to implement AT.
Barrier 13: TIME CONSTRAINTS FOR TRAINING GEN ED STAFF IN THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR DAILY USE
Just considering that we do professional development days so that I can fit Assistive Technology in so that we can use it every day.
It goes back to getting teachers to buy in to using Assistive Technology.
Barrier 14: A LACK OF 'HOW TO' TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES AND SUPPORT FOR PARENTS
I didn't realize as a parent, not as an AT expert, how much AT would be used in the school.
The AT my son uses has mainly been used for him to do schoolwork in school and at home. He uses a laptop, bookshare software,
things like that.
If students are going to be able to use that technology at home to do schoolwork, they need as much training as the teachers.
When a student comes home and wants to do schoolwork at home, the parents need to have some training in it and how to use it.
They also need to be able to contact someone for help with the software, outside of school hours, if they're going to be working on it
Barrier 15: TECHNOLOGY CHANGES SO QUICKLY
This effects not only the Assistive Technology person but also the teacher or students using the technology. The teachers or
students may have been comfortable a year or two ago but things have changed. For instance the Wiki and people are not
comfortable using that and we need help them keep up.
Barrier 16: A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF ASSISTIVE TECH SERVICES AND DEVICES
With barrier #1 where Gayle mentioned lack of understanding of AT in general education, I think there's a lack of understanding of
AT even in special education. Back to the disciplines there are ot, speech, & pt, they're pretty well definied. I don't think we fully
understand in school districts what it is they are supposed to be considering on AT.
Barrier 17: INABILITY TO SEE ASSISTIVE TECH AS A MEANS TO AN END AND A TOOL TO ACCOMPLISH A TASK
Rather than seeing that technology is something special and out there as a tool to learn or to see it as a way to cheat I think it is
important to see it as a way to work. See it not as the exception or as something ordinary but change our attitude about how we look
C- When Jared showed us how to use the mic then we were all using the technology correctly – is that what you mean?
A - If we accept that we all use the tools then the exceptionality of using the tool doesn’t matter.
Q- So it should be seen like differentiated instruction - so it’s for all students
A - No I think there will still be Assistive Technology that needs to be used by some students but what needs to change is the
attitude that whatever you use is okay.
Barrier 18: LACK OF FUNDING AVAILABLE TO EMPLOY THE ADDITIONAL STAFF NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT ASSISTIVE
TECH IN THE SCHOOLS
Looking at requirement 12 where we have 9 votes on "each school should have an individual or team who supports the
implementation of technology into the curriculum".
What district in the state has funding to hire somebody for that position at this time (because you said so?).
Barrier 19: LACK OF BUY-IN FROM STAFF IN LOCAL DISTRICTS AS TO THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSISTIVE TECH
I think that with staff in the local district they may talk about the importance and focus on the importance of Assistive Technology and
get the buy in form everyone in the local district in order to implement it effectively.
Q - Do you see that as administrative or teacher buy in?
A - I think both
Barrier 20: LIMITED NETWORKING ACROSS REGIONS IN THE STATE
Even though we're meeting and together we don't have an organized way we're sharing across the regions.
Example, for me it would be helpful if someone knew if this publisher has this kind of a book in this text, so there's somewhere
where I don't have to rediscover the wheel.
Networking is important across the state and we don't have enough of it.
Barrier 21: LIMITED INFLUENCE ON AND COMMUNICATION WITH LAW MAKERS
This may be my lack of knowledge but I don’t see that this group or the Assistive Technology group in general have much influence
on the law makers in the state and that is a major barrier.
Barrier 22: NEED FOR A PROCESS FOR LOCAL TEAM DEVELOPMENT
I think a lot of times we each do local team development but also need a process in place on how that should occur in order for
parameters to work.
Barrier 23: TIME IS NEEDED FOR INVESTIGATING NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND COST-EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Sometimes I feel so pressured with time that I have to do it at night at home, something to find out these technologies and do
investigating. Feel I could spend a day per week coming up with new technologies to use and how to apply.
It’s time consuming. People don’t realize how much time it takes. People look to you as an expert. It’s time consuming in a
specific area. Most teachers don’t have the time. They google search but can’t discriminate so well. We need more time to
research the technology.
Barrier 24: THE THOUGHT THAT WHEN STUDENTS USE ASSISTIVE TECH IT IS CHEATING
Done work with teachers, special ed, general ed and they continue to think when you offer something in an audio format that their
student is cheating. Goes along with what Dawn was talking about.
