Education TECH Points for Assistive

Technology Planning
GAYL BOWSER, 1871 NE Stephens Roseburg, OR
PENNY REED, PO Box 268 Amherst, WI

Abstract
IDEA states that assistive technology must be a part of a student's
special education, related services and/or supplementary aids and
services If it is required for the student to benefit from the
educational program. While the law is clear in this respect, school
districts across the nation are struggling with questions regarding
the best ways to determine the need for assistive technology and
to ensure appropriate levels of service. This article describes the
Education TECH Point system which can be used by school
districtsas a tool to develop effectiveassistive technology delivery
systems for all students with disabilities.

Assistive technology was first defined in law In
the Technology Related Assistance for Individ-
uals with Disabilities Act of 1988. Since that
time, the responsibility to provide assistive
technology devices and services has been
mandated by the IDEA revision of 1990, the
current revision of the Rehabilitation Act of
1992 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Under IDEA, asslstive technology is defined as
"any item, piece of equipment, or product
system, whether acquired commercially off the
shelf, modified, or customized that Is used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional
capabilities of children with disabilities." (20
U.S.C., Chapter 33, Section 1401 (25)). IDEA
also defined assIstive technology service as
"any service that directly assists a child with a
disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of
an assistive technology device. Such term
includes:
(A) the evaluation of needs . . . including a
Note: The authors welcome comments regarding the
Education TECH Points system and are particularly
interested in hearing from individuals or groups who have
experience using it. Contact Gayl Bowser, Oregon
Technology Access Program. 1871 NE Stephens, Rose·
burg, OR 97470 (503) 440-4791.
functional evaluation . . . in the child's
customary environment;
(B) purchasing, leasing or otherwise providing
for the acquisition of assistive technology
devices;
(C) selecting, designing. fitting, customizing,
adapting, applying, maintaining, repair-
ing, or replacing of assistive technology
devices;
(D) coordinating with other therapies, inter-
ventions, or services with asslstive tech-
nology devices, such as those associated
with existing education and rehabilitation
plans and programs;
(E) training or technical assistance for a child
with disabilities. or, where appropriate,
that child's family; and,
(F) training or technical assistance for profes-
sionals (including individuals providing
education and rehabilitation services), em-
ployers, or other(s) who provide services
to, employ, or are otherwise substantially
involved in the major life functions of
children with disabilities.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C., Chapter 33, Section
1401(26))
The provision of appropriate assistIve technol-

Journal of Special Education Technology Volume XII Number 4 Spring 1995

326
ogy devices and services involves much more
than purchasing equipment. There has been
little guidance on how to make the necessary
decisions to ensure that each individual who
requires an assistive technology device or
service will receive it. The regulations for the
IDEA revision of 1990 (Federal Register,
September 29, 1992) contained no specific
directions for assuring that a child with a
c:\isability receives assistive technology or ser-
vices. The main source of guidance has been
the position statement from OSERS which was
contained in a letter (Shrag, 1990). In that
letter it was stated that:
", . . it is impermissible under EHA-B for
public agencies (Including school districts) 'to
presumptiuely deny assistiue technology' to a
child with handicaps before a determination is
made as to whether such technology is an
element of a free appropriate public educa-
tion (FAPE)for that child. Thus,consideration
of a child's need for assistiuetechnology must
occur on a case-by-case basis in connection
with the deuelopment of a child's Individual-
Ized Education Program (IEP) (p. 1)."
IDEA states that assistive technology devices
and services could be a part of a child's (a)
special education, (b) related service, or (c)
supplementary aids and services (300.308).
Again, the policy statement from OSERS
provides the most specific direction available.
Shrag (1990) stated,
"A determination of what is an appropriate
educational program for each child must be
indiuidualized and must be reflected in the
context of each child's [EP. Each child's IEP
must be deueloped at a meeting which
includes parents and school ofjiclals. . . .
Thus, if the participants on the IEP team
determine that Q child with handicaps requires
assistiuetechnology in order to receiue FAPE,
and designate such assistiue technology as
either special education or a related service,
the child's IEP must include a spedfic
statement of such services, Including the
nature and amount of such services.
(page 2)."
It is clear that the IEP team must consider a
Education TECH Points
child's need for assistive technology devices or
services. It is also clear that if the team finds the
child needs an assistive device or service In
order to receive a free and appropriate public
education (FAPE), then the technology must
be included in the child's IEP and the school
district must ensure that the needed device
and/or services are provided. However, across
the nation school districts are struggling with
questions about how to determine need and to
ensure appropriate levels of service. At this
time, school districts commonly ask questions
such as "When is an assistive technology
evaluation required?" and "How do we
determine what assistive devices and services
are really needed for a child to benefit from
FAPE?".
Education TECH Point Approach to
Assistive Technology
In response to this struggle, The Education
TECH Point System (Figure 1) was developed
by the authors. The Education TECH Points
were adapted from the TECH Points model
(Langton & Hughes, 1992) which was devel-
oped for use within the vocational rehabilita-
tion services process. In both education and
rehabilitation, it is critical that the people
charged with making service delivery deci-
sions, have the tools they need in order to
make those decisions effectively and appropri-
ately. Education TECH Points highlight the
points at which the need for assistive technol-
ogy should be addressed. The Education
TECH Point Questions (Figure 2), then lead
the decision makers through the specific issues
to be considered.
Effective delivery of technology services
requires attention to the service component as
well as equipment acquisition. In order for
technology services to be an effective part of
an education program, several things must be
in place. They include:
• Clearly defined policies explaining technol-
ogy aids and services.
• Clearly identified procedures for examining
the need for assistive technology.
• Trained special education staff with a good
understanding of assistive technology and
Bowser, Reed 327

