Creating Meaningful and Culturally Supportive Individualized ATPs in IEPs

Purpose & objective

The objectives of this presentation are to (a) spread awareness of the need for ATP plans across multiple grade levels and content areas to meet the educational needs of students in the classroom, (b) teach special education leaders to be aware of formal and informal AT assessment opportunities in the classroom and how to consider intersectional traits of students in the process, (c) offer ideas on how to include students and families in the ATP process, (d) identify the differences between educational, instructional, and assistive technology and how to incorporate them into a meaningful ATP within an IEP, (e) identify the different levels of technology and how to not saturate and/or deny a student access, and (f) actual litigation that has occurred due to inadequate or missing ATPs. Technology interventions will be highlighted through the low-tech, mid-tech, and high-tech assistive technology frameworks that are available to students in order to in academic achievement and any life skills depending on the student's IEP goals.

Outline

This presentation will include:
1. Diagram and graphics of different levels of assistive technology (low, mid, high) and how they are used in the general education and special education classroom.
2. The different frameworks for assistive technology decision-making.
3. Ideas and procedures related to include the student in the AT selection process.
4. Differentiation between different technology assessments for varying disabilities.
5. Ethical decision-making from the school perspective.
6. Cultural considerations of access to technology and how to address those in the ATP.
7. Components of an ATP that are required by IDEA to show progress and access to FAPE.
8. Legal implications including court cases in the past 5 years that have led to a denial of FAPE due to inadequate or nonexistent ATPs in IEPs.

As a Nearpod certified instructor, Nearpod will be used for instructional support throughout the presentation which will include polls, video, concurrent collaborative boards/sessions, virtual reality sample for life skills support for students with autism, and presentation content information related to the creation of assistive technology plans within an IEP.

Supporting research

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
References Bouck, E. C. (2017). Assistive Technology. Sage Publications.
Jarl, G., & Lundqvist, L.-O. (2018). An alternative perspective on assistive technology: The person-environment–tool (PET) model. Assistive Technology, 32(1), 47–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2018.1467514
Maushak, N., Kelley, P., & Blodgett, T. (2001). Preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom: A preliminary study of attitudes and knowledge of assistive technology. Jl. Of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 419–431.
Newman Thomas, C., Peeples, K. N., Kennedy, M. J., & Decker, M. (2019). Riding the special education technology wave: Policy, obstacles, recommendations, actionable ideas, and resources. Intervention in School and Clinic, 54(5), 295–303. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218819201
Root-Elledge, S., Hardesty, C., Cooley Hidecker, M., Bowser, G., Ed, M., Leki, E., Wagner, S., Moody, E., & Root Elledge, S. (2018). The ECHO model ® for enhancing assistive technology implementation in schools. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 12(Summer 2018), 37–55.
Ruppar, A., Neeper, L., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special education teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451218819201Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Shogren, K., & Davies, K. (2011).
Technology and self-determination in transition planning: The impact. Journal of Special Education Technology, 26(1).
Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas county school district (2017) FAPE and the U.S. supreme court. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917721116