C-would like to add that I have a daughter with a disability and she thinks having AT is cheating
Q-where did she get that idea?
Barrier 25: A LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF ALTERNATIVES BY CURRICULUM LEADERS
I don’t get face time or awareness by anyone ordering the curriculum in the district. They don’t realize that if they could look at
NIMAS and other kinds of alternate curriculum it would be helpful. They don't know about it, they don’t want to consult about it and
then they cannot make choices that are more helpful.
C - My hope is to bring this back to share and it would be hard to share this with my Curriculum developers
A- I understand that this is going to be published and distributed so I understand
Clueless would be another word that would work
I think you could just say curriculum leaders without any adjectives - that gets the message across and I am satisfied with that.
Barrier 26: LACK OF BASELINE STANDARDS OF TECH IN CLASSROOMS
I think if we had an idea of what each classroom had as far technology in the classroom, as far as a baseline for AT, it would give us
Table 2 List of Barriers with Clarification
Generated by the participants at the MITS-AT on April 12-13, 2010, at Lansing, MI
Prepared by MITS [DELETE] = Idea was deleted or merged with another Idea CogniScope 2 Software: www.LeadingDesign.org 4
Triggering Question: "What are barriers to what "ought to be done" to create a sustainable model of assistive technology to support students in accessing and
progressing in the general education curriculum?"
a good idea on what is needed for AT. It would provide a better opportunity for us to be able to plan effectively.
Barrier 27: THE PROS AND CONS OF CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF CURRICULUM OPPORTUNITIES
I was thinking about technology changes and the curriculum opportunities that come up . I know general education and special
education teachers who need to learn new programs. The new programs and curricula are hard to learn. There are pros and
cons to all of this and it always takes time and money.
Barrier 28: A NEED FOR UNIVERSAL UNDERSTANDING THAT USING ASSISTIVE TECH DOESN'T MAKE ONE STUPID
In the last couple of months I've talked with quite a few parents and teachers whos job is to implement AT and work with kids with
AT. There's are a lot of kids who have access to AT who don't want to use it because they feel there is a stigma attached that
makes them look dumb, especially in the middle school level.
Need to find a way to remove that stigma so these kids feel comfortable to use that assistive technology.
Barrier 29: RELIANCE ON ONE EXPERT
The reliance on one expert I don’t know if it only happens in the rural area but it happens in the Reg 3 area and it is frustrating. The
definition of what an Assistive Techology evaluation means is that they need to use Assistive Techology in the evaluation and
people will go and do the evaluation. When I was new I loved it and didn't mind but now I realize that we cannot rely on one person
C - I was recently contacted by a district because a product did not have batteries that was working and I thought anyone can buy
C- one thing that this systemic situations - I like reliance on principles versus personalities. I don;'t know id that is meaningful ro
anything but I think it helps
A - I think it is delightful
Barrier 30: IMPLEMENTATION IS PERSON SPECIFIC RATHER THAN SYSTEMIC PRACTICE
This builds on what Gayle said which is that often AT is being used effectively because one person has chosen to choose well.
Barrier 31: CONTROVERSY WHETHER ALL EDUCATION MAJORS AT THE UNIVERSITY LEVEL SHOULD BE REQUIRED
TO TAKE A CLASS ON ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION
Looking at if we want to change the way our classrooms look or the implementation of technology in the classroom then we need to
change the way we teach upcoming teachers. We need to make sure that they have a class on assistive technology and learn to
implement it with their students.
Q - Are you talking special education and general education?
A - I am talking about every teacher that goes to school taking a course on Assistive Technology - an accredited school then we
need an Assistive Technology class for completion of the degree
the barrier is that deeper than training and I feel that some people at the university level don't thing that Assistive Technology is as
important as other courses and that needs to be changed.
I think it is all education majors at the university level. (Changes made) That is my intention.
Q- Would you consider adding Universal Design for Learning or is that a separate idea?
A - I think I would like to add Universal Design for Learning and - grammatically it is not very accurate but the intentionality is there
and more important. (Changes made) Great - that is correct.
Barrier 32: LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF ASSISTIVE TECH EQUIP AND MATERIALS THAT CLEARLY SUPPORT
PROGRESS IN THE GEN ED CURRICULUM
I think there is a lot of stuff out there. It's important that people understand and know which technologies & which AT technology
clearly has the research and helps the students progress in the general curriculum. Not a fancy kind of thing .