Education TECH POINTS

Pre-Referral
Process

~s
~ <Ev~.adon )

Develop Plan
- - -0+ rollowing S04 t-"--="",-
district guidclin

NO

Implementation

.I Closure 7 IEP/IFSP
Development ----I
I
I
Monitor --,
I
I
I
I
I
I Implementation
_YEs. .. N.Q. ..J

FIGURE 1.

the available resources for information and
technical assistance.
• Participation of key team members in
questioning the use of technology and in
determining solutions to overcome problems
• Specialized technology expertise in the form
of consultants, therapists or others with
technology skills readily available to teaching
staff and families.
• Models of IEP goals and objectives for
student use of technology that include
functional outcomes.
328 Education TeCH Points

Tech Point #1 -lnititzl Reje"al Question

1. Could this studentuse assistive technology to improve;remediateor compen-
sate for deficits in educaitonal performance.
2. Are there assistivetechnology options which should be tried beforereferral?

Tech Point #2 - Evaluation Questions

1. Can the student be accurately evaluated withstandard assessmentprocedures?
2. Does the use of assistive technology as an accommodation during testing
enhance the student'sperformance?
3. What typesof assistivetechnology solutions wouldenhance the students'
educationalperformance?
4. Are the servicesof a specialist needed?
5. Is an extendedassessment needed?

Tech Point #3 - Extended Assessment Questions

I. Does the type of technology we are assessing actuallydo what we thought it
woulddo for the child?
2. Which of the technology solutions tried is the most effective?

Tech Point #4 - Plan Development Questions

1. Is the assistive technology that is beingconsideredneeded for the child to meet
one or more of the goals on the IEP?
2. Are assistive technology servicesneeded to enable the child to use the device?
3. Was specificassistivetechnology identifiedin the IEP?
4. Has periodic review been included in the IEP to identify unanticipated prob-
lems with assistivetechnology and review them?

Tech Point #5 «Implementatlon Questions

I. What actions need to be takento assure that the assistive technology identified
by the IEP teamis usedeffectively?
2. Who is responsible for each of these actions?
3. Who is responsible for monitoring each aspect of the implementation of
assistive technology goals and objectives?

