Assistive Technology Implementation Plan

Assistive Technology Implementation Plan

The term assistive technology (AT) includes both devices and services. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004) defines an AT device 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 a child with a disability" (20 U.S.C. 1401 (1) (A)). This does not include medical devices that are surgically implanted. An AT service is defined as "any service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device" (20 U.S.C. 1401 (2)). AT services listed by the law include (a) evaluating AT needs; (b) providing for AT devices through purchasing, leasing, or other means; (c) "selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing devices," (20 U.S.C. 1401 (2) (c); (d) coordinating the use of AT devices with other interventions received by the students; (e) providing training and technical assistance to the student and their family; and (f) providing training and technical assistance for professionals involved with the student.

Since the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act was re-authorized in 1997 (IDEA, 1997) continuing with IDEA 2004, states have been mandated to consider AT for all students with an individualized education program (IEP) and to document any AT needs in the student's IEP. Because of this legal mandate, a great deal of emphasis has been placed on the consideration process which has led to the development of many tools and resources for IEP teams to use when considering AT. For example, a consideration "quick wheel" (Technology and Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children and the Wisconsin Assistive Technology Initiative, n.d.) and a "technology fan" (Mistrett et al., n.d.) are products that were specifically developed to assist teams in the consideration of AT for school-aged students and young children, respectively.

Although the consideration process is vital to an effective AT program for a student, implementing the AT properly is also critical for effective outcomes. Unfortunately, the provision of quality AT implementation services may not have received the same amount of attention as the consideration of AT, and IEP teams are stronggling when it comes to implementing AT. Many professionals are not trained in the provision of quality AT services (Abner & Lahm, 1998; Hutinger & Johanson, 2000). Thus, professionals are not always aware of what the AT services are as defined in the law. In a survey conducted by Bausch, Evmenova, Berhmann, and Ault (2007), when professionals who provided AT services in their school districts were asked to list the AT services by their students, a large percentage (59.8%) of the services they reported not AT services as they are defined in the law, indicating a lack of awareness.

The Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology (The QIAT Consortium, 2004) were developed by a nationwide group as overarching guidelines for districts and professionals in defining and providing quality AT services (http://www.qiat.org/). One indicator developed by the consortium involves developing a plan for AT implementation after the AT has been considered and selected for a student in an IEP meeting. This indicator states, "assertive technology implementation proceeds according to a collaboratively developed plan. IEP development, all those involved in implementation work together to develop a written action plan that provides detailed information about what will be done and who will do it". Therefore, the National Assistive Technology Research Institute (NATRI), an institute funded by the Office of Special Education Programs in 2000 (Lahm, Bausch, Hasselbring, & Blackhurst, 2001), developed a product to guide IEP teams not only in the consideration process, but also through the implementation of the AT with the student (Bausch, Ault, & Hasselbring, 2006).

As a part of this product, NATRI developed a form to provide a guide for teams when designing proper AT implementation for a student once the IEP team had determined the AT devices or services were needed. An implementation form is not considered part of the IEP and, unlike an IEP, it is not a legally binding document. Rather, the form is used to guide teams through a planning process that will ensure proper implementation of a student is AT and include elements that are unique to AT. It is specifically designed to ensure that activities related to AT are completed, and is designed following the IEP meeting by a team of persons involved in the implementation of a student is AT. These people may or may not be the same as the members of the IEP team. The use of a written form for implementation of AT is needed for several reasons:

1. IEP teams often rely heavily on AT specialists to assist them with consideration, assessment, and implementation of AT (Ault, 2006). Although AT specialists may be necessary and beneficial to teams, they are not able to provide direct services to all students on their caseload, and teams need to develop knowledge and skills in order to take ownership of AT implementation. In addition, many school districts do not have access to AT specialists. Having a written form for AT implementation allows teams to create an AT plan with the help of an AT specialist if necessary. It then gives guidelines for integration and use of the AT throughout a student is schedule thereby reducing the reliance on the specialist.

2. The implementation form allows the team to ensure that the unique features associated with AT implementation are addressed. The proper implementation of AT is associated with unique features usually not incorporated into an IEP. The implementation plan allows for the documentation of these unique features.

3. The form provides a mean for accountability. Teams may often be unclear about which member is responsible for a specific task and service associated with AT implementation. Because tasks are assigned to individuals during the development of the plan, each will be carried out as specified or, if not, a particular individual can be held accountable for the lack of implementation of the task.

4. The plan places an emphasis on implementation. The plan ensures that when a student has been identified as requiring AT devices and services the entire implementation process is properly carried out from the acquisition of the devices to the implementation, monitoring, and adjustment of the technology based on student progress data.

Reference

Ault, M. J. (2006, March 22). The National Assistive Technology Research Institute's "top ten"
list of findings. Paper presented at the 2006 California State University -Northridge Center
on Disabilities Conference. Retrieved January 5, 2008, from http://natri.uky.edu/findings/

Bausch, M. E., Ault, M. J., & Hasselbring, T. S. (2006). Assistive technology planner: From IEP
consideration to classroom implementation. Lexington, KY: National Assertive Technology
Research Institute.

Bausch, M. E., Evmenova, A., Behrmann, M., & Ault, M. J. (2007). Going beyond assistive
technology devices: Are assistive technology services being considered? Manuscript
submitted for publication.

Hutinger, P. L., Johanson, J. (2000). Implementing and maintaining an effective early childhood
comprehensive technology system. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(3), 159-
173.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 118, Sta. 2647 et seq., 1401
(2004).

Lahm, E. A., Bausch, M. E., Hasselbring, T. S., & Blackhurt, A. E. (2001). National assistive
technology research institute. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16(3), 19-26.