Assistive Technology Assessments Are Exactly The

Assistive Technology Assessments Are Exactly The

Ch 13: Assistive Technology assessments are exactly the same from district to district, agency to agency, and state to state as the process is identified in P.L. 94-142.

Ch 13: Which of the following professionals could be called upon to participate in an AT assessment? Select all that apply.

Ch 13: An AT assessment must always be school-focused, that is based on the school's available technology, not the student's needs.

Ch 13: Which of the following is not considered in AT evaluations?

Ch 13: The trial use of a piece of technology before purchasing is a waste of time. It is better just to get purchase the technology and get started.

Ch 13: There are multiple skills that need to be evaluated in an AT assessment.

Ch 13: AT assessments usually occur in one assessment session, typically lasting 30 minutes, and then the information is secured in the student’s cumulative folder for future reference. No follow-up assessments are ever needed.

Ch 13: An AT assessment is a "one-and-done" process, meaning you do it once for the student and don't need to do it again.

Ch 13: Which of the following is true regarding AT assessments

Ch 13: The SETT framework is frequently used to guide the AT assessment process. Match each of the components of the SETT framework with one of the questions assessed during that component for the student Harper who wants to join the P.E. Class.

Ch 13: Which is NOT true with respect to the AT Assessment team,

Ch 13: Jeremy knows when he should use the raised paper and pencil grip for a school task. He must have received excellent training in ___________________ skills with respect to use of AT tools.

Ch 14: It is good to consider AT in the IEP process but the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) did not mandate it.

Ch 14: The AT being considered for a student with disabilities and the rationale for its use and supporting evidence must be in the IEP.

Ch 14: If the IEP team determines that AT is not needed for a student with disabilities, that needs to be indicated on the IEP.

Ch 14: For technologies to be considered in an IEP, they must relate to one of the annual goals.

Ch 14: Which of the following would be considered a related service need for technology on a student's IEP.

Ch 14: Once the technology is selected, one of the quality indicators and an effective approach to using technology to support a student with disabilities is to train the student, family, and staff on the use of the technology.

Ch 14: Today, most teachers and other educational professionals are well trained and highly skilled in considering students’ technology needs. So, they need little training or support.

Ch 14: The digital divide has been or currently refers to the following. Select all that apply

Ch 14: U.S. federal law mandates that IEP teams consider whether a student would benefit from assistive technology

Ch 14: Decisions on whether a student needs various technologies in schools are required to be based on

Ch 14: If the need for technology for the student is agreed upon at the IEP meeting, it must be documented on the IEP itself along with the rationale.

Ch 14: Dominick has a physical disability. He needs a special van to pick him up in his wheelchair to bring him to school. With respect to his IEP, this would best be described as a ___________________________

Ch 14: DEA requires that school districts provide assistive technology devices and services at no charge to students’ families if the assistive technology is deemed necessary for students to benefit from a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Ch 14: Mr. and Mrs. Levy have health insurance and they used their insurance to purchase Leon a communication device. Although a lot of the cost was covered by the insurance company, the Levys still had to pay a deductible and out-of-pocket fee. It is most likely that the school is still responsible for covering those fees.

Paper For Above instruction

Assistive Technology Assessments: Standardization, Multidisciplinary Approach, and Implementation in Education

Assistive Technology (AT) assessments play a vital role in ensuring that students with disabilities receive tailored support to succeed academically and socially. While the process of AT assessment is guided by federal laws such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), its application varies across districts, agencies, and states. Contrary to the assertion that AT assessments are identical everywhere, variations reflect differences in resources, personnel, and school policies, although core principles remain consistent.

The multidisciplinary nature of AT assessments involves various professionals, each bringing unique expertise to the process. Special education teachers are fundamental, providing insights into student needs and classroom dynamics. General education teachers contribute perspectives on curricular demands and daily functionalities. Speech-language pathologists assess communication-related needs, particularly for students with speech or language impairments. Occupational therapists evaluate fine motor skills and sensory accommodations, critical for effective use of AT tools. Other specialists, such as educational technologists, psychologists, and assistive technology specialists, may also participate, ensuring a comprehensive evaluation.

The assessment process is not solely school-centered; rather, it prioritizes the individual needs of the student within their natural environments. Evaluations consider the physical environments where the student functions, such as classrooms, cafeterias, or playgrounds, to identify barriers and opportunities for technology integration. The availability of specific devices within the school may influence choices but should not be the sole determinant. Respecting student interests, strengths, and needs is essential for successful AT implementation, fostering engagement and independence. Furthermore, attitudes of teachers and staff towards technology significantly impact the success of assistive solutions.