Tech Point #6 - Periodic Review Questions

1. Are the assistive technology devicesand/or services that were providedbeing
utilized?
2. Are the assistive technology devices and/or services functioning as expected?
3. Have long range plans (including transition) for the student'sassistivetechnol-
ogy use been made?
Figure 2.
Bowser. Reed
• Sufficient budget or access to special tech-
nology funds.
• Process for ongoing assessment of the
appropriateness of the technology.
These considerations must be a part of the
system for any model to function effectively.
The advantages of good evaluation and
selection of equipment can be lost if technol-
ogy services are not made an integral part of
the total educational plan.
As policy makers begln to address the
administrative issues raised when considering
assistive technology, two options are avail-
able. A separate and parallel track of
assessment and goal setting could be devel-
oped. This would involve the development of
a specialized referral and assessment process
and the establishment of clinical settings
where the special needs of assistive technol-
ogy users could be addressed. While there
are many advantages to such a setting for
Individuals with complicated technology needs,
a student with a learning disability or
poor spelling may be better served by
an assessment and implementation process
which is completed in the home school. A
second disadvantage of a separate but
parallel system is that the student's technol-
ogy needs are most likely to be assessed
outside of the physical and social environ-
ments where the technology Is to be used.
Research on technology abandonment indi-
cates that the appropriateness of the technol-
ogy to the task is only one of several factors
which determine the effectiveness of assistive
technology as a tool. (Sherer 1991) In
addition, IDEA specifies evaluation be done
in the child's customary environment (20
U.S.C. 1401(a)(26)).
An alternative to a separate assessment
and prescription system is the development of
general school district policies and procedures
which identify the places where assistive
technology should be considered and provides
support to school staff when additional Infor-
mation is needed. Such a system has the
advantage of including everyone on the IEP
team In a familiar process and assures that the
asslstive technology will be Included In the total
educational program in a way that considers all
329
the aspects of the child's education. Education
TECH Points describe such a system. Educa-
tion TECH Points represent the specificplaces
within the planning and provision of special
education services that the need for assistive
technology (both devices and services) should
be considered. The Education TECH Points
offer a way to integrate assistive technology
into the thinklng of the IEP team and the
management system that each school district
uses to ensure provision of appropriate ser-
vices to children with disabilities. Key points for
decisions regarding utilization of technology
services and resources are Identified and
incorporated into the regular IEP planning
system.
Each Education TECH Point represents a
place In the process of referral, evaluation
and IEP development where consideration of
technology utilization should occur. This
structure can provide a way to effectively
organize and monitor assistive technology
utilization while enabling programs to tailor
activities to match the needs of each student.
Initial education TECH Point questions guide
the IEP team through the necessary steps to
determine if a child may need an assistive
technology device or service. Later, during
implementation, the Education TECH Point
questions can assist the education staff to
monitor use in order to ensure that needed
changes are addressed in a timely and
efficient manner.
Several school districts have begun to use
the Education TECH Points. Initially, teams
of individuals concerned with a particular
student used the Education TECH Point
questions to help them to determine the
needs of that student and the places in the
student's educational program where special
focus should be placed on assistive technol-
ogy. More recently several policy groups
from individual school districts have used
the Education TECH Point system as a
starting point to develop procedures which
will be Included In school district practice In
order to effectively meet the asslstive technol-
ogy needs of students who require special
education or access to education under
section 504.
330
Implementing The Education TECH
Points System
Figure 1 is a flow chart representing a typical
special education or Section 504 process
which might be Implemented for any student
who has special needs. Critical activities in
referral, evaluation, planning and monitoring
are identified. The numbered Education
TECH Points are placed on the chart in the
places where it is recommended that the
evaluation team, multidisciplinary team or IEP
team consider questions relating to assistive
technology. Rgure 2 lists sample questions
which might be considered by the team at
each of these critical decision making points.
Education TECH Points Include Initial referral
questions, evaluation questions, extended as-
sessment questions, plan development ques-
tions, implementation questions and periodic
review questions.
In the Education TECH Point summary,
questions are meant to be representative of the
types of Issues teams might raise. Further work
with the Education TECH Points system is
needed to yield complete lists of questions
which can be used as checklists in the planning
and implementation process and to validate its
usefulness.
In working with the Education TECH
Points system In local school districts, several
trends and recommended approaches have
surfaced for school districts wishing to use the
Education TECH Points In developing policies
and procedures. Each Education TECH Point,
it's applications and implications for school
districts is discussed below. Following the
discussion of each Tech Point, the example of
how one district used the system to plan and
implement an assistlvetechnology program for
Christine has been offered for clarification.
Christine is seuen years old. She attends her
neighborhood school and is repeating thefirst
grade thisyear. Christine has moderate ataxic
cerebral palsy. She can walk, but her gait is
unsteady and the other children say she looks
drunk. When Christine hears this she pre-
tends to be drunk to try to make it Into a joke.
Christine told herfirst grade teacherlast year
that it really hurts her feelings.
Christine has normal language skills, but
her speech Is slurred and sometimes difficult
Education TECH Points
to understand due to the cerebral palsy. Her
reading skills are still at the reading readiness
leuel and her math peljormance Is at a 15
grade leuel. Christine has a great deal of
trouble with written work. Her handwriting is
UeJy labored and almost illegible euen to the
first grade teacher.
Christine is eligible for special education
serolces as a student with orthopedic impair-
ments. Last year, Christine received special
education support seruices in her first grade
classroom. Christine's program included sup-
port from an instructional assistant, occupa-
tional therapy, speech and language therapy
and specially designed Instruction in math.
Christine was expected to complete all
classroom assignments but written assign-
ments wereoften shortenedfor her becauseit
taok her so long to complete written work.
Initial Referral Questions-
Education TECH Point # 1
Children are referred to school child study
teams when the parent or anyone in the school
is concerned about their progress. This may be
a child newly identified as having problems or
a child who has been in special education and
is In need of changes in an educational
program. As a school's child study team meets
to identify the problems a child is experiencing
and to discuss the need for referral for a special
education evaluation, many facets of an
educational program might be discussed. For a
child experiencing behavior and academic
difficulties the team might identify several
possible modifications in the child's school day
which could help reduce the problems without
the need for referral for special education
evaluation. One of the many possible solutions
might be the use of assistive technology. For
example, a student might exhibit increased
outbreaks of talking and attention getting
behavior during a spelling class. Based on the
teacher's report, the team might suspect that
these outbreaks were due to the student's
frustration at not being able to spell without
great difficulty. The team might consider
