JSET ejournal
The issues involved in assistive technology service delivery
are complex and require collaboration and understanding involving
much more than the basic operation of the assistive technology
device. (Bowser & Reed, 1995; Carl, Mataya, & Zabala,
1994; Hutinger, et al., 1996; MacGregor & Pachuski, 1996;
Todis & Walker, 1993; Zabala, 1995; Zabala, 1996). Vast numbers
of people are involved in these processes. In a report to Congress,
the Office of Special Education Programs of the United States
Department of Education (1998) indicates that there are six million
students with disabilities being served under the provisions
of IDEA. Each of these students has an IEP team. Each IEP team
must consider the assistive technology needs of the individual
student. Though the number of special education teachers and
other IEP team members with some awareness and training in assistive
technology is increasing (Blackhurst, MacArthur, & Byrom,
1987), it can be surmised that the majority of the tens of thousands
of individuals who serve on IEP teams still have little or no
experience with assistive technology decision-making (Bowser
& Reed, 1995; Todis & Walker, 1993; Zabala, 1996). Such
training and support are in short supply (Blackhurst & Morse,
1996), and, when they do exist, there is considerable
variance in focus and quality (Hutinger, et al., 1996). Often,
it is the responsibility of individual districts to prepare team
members appropriately; a task for which there are few resources.
Though some organizations provide training focused on building
the capacity of districts and individual service providers in
various aspects of assistive technology service development and
provision, these programs are rare (Todis, 1996). Some state,
regional, and local education agencies (e.g., Pennsylvania, Oregon,
Texas, Georgia, and Wisconsin) and some universities (e.g.: University
of Kentucky, University of Connecticut, University of New Mexico,
and California State University at Northridge) have been proactive
in moving toward professional development programs that train
personnel to provide assistive technology services and lead assistive
technology processes. Some local school districts have been able
to employ and allocate personnel who are specifically trained
in the leadership for the development and delivery of assistive
technology services. However, a survey of districts in Oregon
indicates that less than 15% of the districts in that
state have been able to do this. (Bowser, 1999).
A few states, such as Kentucky, have developed extensive state
guidelines to assist districts in the development of assistive
technology services (Kentucky Department of Education, 1997).
However, in the absence of either capacity-building professional
development or state guidelines, many districts have had to develop
guidelines and services on their own with little to guide them
and little with which to measure the merit or worth of their
efforts.
Though there are several useful models that guide district efforts
to prepare IEP team members (Bowser & Reed, 1995; Blackhurst
& Lahm, 2000; Zabala, 1995), no over-arching set of indictors
exists that could be applied to all models. Such a guide could
serve as a measure for policy makers, administrators, service
providers, professional development specialists, and consumers
of assistive technology services. It could aid in the development,
provision, selection, and evaluation of assistive technology
services, including the provision of assistive technology devices.
The ability of a state or local education agency to develop and
provide assistive technology services of quality has been complicated
by at least three realities: (a) complexity of issues and processes
related to assistive technology, (b) large numbers of diverse
individuals involved in the processes, and (c) lack of an over-arching
set of guidelines to aid members of IEP teams and school districts
in the development, provision, selection, and evaluation of assistive
technology services.
Supporting the Need for Quality IndicatorsCook and Hussey begin their book, Assistive Technologies: Principles and Practice (1995), by stating:
despite the growth in interest, application and training there has been a lack of carefully articulated principles as well as practices in the emerging assistive technology field. The common approach has been to focus on currently available devices with little synthesis of principles and practices. (p. vii)
The research literature on assistive technology supports this statement, showing little evidence of existing quality indicators or standards that can be used to support the development, provision, and the determination of merit or worth of assistive technology services in school settings. The literature does, however, include several studies that identified barriers to effective assistive technology service provision (Hutinger, et al., 1996; MacGregor & Pachuski, 1996; Todis & Walker, 1993; Todis, 1996). Each of these studies point to the need for a systematic method for planning, developing, and delivering assistive technology devices and services.
