Technology Characteristics

Once relevant characteristics of the child have been identified and consid­ered, the focus is placed on the charac­teristics of the various technologies that will be considered for the child. Goals for the use of devices should emerge as a result of the assessment of the needs, desires, and capabilities of the child. In examining the range of technologies that might be useful for a child with a disability, a variety of factors should be considered carefully.

The availability of the equipment is crucial. Sometimes technologies are not in vendors' stock, and they require lengthy periods of time to manufacture. This is particularly true of small firms that market products that are in large demand and are modestly priced. Deliv­ery of such equipment sometimes can take 2 to 3 months once an order has been placed. It must also be remem­bered that most commercially available equipment cannot be modified by the manufacturer to meet the unique needs of a child with disabilities. Generally, devices must be customized or modified by others once the technology has been purchased for the child. This may require significant amounts of both time and money.

The simplicity of operation of the equipment is an important area of con­sideration. Too often schools purchase technologies that are overly complex and require tremendous investments in instruction of teachers and the children who are recipients of the equipment. When devices require large amounts of teacher time to learn to operate and maintain, most teachers will under­standably be reluctant to use them. Such devices often are relegated to a storage closet in the school.

The initial and ongoing costs of the technology are one of the most fre­quently expressed concerns of school personnel at the administrative level. Installation costs (if any) must be considered, and this addi­tional significant expense may not be reflected in the price quote provided to the IEP team by the vendor. The cost of daily, monthly, or annual operation must also be given consideration. Some devices, particularly those that require power packs or batteries, may incur fre­quent and unanticipated replacement expenses. Augmentative communica­tion devices and power wheelchairs are two examples. Other equipment may require periodic maintenance, with its associated costs.

Since many technologies will be used for a long period of time, adaptability to meet the changing needs of children over time must be carefully considered. For example, a communication device that can be modified over time to con­tinue to meet the evolving needs of a child with a disability would be more desirable than a device that could be used only for 1 year.

Another important consideration in the selection of technologies is the relia­bility and repair record of the devices. 5ome technologies, or certain brands or models of those technologies, require lengthy or frequent repairs. In fact, most augmentative communication boards and power wheelchairs require ongoing repair. Since communication boards are used frequently throughout the course of a day s activities, they become worn, soiled, and damaged. Children who sit in wheelchairs daily will cause wear and damage to the seats, armrests, and other padded surfaces of the equipment. In either case, once the technology is removed to be repaired, the child is denied access to a device that enhances the quality of life.

Teachers and other members of the IEP team may ask representatives of companies that sell certain types of equipment about the reliability and repair records of their devices. Some­times there may be product testing information regarding specific tech­nologies that is available to the IEP team on request. However, the best informa­tion about device reliability can proba­bly be obtained from children who use the devices. In Arkansas, for example, a user-to-user network will be developed in the state technology system that has been funded under P.L. 100-407. This system will be pat­terned after the parent-to-parent net­work established by the Association for Retarded Citizens in many states. Basi­cally, such a network is made up of vol­unteers who agree to act as contact persons within the system for anyone wishing to get information about a par­ticular type of technology. Thus, a teacher or anyone else who is consider­ing buying a specific device for a child with a disability can learn of the per­sonal experiences of a person who has used the technology. In states where such a network is not being developed, teachers may contact local advocacy groups and attempt to identify people who are using certain technologies. These individuals may then be con­tacted and questioned about the relia­bility of the equipment.

Finally, the teacher must examine the ability of the technology to provide per­formance or evaluation data necessary for the documentation of student progress. Certain technologies, espe­cially computer-based devices, readily lend themselves to objective behavioral recordkeeping strategies. A computer spelling program that maintains an ongoing count of the number of lessons a child has completed and the accuracy of those performances lends itself more readily to recordkeeping for IEP and other purposes than would an instruc­tional program that requires the direct observation of the teacher.

Conclusion

As technological advances continue, assistive devices for students with disabili­ties will continue to grow in power, usefulness, affordability, and wide­spread utilization. As core members of the IEP committees, special educators increasingly will be called upon to develop new technological competen­cies, not only in the use and mainte­nance of the evolving technologies, but in their prescription as well. By basing such decisions on ethical concerns and completing careful and systematic analyses of the characteristics of both students and technologies, teachers can help to ensure that all children achieve maximum levels of learning and inde­pendence.