modifying the student's assignments or to
provide the student with a talkingspell checker
or books on tape (asslstlve technology) in an
attempt to reduce the student's frustrations
with spelling.
Bowser, Reed
If a team determines that a referral for
evaluation for placement in special education
is needed, the possible need for assistive
technology might be discussed as an item to be
listed in the "other" section of the form
seeking permission to evaluate. This action
would inform parents that team members are
considering the use of assistive technology by
their child and notify the staff at the district's
evaluation center that school staff feel the use
of technology might be of benefit to this
student. If a student is already qualified for
special education services, the team might
decide that referral is needed to gather further
evaluation or assessment information regard-
ing the child.
Referral questions asked by the team
might include the following.
1. Could this student use assistive technology
to improve; remediate or compensate for
deficits in educational performance?
2. Are there assistive technology options
which should be tried before referral?
Christine was referred to the student services
team for consideration of two problems. First,
during the first month ofschool, Christine was
already experiencing difficulty in finishing her
written work. Second, Christine was begin-
ning to exhibit behalJior problems on the
playground during recess and had been sent
to the principal'soffice three times during the
first month of school. Team members were
concerned that Christine was already failing
behind during the first month of school.
SelJeral team members felt that Christine
might benefit from help from the resource
room teacher. Another team member sug-
gested that Christine might need a computer
to complete her written work.
It was decided that Christine should be
referred to the district evaluation center for
assessment of her educational needs. The
team felt that she might be eligible for
additional spedal education as a student with
orthopedic impairments. The team decided to
ask Christine!s parents for permission to
complete an IQ test, an occupational therapy
evaluation and a physical therapv elJaluation
in addition to academic testing. One of the
assessment questions was "Would a com-
331
puter help Christine to complete her written
work more quickly?"
Implications for School Districts
In implementing Education TECH Point #1,
school districts have found that It is essential
for student services teams within each school
building to be aware of assistive technology as
a requirement under IDEA and Section 504.
At the building level, staff should receive
awareness level training in assistive technol-
ogy. Such training would include definitions of
assistive technology devices and services and
an overview of the types of devices and
services available to students with different
disabilities. Such training should emphasize the
use of technology as a tool to meet educational
goals. Table I provides a listing of training
resources which might be used for awareness
level inservice training.
As the referral team discusses the prob-
lems the student is experiencing, some basic
assistive technology solutions might be identi-
fied. Calculators, spell checkers and altemative
writingtools such as word processors are often
available in the regular classroom setting. The
team provides one or more of these devices
before the referral is initiated. Such a trial
could potentially help to solve the child's
problem without additional services or might
provide additional diagnostic information
which could be included in the referral to the
evaluation team.
Evaluation Questions-
Education TECH Point #2
Many school districts have specific staff who
are designated to complete special education
evaluations which include intellectual, aca-
demic and behavioral evaluations of students.
Depending on the needs of the student in
question, evaluation teams might include the
building special education teacher, a school
psychologist, a behavior specialist, a speech
and language pathologist, an occupational
therapist and physical therapist. Members of
the evaluation team are trained to select and
use standardized and informal evaluation
instruments which address the specific skills
and performance levels of the student in
question.
332
When addressing Education TECH Point
#2. team members might ask the following
questions.
1. Can the student be accurately evaluated
with standard assessment procedures?
2. Does the use of assistive technology as an
accommodation during testing enhance the
student's performance?
3. What types of assistive technology solu-
tions would enhance the student's educa-
tional performance?
4. Are the services of a specialist needed?
5. Is an extended evaluation needed?
Christine was seen by the evaluation center
staff on several different occasions. The
psychologist gave her an lQ test which
showed that her verbal skills were much
higher than her performance skills. The
psychologist recognized that Christine's cere-
bral palsy was affecting her performance on
motor tasks and indicated this in his report
but did not recommend any spedfic accom-
modations. When academic assessment was
completed, the examiner recognized that
Christine was having difficulty because of her
poor motor skills. The examiner asked
Christine to complete written tasks with paper
and pendl fist. Then she took Christine to an
area in the evaluation center where a
typewriter was available. Christine's spelling
scores increasedjrom 40% to 65% at thefirst
grade level when she was given one opportu-
nity to type her responses instead of using a
pendl.
An occupational therapist evaluated Chris·
tine's motor performance and found that her
functional fine motor skills were really at
about the four year old level. The OT also
noted that Christine had a lack of strength in
her grip which would cause her to fatigue.
The Physical therapist who saw Christine
noted her awkward gait but stoted that
Christine was fully junctional in her ability to
complete most first grade level activities.
Following the completion of all the parts of
the assessment, a Multidisciplinary team met
to discuss the results of Christine's assess-
ment. The team noted that Christine had
already been qualified for spedal education
services as a student with orthopedic impair·
ments. There was some disagreement among
the team members about how to address
Education TECH Points
Christine's fine motor delays. One team
member thought that direct occupational
therapy would be the most bene/idal ap-
proach since Christine was still young. An-
other team member felt that Christine should
be given her own lap top computer as soon
as possible so that she would be able to
complete written assignments more easily.
The team finally dedded to refer Christine to
the assistive technology spedalist for the
district to help determine which assistive
technology solution, if any, might be the most
effective.
Implications for School Districts
In implementing Education TECH Point #2,
evaluation center staff are alerted to possible
assistive technology modifications and adapta-
tions to testing procedures. Staff need to be
aware that such accommodations and modifi-
cations are a requirement under IDEA and
Section 504. Evaluation center staff should
receive the same type of awareness level
training in assistive technology which is pro-
vided to building level staff. In addition to an
understanding of the definitions of assistive
technology devices and services and the types
of devices and services available to students
with different handicapping conditions. staff
completing evaluations of students for special
education must understand definitions of
accommodations and modifications and know
when they are required. Questions frequently
arise regarding the validity of the testing
procedures when modifications or adaptations
are used. Staff completing evaluations of
students with disabilities should have a dear
understanding of this issue and the applicable
legal precedents. The materials in Table 1 can
be used in awareness level training of evalua-
tion center staff as wen as buUding level
educators.
A variety of spedalized evaluation options
are currently available to most school districts
in regard to assistive technology. Larger
districts often have one or more augmentative
communication or asslstive technology special-
ists. Some occupational therapists, speech
pathologists and educators may have devel-
oped expertise in one or a variety of types of
assistive technology devices and services
(Reed & Bowser, 1991). State departments of
Bowser. Reed 333