Barrier 33: INADEQUATE TECH AVAILABLE IN SCHOOL BUILDINGS
I don't know what else to say - it kind of says it. Example: some schools have a 10 year old computer in a classroom without internet
connection and that is not going to create a sustainable model of technology or Assistive Technology in our classroom.
Barrier 34: THE NEED FOR A COMMON, RESEARCH BASED, CONSISTENT PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR
SCHOOL STAFF AND PARENTS
Need to put together something on a statewide basis that becomes a base of where to start with pd or support for parents.
I don't think it's there right now and we need to get there.
Barrier 35: LACK OF COMMUNICATION AMONG LOCAL TEAM MEMBERS
I feel the communication could be better. When you send emails include everyone on the team. Sometimes I have parents contact
me and the teacher does not know. Other times I don’t get invited to an IEP when I should.
Barrier 36: A NEED FOR A VIRTUAL EXPERT OR EXPERTISE TO DOCUMENT FAQS AND OTHER ASSISTIVE TECH
I think in an ideal world we would be able to collaborate so that people could go to a website and seek answers to questions as they
do in many other areas. It's how much knowledge one can gain.
Would like to have that same expertise with that for links to resources for AT.
Barrier 37: A LACK OF PRE-SERVICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING OF TECH INTEGRATION AND UNIVERSAL DESIGN
FOR LEARNING FOR EDUCATORS
This is a phrasing similar to 31 and my thought on this pre-service training deals with knowledge of teachers needing technology
and Assistive Technology knowledge and no matter what course they are in they will learn about Assistive Technology, technology,
and Universal Design for Learning is also important. We need to learn about technology and we need to find out about new
technology and acquire new learning.
Q - My thinking is it would be included in all the course work rather than having a course in Assistive Technology
A - I agree that my focus is different I see that a course should be offered. I know that this would be good also but I am not sure that
it would be met if we only required this in a course and it was not taught in a different class.
The distinction would be that my idea would be a full course and yours is part of the syllabus.
C - I agree that is correct. I think it would be difficult to get that as a complete course and that would be more difficult
Barrier 38: LACK OF QUALITY DATA ON THE USE OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
Looking at it in two different ways. Region 3 had an email going back and forth on how to collect data with people saying they were
using a software program and it really wasn't collecting data. Need knowledge of what data is and what is needed.
When walking into the general education classroom, they have to see the need before they really realize they need the training.
The need is going to be shown through data. Using the device is going to help support students and they are going to get the
training on it and it will come top down. Will be able to make progress.
Q-Is there anyway of defining so it's good data instead of just data? Is there a way of working this so we get the cream of the data?
A-Yes, it's exactly where you're coming from. Feel free to help me out. Lack of appropriate data.
A-Yes, quality data on the use of AT for the statement.
In my clarification meaning, general education, special education, AT at home.
Q-The purpose of the data? decision making?
A-can be but really the purpose is to show that the student is making progress in the general ed curriculum. What type of device
and also encouraging teachers to use it because it is making a difference for the student in general ed.
Q-talking about a specific student? I see the need for districts and schools to collect the same type of data. See 3 levels of data
being collected in my ideal work. 3 levels of AT- how is AT used for student, how is AT used in building, and how is AT used within
A-I'm not comfortable with what you're saying. I'm sticking with the data that's used with technology for student progressing in the
general ed curriculum.
Barrier 39: LACK OF TIME AND A SYSTEMATIC METHOD TO EFFECTIVELY EVALUATE NEEDS OF AN INDIVIDUAL
STUDENT AND PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION
So this goes back to individual student - concern. We don’t always have time to do a good job but also don’t have a systematic way
to implement. Also don’t' have a systematic method to evaluate but also plan for implementation.
One of the barriers is effectively using technology in the first place by getting students evaluated in the first place but that the team
has no time for systemic method to follow up and plan for implementation.
Barrier 40: LACK OF FUNDING FOR TECHNOLOGY
Not a lot more to say, funds are low everywhere. I think that especially buying technology which is changing so quickly. We spend
a hunk of money and a few years down the road, everything changes. Prioritizing funds, technology is not always first on the list
either. General lack of money available.
Barrier 41: LAWS THAT PREVENT THE CO-MINGLING OF SP.ED AND GEN ED FUNDS FOR RESPONSE TO
That was one of the things on the flow chart and there are some legal issues about this. RTI is a general education initiative and
Assistive Technology is a special education initiative and use of funding is complicated.