An effective AT assessment involves evaluating multiple skills, including functional skills (ability to perform daily activities), operational skills (using devices correctly), social skills (communication and peer interaction), and strategic skills (problem-solving and adapting). For example, assessing a student's operational skills might involve testing their ability to operate a communication device correctly, while evaluating social skills could include observing how the student interacts with peers using AT tools.

Trial use of technology before procurement is considered best practice rather than a waste of time. This allows educators and students to evaluate the device's effectiveness in real-world settings and make data-informed decisions. Such iterative processes increase the likelihood of successful integration and long-term use.

The SETT framework—standing for Student, Environment, Tasks, Tools—is widely used to structure AT assessments. Each component addresses specific questions: "Who is the student?," "What environments does the student function in?," "What tasks does the student need to perform?," and "What tools or technologies can support these tasks?" For instance, evaluating Harper's desire to join P.E. class involves understanding her physical environment, her physical and social tasks, and the tools that might facilitate her participation.

The AT assessment team comprises teachers, specialists, parents or caregivers, and sometimes the student themselves. Parental involvement is crucial, as they provide contextual information and support during decision-making. Some schools employ specialized AT personnel with expertise in assistive technologies. While students should be involved in assessments to promote agency and provide firsthand insights, they are not optional members; their participation is essential for effective planning.

Training in operational, functional, social, and strategic skills is imperative for students to maximize the benefits of AT. Jeremy's ability to use a specific grip indicates training in operational skills related to device use. Without such skills, even the most advanced technology remains ineffective.

While AT considerations in the individualized education program (IEP) are recommended by law, especially under IDEA, they are not merely optional. The law mandates that assistive technology must be considered during IEP development to ensure appropriate support. If deemed necessary, AT must be documented, including the rationale, goals, and services required. When not needed, this must also be clearly indicated.

Further, assistive technology must relate directly to a student's annual IEP goals, ensuring relevance and measurable outcomes. Related service needs, such as specialized transportation or communication devices, are necessary components of the IEP when they support educational access.

Effective implementation of AT requires training not only for students but also for their families and educational staff. This collaborative approach promotes proper use and encourages consistent support across environments. Despite significant progress, many educators still require ongoing professional development to effectively meet students' evolving assistive technology needs.

The digital divide—defined as disparities in access and use of technology—remains a persistent issue. It impacts students' educational opportunities, especially for those in underserved communities. Federal laws, such as IDEA, emphasize the importance of equitable access to necessary technologies for all students, including provisions for free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

Decision-making regarding assistive technology in schools must be grounded in the student's IEP goals, articulated needs, and supporting evidence. These decisions should not be influenced solely by available funds or parent or student preferences but should be driven by functional assessments and individualized considerations. Proper documentation in the IEP, including rationale and assessment results, ensures accountability and clarity.

For students like Dominick, who require specialized transportation, such needs are classified as related services. These services are integral to ensuring full access to education, as mandated by IDEA. Consequently, districts are responsible for providing necessary devices and services at no cost if they are essential for the student to benefit from FAPE. This obligation extends to assistive technologies purchased through insurance, with schools often covering deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that families incur, emphasizing the shared responsibility for enabling educational access.

References

• Almenu, R., & Buhle, J. (2019). Assistive Technology in Special Education: Evidence-Based Practices. Journal of Special Education Technology, 34(2), 99-108.
• Borg, J., & Madden, K. (2014). Assistive Technology and Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 61(4), 357-374.
• Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2014). Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice. Elsevier.
• Hitchcock, C., & Stahl, S. (2020). Inclusive Technologies and Training for Schools. Pearson Education.
• Johnson, S., & Rose, T. (2018). Personalized Assistive Technology: Enhancing Student Participation. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 15-27.
• Zabala, J. S. (2017). Assistive Technology Decision-Making Frameworks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 102-113.
• United States Department of Education. (2017). A Guide to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
• Khetani, M. (2019). Assessing Technology Needs for Children With Complex Communication Needs. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 22(3), 245-256.
• Lieberman, L. et al. (2019). Using the SETT Framework to Support Technology Decisions. Journal of Assistive Technologies, 13(4), 221-229.
• Sutherland, K. M., & Ciftci, A. (2018). Digital Divide and Education: Addressing Equity in Technology Access. TechTrends, 62(3), 229-236.