TABLE 1
Resource List for Awareness Level Assistlve Technology Training
Publications
American Speech-language-Hearing Association, Technology in the Classroom: Applications and Strategies
for the Education of Children with Severe Disabilities: Rockville, MD. 1992.
Bowser, Gayl, Computers in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Special Education Programs, Coalition
for Asslstive Technology in Oregon: Winchester, OR. 1994.
Bowser, Gayl, Computers in the Mainstream, Coalition for AssistIve Technology in Oregon: Winchester. OR.
1991.
Bowser, Gayl, Computers in the Special Education Curriculum, Coalition for Assistive Technology in
Oregon: Winchester OR. 1989.
Bowser, Gayl and Penny Reed "The Role of the Occupational and Physical Therapist in Assistive
Technology", Tech Use Guide, Center for Special Education Technology: Reston, VA. March, 1991
ComputerResource for People with Disabilities: A guide in exploring Today's Assistive Technology. Alliance
forTechnology Access. Printer House: Alameda, CA. 1994.
Instructional Unit on the Use of Assistive Technology in the Classroom, Nebraska Assistive Technology
Project: Uncoln, NB.
Meadows, Jennifer Elliott, Independence Through Technology: For Individuals with Dual Sensory
Impairments and Other Disabilities, Indiana State University: Terre Haute, IN. 1991.
Judge, Gene, Parent Guidebook to Assistive Technology, Maine Department of Education, Division of
Special Education: Augusta, ME. 1992.
Judd Wall, Jamie. Assistive Technology Screener: A Diagnostic Checklist. Technology and Inclusion, Austin,
TX.1994.
Scherer, Marcia J. et al.• Educational Technology Predisposition Assessment, Scherer, McKee & Young:
Webster, NY. 1990.
Technology and the Individualized Education Program, RESNA TA Project: Washington, D.C. April 1992.
Williams, William B., et.al., Lijespace AccessProfile, Ufespace Access: Sebastapol, CA. 1993.
Joumals
Assistive Technology, RESNA Press: Washington, D.C.
Augmentative and Altemative Communication, Williams & Wilkins Publishers: Baltimore, MD.
Augmentative Communication News, Monterey, CA.
Closing the Gap, Dolores Hagen, Publisher, Henderson. MN.
Joumal of Special Education Technology, Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional
Children, Peabody College: Nashville, TN.
Technology and Disability, Mann, William C. and lane, Joseph P., Andover Medical Publishers: 1991.