Barrier 42: AN EFFECTIVE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS AS WELL AS INTERPRETING THE INFO SO IT IS USEFUL
Classrooms are collecting data which is good. A lot of times the info we're getting isn't useful. Need to make individual. Each goal
has a separate data collection. Breaking it down into very specific areas.
Barrier 43: A LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER INTO DIALOGUE WITH VENDORS REGARDING THE NEED FOR
PROPER AND EFFECTIVE PRODUCTS THAT ARE UNIVERSALLY DESIGNED AT AN ECONOMICALLY REASONABLE
I think that one of the things I feel in my position is getting the curriculum vendors to understand our need and we need to enter into
a dialogue with our venders to understand our needs. Especially in the areas of communication and alternate communication.
Q _ are you also talking about $7000 for a speech device that should cost $1600?
A- Yes, device versus software and anything that we need
Q - Is the barrier that we need to communicate proper and effective products>?
AS - Need to communicate
C - Helped me when you said you need to communicate with vendors so maybe if that came first
C- Regarding the need for proper and effective products
A - I am talking broader than that
Q - You mean talking to vendors
A - NO I meant broader than Assistive Technology
Q - How does that look now ( changes made)
Q - do you mean 2 way communication so that vendors communicate with us?
A - I think that is a good point and I think I would be comfortable changing “a need to communicate” with “a need to enter into
A - Effective products that are Universally Designed
Q - and economically designed?
A - I like it I can claim that statement - it is getting better with the help of my friends.
Q - with the "need to enter into" rather than the lack of opportunity. How is this a barrier - am I nit picking or is this fine.
A - A lack of opportunity to enter into the dialogue - it feels like a better statement so I am happy with the changes.
Barrier 44: LACK OF ASSISTIVE TECH TEAM DEFINITION OF ROLES AND TEAM TRAINING FOR THOSE ROLES
Look at building a team that would be implementing AT. It would be appropriate to define the roles. Give training in what it means
to be in those roles, define how it's going to work for them, give training and how they know when they've done it and done it
Q-barrier is the lack of AT?
A -Lack of or need for. I'm good with lack of.
Barrier 45: FAILURE TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE PLAYERS
Being very broad - when we are talking RTI Assistive Technology needs to be at the table. When talking Assistive Technology
parents need to be at table. We often lack including people that need to be there. It is a problem that all of the people who should be
there are not there.
Barrier 46: LACK OF TIME AND MONEY
Barrier 47: LACK OF COORDINATED COMMUNICAITON SYSTEM OF ASSISTIVE TECH PROFESSIONALS THROUGHOUT
This has been touched on - not being able to effectively, efficiently, communicate whether FAQs or using the resources across the
state to help.
Barrier 48: A NEED FOR A PROCESS OR STRUCTURE FOR STATEWIDE INSTRUCTION TECH STAFF, CURRICULUM
STAFF, AND ASSISTIVE TECH STAFF TO WORK TOGETHER
I was involved in a literature initiative, a statewide initiative, where the same training went out to everyone.
Really believe something similiar needs to happen for AT in order for it truly to become a statewide application.
Barrier 49: A NEED FOR CONTINUOUS TRAINING
Training has to be ongoing for teachers. I feel a lot of special education directors think that if they bring you in for a training at the
beginning of the year, it’s long enough. A day long training doesn’t sit.
One speech path told me that they had training on AT in 1989. I was straight faced on that one.
It needs to be continuous. Not a one shot deal.
Barrier 50: NEED TO INCREASE STATEWIDE DELIVERY MODEL FOR ASSISTIVE TECH
Speaks to what some other folks have talked about. We have to have a way to get things out in a consistent manner in the state.
What is that law, what does it look like.
Consistent similar to what Louann explained about delivery method thoughtout the state. What we all do is all the same,
Q-This is one of our hopes, we need to look at the barrier?
A-It is a barrier. Barrier definition is to increase what we already have, work to increase means to fix the barrier, bigger than what
Q-need to increase?
A-need to increase would be fine.
Q-can you describe what a statewide delivery model would look like, training?
A-Yes, delivery model, it's what you define as a delivery model. What do we want to deliver in AT, what is the AT that we're looking
at, how does it look like for the state, what do they want to impart on for ISDs, what we're delivering in AT, are we talking about how
we treat people, different tools, different AT devices, how do we learn what those are , how to keep up with strategies in AT.
