A Challenge to the Schools

In the future, devices and equipment will become easier to obtain as the costs of producing them decline. With decreases in the costs associated with technologies that can help children to benefit from special education, a wider variety of devices and equipment is likely to be provided with greater frequency. Already, many schools have acknowl­edged a willingness to invest in more sophisticated technologies such as com­puters for children with special needs. Since infor­mation about and instruction in the use of the many different types of technolo­gies used in school settings is an often-cited need of teachers, teachers will increasingly be encouraged to acquire more informa­tion about devices and assume more skills in technology service provision. As they acquire these skills, teachers must, in turn, use them to assist in the selec­tion and use of equipment in the schools.

A Team Approach

Within the public schools, the design and application of adaptations and tech­nological devices are usually accom­plished through a multidisciplinary IEP team of professionals and other inter­ested parties including occupational, physical, and speech/language thera­pists; special and regular education teachers; and parents. Part of the assignment of the team is to ensure that all dimensions of a child's present level of performance are considered. This team approach is most effective when persons who have expertise in instruc­tional programming—including tech­nology and its applications—work cooperatively with parents and professionals who are involved in day-to-day instruction of students.

Special education teachers who par­ticipate in such team processes may be called upon to assume important responsibilities as team members. Unfortunately, many teachers have had inadequate training and/or experience with technology and its applications. When teachers are not prepared for the responsibility of selecting devices for students and using them in classroom settings, they may rely too heavily on the judgment of other professionals (e.g., the occupational, physical, or speech/language therapist). These pro­fessionals may see the child and his or her needs from a very different (and more limited) perspective than does the teacher.

Selection of Appropriate Technology

It is important for the teacher, as well as all other team members, to develop a philosophical base around which decisions will be made when selecting appropriate technology for children with disabilities. It is also important to remember that the concept of "appropriateness" takes on several dimensions. P. L. 94-142 was drafted to encompass any need the child has related to learning and/or development, including the need to learn basic self-help skills, have appropriate adaptive equipment, develop appropriate social integration skills, acquire basic prevocational skills, and receive therapy ser­vices. In each of these areas, devices and equipment can play critical roles in ensuring the provision of appropriate learning experiences for children with disabilities in public school settings.

From a more traditional perspective, a technology is appropriate when its application meets one of three criteria. First, it should be in response to (or in anticipation of) specific and clearly defined goals that result in enhanced skills for the student. Second, it should be compatible with practical constraints such as the available resources or amount of instruction required for the student and the teacher to use the tech­nology. Third, it should result in desirable and sufficient outcomes.

Determining the Fit

To match technology most effectively with any given stu­dent, the teacher and other team mem­bers must keep in mind two parallel considerations: characteristics of the student and characteristics of the technology.

Student Characteristics

The characteristics of the child are of the utmost importance and must be consid­ered first. The comprehensive assess­ment procedures that determine the child's present levels of functioning and precede the actual program develop­ment process provide the initial basis for selection of any devices or equipment. In addition to the obvious selection implications of such characteristics as the child's academic skills, intellectual level, behavioral and social skills, and physical abilities, the teacher and other team members must consider the child's preferences for certain types of technol­ogy. An assistive device that appears excellent on paper but remains unused because the child is uncomfortable with it is the equivalent of no assistance at all. Since the development of the IEP is a joint effort of a team that includes the child (when appropriate), the child can express his or her preferences dur­ing the decision-making process. Inter­views with the parent and child can yield significant information that is not otherwise obtainable. For example, a girl may be uncomfortable using an augmentative communication system that employs a male adult voice. Alter­natively, the IEP team may wish to determine which devices and equip­ment the child has had successful pre­vious experiences with at school or at home. Once this information is ac­quired, the team may wish to purchase a similar technology for use in the school setting with appropriate mod­ifications being made to meet the needs of the child. For example, a par­ticular type of adaptive spoon may have made it possible for the child to feed himself or herself at home. The same type of spoon should be given consideration by the IEP team to assist the child with self-help skill develop­ment at school if this is deemed to be an important area of concern.

Additional considerations include anticipating the child's needs in the future. This is especially important with older students who are entering transi­tion programs. For example, an older student with physical disabilities who has significant academic strengths may be a potential candidate to receive a modified computer system with adapted input and/or output modes.

The IEP team may feel that develop­ment of computer skills may make it possible for the student to enter a ca­reer with a telecommunications firm such as AT&T or a business corpora­tion such as IBM, both of which em­ploy persons with disabilities. Many government agencies such as the IRS also employ significant numbers of persons with disabilities.

Given the concern that all school systems have for the equitable distri­bution of resources, cooperative ar­rangements for funding may sometimes become an alternative for IEP team consideration if a child is to receive a needed technology. Alterna­tive financial avenues include the use of the Medicaid program and private insurance. Teachers must bear in mind the argument that any device identi­fied and recommended by the IEP committee should be paid for with public funds. In practicality, it must be recognized that not all equipment that can benefit children can be subsidized by the schools. Space-age technology is available through the National Aero­nautics and Space Administration that has limitless possi­bilities for technology applications for persons with disabilities. These tech­nologies, such as robotics and artificial intelligence devices, are not yet com­mercially available on a wide-scale basis, and their expense would be im­possible for most school systems to consider for all children with disabil­ities. In a case where a costly, commer­cially unavailable technology is deemed to be a desirable alternative for a child with a disability, the IEP team may choose to find partial exter­nal funding for the device. This may enable the school to provide a specific technology that would not otherwise be possible.