education, universities and hospital settings room. For example, an FM amplification

may also provide assessment services in the
area of assistive technology use. Such services
win be a necessary part of an eligibility or
follow up evaluation for some students.
In addition to the question of use of
assistive technology during evaluation, the
evaluation must also address the child's need
for assistive technology as part of hislher
educational program. Evaluation team mem-
bers need training regarding the availability
and function of various assistive technology
devices and their potential use in the class-
system may make a significant impact on the
listening and understanding of a child with a
hearing loss or of a child with ADHD.
Evaluation team members should be knowl-
edgeable about a broad range of devices and
their potential benefit to a student.
While school districts, especially smell
districts, find it challenging to have available
every possible asslstive technology device,
they should make available an array of
technology that will allow evaluators to deter-
mine what adaptations might make a differ-
334
ence for individual students. The evaluation
staff might have a computer with the ability to
provide basic accommodations for individuals
with a wide range of disabilities. Such accom-
modations might include alternative input,
screen enlarging software, voice output, word
prediction, etc. A basic assessment system
allows evaluators to determine basic modifica-
tions which are useful for an individual child
and to make decisions regarding the need for
further assistive technology assessment.
While specialized evaluation services may
be available, most school districts have not
developed policies and procedures which
enable the general education staff and building
level staff to access these evaluation options.
Teachers who have concerns about a particu-
lar child may not know how to obtain the
services of a district assistive technology
specialist or may assume that such a specialist
works only with multihandicapped students.
When outside assessment is needed, teachers
may be hesitant to refer, fearing the excess
costs the district might incur. Parents who feel
that their child might benefit from the use of
asslstive technology may become frustrated in
their attempts to get school staff to consider
their request for assessment. In order to avoid
these problems, direct service staff and others
Involved in the assessment need to have clear,
written guidelines regarding the use of special-
ized assistive technology assessment services.
Extended Assessment Questions-
Education TECH Point #3
In this context, extended assessment refers to
the assessment of a child's specific needs in
relation to a particular skill deficit. Extended
assessments are not required to determine the
child's need for special education, but provide
particular information regarding some unique
aspect of the child's skills and abilities and the
solutions that might be used to address deficit
areas. Extended assessments are generally
completed by collecting data on a particular
approach over time. For example In an
extended assessment for assistive technology
use, several technology solutions may be tried
and data may be collected on each of them to
determine which one is the most effective. The
student evaluation team or the educational
Education TECH Points
program staff might ask the following questions
in order to identify the appropriate technology
among a variety of options.
1. Does the type of technology we are
assessing actually do what we thought it
would do for the child?
2. Which of the technology options evaluated
Is the most effective?
The assistilJe technology specialist lJisited
Christine in her classroom. She obserued
Christine's performance in a spelling classand
during the dailv writing practice. She then
took Christine to the computer lob where
they tried a number of different types of
software, including word processing, math
games and spelling drills. Christine enjoyed
using the computer but had trouble with the
keyboard because she held the keys down
too long and typed long strings of repeated
letters. Christine used a math facts drill
program and receilJed a score of 80% correct
on all addition and subtraction facts. Her
teacher later reported that she had neeer
receiued a score higher than 50% when
asked to do moth facts with a pencil.
The assistiue technology specialistreturned
to lJisit Christine on a second day and brought
with her a portable word processor and a
portable, battery operated typewriter. Chris-
tine could use either device Independently
but expressed a preference for the typewriter
because it had big type and because she
could print out what she had written and
show It to her teacher immediately. When
asked to print her work on the word
processor, Christine had trouble attaching it
to the printer and was confused about how to
access the print functions.
The assistiue technology spedalist recom-
mended that Christine use the portable
typewriter for written work in the classroom
and use the classroom computer with math
software when other students were complet-
ing math worksheets.
Implications for School Districts
In order to effectively complete extended
assessments of the use of assistive technology
devices and services, a variety of technology
solutions must be available for the student's
use. Some school districts already have exten-
sive Ubrarles of items such as laptop comput-
Bowser, Reed
ers, augmentative communication devices and
Braille note takers. In other school settings, the
local district may not have the equipment
needed for extended assessments. In this case
other resources such as Tech Act programs,
statewide lending libraries, advocacy groups,
evaluation centers and university programs
may be able to provide short term loan of
equipment for trial in the school setting. Some
equipment can also be rented from vendors. It
is important that the staff who work with a
student know what is available and what needs
to be done to use such equipment. In a study
of the assistive technology use patterns of
occupational therapists, Sommerville, Wilson,
Shanfield and Mack (1990) reported that
therapists do not recommend devices they
have not been able to try.
When the resources are available to try a
variety of technology tools with a particular
student, the question of decision making still
remains. School districts should provide guide-
lines to staff in this area. While each IEP
decision is made on an individual needs basis,
districts can suggest parameters which help the
team decide how well a solution must work
before it is selected for inclusion on the IEP.
Other issues which should be addressed in
developing guidelines to help staff make
assistive technology decisions are issues of
student and parent training, staff training, low
tech options, and ease of use in the educa-
tional program.
Plan Development Questions-
Education TECH Point #4
When all evaluation data for a particular
student has been assembled, the multidiscipli-
nary team meets to review the findings and to
define an appropriate educational program.
Some children will be found to need a
specialized educational program and be eligi-
ble for special education services. Other
students who have disabilities may not need a
special educational program but may need
accommodations and modifications under