Q-statewide model are you saying one size fits all? Uniform?
A-hope for uniformity throughout the state, one size never fits every district, but one size fits state as far as how to bring it out. For
the state of Michigan but not necessarily the state of Arizona.
Q-saying we have one and need to increase or developing? Increasing consistency or saying that we have?
A -saying what we have should be increased. Basically changing what it is, what it looks like, what it does.
Barrier 51: THE NEED TO 'SELL' A BASELINE STANDARD OF TECH FOR ALL CLASSROOMS
Goes along with Rugs - we need a baseline standard and then we need to sell it. Do the public relations to get people to buy into
Q - When you say sell it do you mean get legislation?
A - that is one part of it be we always need to sell the standards back to the local and a lot of people feel there is a need for it.
Q- this goes back to voters parents
A - Yes - we need to get the standards backed - it’s great to come up with them but we need them backed
Barrier 52: NEED TO INCREASE KNOWLEDGE OF HOW TO KEEP CURRENT ON ASSISTIVE TECH FOR STUDENTS
This is the I don't know. You don't know if you don't know.
When we start looking at how we can best serve students as far as AT is concerned whether might be something that can work
better, cheaper. How do we pass that knowledge along to others to share. Things change so quickly as far as AT. Want to be able
to let students, parents, teachers, administrators, know what's out there, what works effectively, cost effectively, to present the
knowledge that I have to all.
Q-What is the barrier?
A-put the word need to in front of increase.
Q-make sure you're thinking of this as a personal thing? When I look at it, it would mean to me that I need to increase knowledge
as an AT person.
A-Is it personal goes beyond that. We all want to know the best that is out there. It is systemic.
Q-Principles, general ed?
A-Everybody. If I'm trying to explain AT to everyone, I want to be comfortable so that they know about it and have an
understanding, it's the most effective tool to do that job.
Barrier 53: LACK OF INCLUSION OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY IN THE IEPS
This came to my mind when we were discussing data collection and that if there were specific goals on IEPs dealing with
implementation it would be reviewed on a regular basis.
Q - Do you mean to make sure we reference Assistive Technology in goals and objective or all areas?
A - All of the above would be great.
Q - do you mean the use of Assistive Technology or the outcomes of Assistive Technology
A - For usage of the Assistive Technology
Q - I would address the goals & objects ive s 3 or 4 times a yeat - that would be a long time between assessments - how would you
make that work
A - in a more general way to make sure that students are using word prediction software for assignments, etc.
C - I would like to think about that with IEPs
A- That is a good point because I don't sit in and/or write IEPs so I think it would be good if it were written in as something to look at.
It came to mind at the data collection question.
C - specific comments about Goals and objectives in IEPs push a button for me and I apologize for pushing on that point.
Q - Ask if she is talking about goals and objective that the SLI, OT and others write?
A - I think that would be great also but we need somewhere where students are using them and why. Maybe it would be great to
have it be around the implementation.
Q - How would we collect data on a goal that is not measureable? Maybe students would be provided the opportunity to use a
specific Assistive Technology and we would - who's reporting on who is measuring it.
Q - Clarification - you talk about G& O and Assistive Technology considerations? Is you barrier really lack of discussion of Assistive
Technology in the IEP process
A - Thank you it is very well put. Yes I think it addressed in the IEPs
C - In my district we have the description of Assistive Technology consideration so I have the consideration of Assistive Technology
that stands on the IEP goals and we meet periodically so that we can get the student with the right technology. Then after we have
determined what they need we get it into the PLAFFP and it is a rock hard document
C - Often the Assistive Technology is not addressed in the IEP
Barrier 54: LACK OF SYSTEMIC COLLECTION OF ASSISTIVE TECH AND UDL DATA ON THE STUDENT, SCHOOL,
DISTRICT, AND STATE LEVEL
I see a lack of data, a vision of meap test scores. Teacher holding out the specific questions answered by the students, Principal
and district looking at specific scores of the building and districts comparing.
What if we have that as a model of how AT is being used in the classroom.
The district recording that to the state.
Barrier 55: WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT IS WORKING - SUCCESS STORIES
Beyond saying that it would be helpful to share or know about the good things that are happening. Where they are and what they
are doing that is successful.
help on how to format text
Turn off "Getting Started"