Section 504. In either case, a plan is devel-
oped by a team of individuals knowledgeable
about the student's disability. For a child who
is eligible for special education, the team
describes the child's present level of perfor-
335
mance (PLOP) and identifiesgoals, objectives,
elated services and accommodations and
modifications needed in order to participate in
the educational program. For a child who is
eligible under section 504 accommodations
and modifications must also be described in a
written plan.
Regardless of the type of plan developed,
the team could use the questions listed under
Education TECH Point #4 to guide them in
the planning process.
1. Is the assistive technology that is being
considered needed for the child to meet
one or more of the goals on the IEP?
2. Are assistive technology services needed to
enable the child to use the device?
3. Was specific assistive technology identified
in the IEP?
4. Has periodic review been included in the
IEP to identify unanticipated problems with
assistive technology and review them?
Following the MDT meeting, an IEP meeting
was convened. All of the MDT members
attended the IEP meeting because each had
recommendations to make regarding educa-
tional goals and related seroices. Christine's
parents asked many questions about the
assessment and the options for Christine's
program. Several goals were developed for
Christine's special education program. It was
determined that Christine would need occu-
pational therapy as a related seroice.
When discussing the question of assistive
technology, It was determined that Christine
could benefit from some form of electronic
keyboard option for written work. The
portable typewriter was chosen because it
was a device that Christine liked and could
leam to use quickly and easily. The team
wrote a long term goal for Christine to learn
the operation of the deVice. This goal
included short term objectives regarding the
use of the device and Christine's develop-
ment of beginning keyboarding skills. In
addition, short term objectives were included
in Christine's spelling goal to indicate that she
would learn to use the typewriter to complete
spelling assignments. It was determined that
Christine would do her math drilland practice
activities using the classroom computer. The
asslstive technology spedalist agreed to pro-
336
vide two hours per month of consultation to
the classroom teacherregarding software that
would be appropriate for this activity. The
occupational therapist pointed out that Chris-
tine was not ready for full ten finger
keyboarding due to herfine motor delays, but
that she could begin to learn the location of
the letters. The occupational therapist agreed
to develop a keyboard training program for
Christine and work with the instructional
assistant once a week to implement it. The
assistive technology seroices and occupational
therapy were listed on Christine's IEP as
related seruices.
Implications for School Districts
When assistive technology Is to be included in
the IEP or the 504 plan, staff may be unsure as
to how to include it in order to accurately
describe its function. Federal regulations state
that assistive technology may be included as
special education, related services, or accom-
modations and modifications (IDEA, 1990).
This variety of options causes even more
confusion in the individuals who are required
to develop the IEP or Section 504 document.
School districts should provide staff with
training in the ways that assistive technology
can be written into an IEP or 504 plan and
should provide models of exemplary goals and
objects, related services statements and state-
ments of accommodations and modifications.
While It is important to document the use
of asslstive technology in the student's plan,
staff may be afraid to write in a specific
technology device for fear that the district may
not be able to provide It or that the device will
not provide the hoped for remediation. The
development of an effective extended assess-
ment system will go a long way toward
remediating this difficulty. Asslstive technology
should not be included as part of an IEP goal
or objective until it has been used by the
student in the educational environment and
proven to be effective. Demonstration of
effectiveness also provides data to school
districtadministrators which will justify requests
for purchase of new devices.
Implementation Questions-Education
TECH Point #5
As with any other part of the educational
program, goals and objectives which include
Education TECH Points
assistive technology require further planning
on the part of the school staff when it is time to
implement the IEP. If the assistive technology
is to be an effectivetool for a student, this step
in the planning process is critical.
Educational staff will need to ask the
following questions as they plan to implement
the IEP goals and objectives for each child.
1. What actions need to be taken to assure
that the assistive technology identified by
the IEP team is used effectively?
2. Who Is responsible for each of these
actions?
3. Who is responsible for monitoring each
aspect of the implementation of asslstive
technology goals and objectives.
Following the IEP meeting, the educational
team at Christine's school met with the
occupational therapist and the assistive tech-
nology specialist. It was detennined that the
assistive technology specialist would give the
school staff one hour of instruction on the
operation of the typewriter including Its spell
checking and word processing capabilities
and be aooilable for consultation. The occu-
pational therapist agreed to look at the
possibility of providing a key guard for the
classroom computer so that Christine would
not make so many typing errors when she did
her math assignments. The regular classroom
teacher agreed to take responsibility for
seeing that the writing, spelling and math
programs were carried out on a dailv basis.
The resource room teacher agreed to provide
direct instruction to Christine regarding the
use of the math software and to make sure
that Christine's use of assistive technology
was included into the classroom routine
without disruption.
Implications for the district
When the use of asslstive technology is new to
a staff, it is Important that school districts
recognize that staff will need additional time
and support to implement a program which
includes it. While one staff member will usually
be responsible for monitoring the overall use of
the asslstive technology, many people need to
understand it's function and operation in order
for the program to be successful. All team
 Bowser. Reed
members must understand their role in the
implementation of the program. In addition,
responsibilities should be clearly specified in
writing so that everyone knows who is
responsible to see that the assistive technology
works properly, that consumable supplies such
as paper are available and the procedures to
follow if the assistivetechnology is not working
(Bowser, 1991).
In addition to questions about specific
devices and services for the student, there will
be many staff training and management issues
which need to be addressed. When staff is
encouraged to work together as a team and
when time is set aside for team members to
communicate, the likelihood that assistive
technology will be an effectivetool is increased
(Todis & Walker, 1993). Local school staff
should be aware of the additional resources
which they can access when they are unable to
answer questions within the team. School
districts should clearly describe the available
support services and the appropriate proce-
dures to use to obtain them.
Periodic Review Questions-Education
TECH Point #6
IDEA requires the periodic review of each
student's IEP. This review should include
evaluation of the effectiveness of the assistive
technology solutions which are in the IEP.
Even when plans for the use of assistive
technology are appropriate, it is still necessary
to periodically review the student's use of
technology and the technology solutions avail-
able to meet educational goals. As in the
development of the rest of the IEP, periodic
monitoring of assistive technology use is
mandated in IDEA.
The following questions might be asked by
the individuals responsible for monitoring a
child's assistive technology use.
1. Are the assistivetechnology devices and/or
services that were provided being utilized?
2. Are the assistive technology devices and/or
services functioning as expected?
3. Have long range plans (Including transi-
tion) for the student's assistive technology
use been made?
337
At the annual review of Christine'sIEP, as she
began second grade, the team agreed that
Christine's use of the typewriter had been a
huge success. She was able to complete most
written assignments with no reduction in the
amount of work required. During the year,
the occupational therapist and assistive tech-
nology specialist had helped to work out
some of the problems Christine had experi-
enced with unwanted hits on the computer
keyboard and Christine was able to use the
computer independently for math.
The team decided that Christine would
require the use of a lap top computer in the
future but that additional training in its use
would be needed. A plan was devised which
included one half hour of special instruction
in the resource room On computer operation
each day. Once Christine leamed to use the
computer and printer and use word process-
ing and word prediction software indepen-
dently, the district representative agreed that
she would be provided with her own lap top
computer. It was agreed that Christine would
receive special computer training during her
entire second grade year with the expectation
that she would be able to begin to use a lap
top computer in her third grade classroom.
Christine was well on the way to becoming an
effective assistive technology user.
Implications for School Districts
When periodic review indicates that asslstive
technology is not being utilized or is not
functioning as expected, school staff should
know what to do next. It may be that the
asslstive technology was inappropriate to the
needs of the child, that the staff or the student
need additional training, that additional modi-
fications or accommodations related to the
assistive technology are needed or that a
technology solution was inappropriate in the
first place. School staff need a clear under-
standing of what is responsible for monitoring
the assistive technology plan and what to do
when implementation of the plan does not go
as expected.
As technology changes and new solutions
become available, school districts should en-
sure that monitoring of a student's technology
use includes the option to try new solutions as
they become available. In addition to being a
resource for extended assessment, a district
338
loan bank of equipment for student use can
assure that as a student's needs change,
additional alternatives will be available.
When a student is ready for the transition
to adult services, consideration of assistive
technology needs must be addressed in a new
way. Students may require different equip-
ment or specialized training when vocational
programs or post secondary education is
considered. Equipment owned by the school
district may need to be replaced by equipment
which is the property of the student. Transition
planning processes should reflect the transition
team's consideration of assistive technology
just as the IEP policies and procedures do.
Conclusion
The Education TECH Points system is deigned
to provide a framework for addressing assistive
technology issues. Each group of professionals
and parents who utilize the Education TECH
Points as a planning tool will address each
question in a slightly different manner based
on the unique nature of the programs which
are already in existence and develop different
answers to the questions based on the unique
needs of the child in question. As a tool,
Education TECH Points will allow groups
interested in assistive technology issues to
identify already existing resources and identity
problems in the assistive technology service
delivery system.
One solution to the problems which the
group identifies lies in the development of clear
procedures which can be included in district
guidelines. Some districts may choose to
develop a special assistive technology referral
and service delivery system. Others may fold
assistive technology into already existing ser-
vices and procedures. Policies and procedures
developed by particular districts will vary
according to the resources available. Regard-
less of the procedures identified by a district,
they should be written and aU staff should be
made aware of them.
Education TECH Points may also be
helpful in the identification of existing re-
sources and the development of collaborative
Education TECH Points
programs. When representatives of several
districts use the system as a basis for discussion
of assistive technology services, collaborative
efforts may be developed which expand the
resources and options for all students with
disabilities in a given area.
The Education TECH Point system is a
framework on which to build. In a variety of
situations, it can provide the stimulus to
develop systematic approaches to the delivery
of assistive technology services. Research and
evaluators of this process and the specific ways
it is used is an important next step to determine
the utility of the system.
REFERENCES
Bowser, G. (l99l). Computers in the Mainstream:
A Planning Guide, Coalition for Assistive
Technology in Oregon: Roseburg, OR
Districts MustProvide Assistive Technology Devices:
Wheelchairs, Computers, Communication
Devices May be Required, The Special
Educator, (1993) 6(6) (pp. 73-7).
Langton, A. and Hughes, J. (1992). Back to Work,
Team Rehab Report, 3(4) (pp. 14-18).
Reed, P. and Bowser, G. (1991). The Role of the
Occupational and Physical Therapist in Assis-
tive Technology Tech Use Guide. Reston,
VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.
RESNA (1992). Assistive Technology and the
Individualized Educational Program. Wash-
ington, DC: RESNA Technical Assistance
Project.
Schrag, J. (1990). OSEP Policy Letter. Washing
DC: U.S. Office of Education.
Sherer, M.J. and McKee, B.G. (1990). High Tech
Communication Devices: What Separates
Users from Non-users? Augmentative and
Alternative Communication, 6(2),99.
Sherer, M.J. (1991). Matching Peoplewith Technol-
ogies. Scherer Associates: Webster, NY, p. 7.
Somerville, N., D. Wilson, K. Shanfield, W. Mack
(1990). A suroeyof the Assistive Technology
Needs of Occupational Therapists. Assistive
Technology 2:2, 41-49.
Tools, B. and Walker, H. (1993). User Perspectives
on Assistive Technology in Educational Set-
tings, Focus on Exceptional Children, 26(3).