The Family Center on Technology and Disability
Assistive Technology Works
Newsletter
| Newsletter for December 2006 |
QIAT Please: Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology In this Issue... In the beginning, all was quiet on the AT front, but quiet was not what special education professionals and AT experts needed. What they needed back in 1998, when IDEA ’97 and the Internet were new, was a way to determine quality indicators for the AT to which many more students with disabilities would need access in the years ahead. QIAT filled the information void, providing updated, reliable information on AT quality indicators that school districts, AT service providers, consumers, universities and professional developers and policymakers utilize to help students with disabilities and their families realize the promise of IDEA. Started in summer 1998, when a small group of special educators and AT professionals gathered at professional development expert Jane Korsten’s “pond house” in Leawood, KS, to align, for the first time, professional development and training efforts around assistive technology, QIAT –pronounced “quiet” -- is a nationwide collaborative endeavor involving hundreds of individuals. These individuals, each of whom is a stakeholder in assistive technology, provide constant input into the ongoing process of identifying, disseminating and implementing a set of widely applicable AT quality indicators that can be used in school settings. QIAT 2006 contains quality indicators, intent statements and common areas for eight areas [see accompanying box]. This issue examines quality indicators for AT and related resources. Joy Zabala Speaks “For the first time in my life,” she recalls, “I found myself environmentally disabled.” Arriving in that city equipped with only two years of high school Spanish, Dr. Zabala says she was able to converse “only about the days of the week and the months of the year – and nobody down there wanted to engage in a conversation about those subjects.” She regarded herself as environmentally disabled “because I had lots to say but had no words to express myself.” What she did have was a strong sense of isolation. “I found myself in situations I never intended to be in because my Spanish wasn’t elegant enough to show anyone that I had a fully functioning brain.” At that point, even though she was a general education teacher by vocation, with K-3 experience and a certificate in early childhood education, she had never thought about special education as a career. That would soon change. Back in the U.S., her family settled in Lake Jackson, TX, a Houston exurb. “When we came home I put into practice a lesson I’d learned years before: spend time as a substitute teacher in order to make sure that I found the environment that was right for me. As it turned out, this approach was a precursor of the SETT Framework.” She recalls that school officials in Lake Jackson’s central office were excited when she informed them of her early childhood certification. They took her to visit the district’s early childhood center for students with disabilities. “I had never given a thought to that aspect of teaching before [Public Law] 94-142 was passed,” which stipulated that a “free and appropriate education” must be provided for every child.” Passage of that legislation had occurred while Joy and her family were abroad. True to her approach, she quickly began her career in special ed -- as a substitute. “I decided to sub in that environment because I was young and strong and figured that I could manage just about anything. It turned out that I liked the environment very much and was intrigued by the concept that all students ought to be moving forward.” Much to her advantage, she adds, “were the years I’d spent working with kids who had no identified disabilities, so I immediately had a strong sense about what students should be able to accomplish.” Her school soon won an early Apple grant. Unfortunately, however, her students were so severely disabled that they could not access the new computer. “While AT was not even a field then, it was emerging. There were a few tools that could help kids who were unable to access a computer. We were dealing exclusively then with physical access only.” Today, Joy Zabala is an independent professional development consultant who provides assistive technology and leadership support to school communities, professional associations, departments of education, individuals and companies nationwide. She has participated in education and AT support from a variety of perspectives: more than 10 years as a general educator in Florida, Georgia and Venezuela; over 20 years as a special educator and facilitator of adult learning in Texas and around the country and two years in the private sector. In addition to her work with QIAT and the SETT Framework, she is involved in a variety of ongoing projects and is currently a faculty associate at the Center for Technology in Education at Johns Hopkins University, an online advisor for the Commonwealth Center for Instructional Technology and Learning at the University of Kentucky, the project director and evaluator for ATSTAR at Knowbility, Inc. in Austin, TX and was program coordinator for the Assistive Technology Industry Association 2006 Conference. She was the president of the Technology & Media Division of the Council for Exceptional Children for the 2005-2006 term and is a member of the board of directors for the Alliance for Technology Access and of the organizational board of the European Schools Association. A native of Daytona Beach, Florida, Joy holds a B.A. in Education from the University of Florida, a Masters in Education from Florida Atlantic University and a doctorate from the University of Kentucky with specialization in special education personnel preparation, distance education and leadership. She has completed additional graduate studies in language acquisition, special education and technology. For her, though, despite a career of accomplishment and meaningful contributions, it all comes back to her time in Caracas. “That was the beginning for me. Having been a communication-disordered person – although only temporarily and environmentally – I understood the reality of that state of being, which thereafter infused me with a passion for communication.” Her Venezuela experience also aided her in appearing “as if I knew what was going on around me when, in fact, I had no clue. I learned when to smile, when to frown and when to look confused. I learned by imitating the faces of others. I learned the hard way about the importance of communication as a means to participate and as a way to become productive. Every day I prayed that what I learned would never be required by someone who was dear to me. It has been a humbling honor to be involved in this work, to have had the opportunities that have presented themselves to me and to my colleagues.” Please share this newsletter with other organizations, families and professionals who may benefit from it. We invite you to contact us at http://www.fctd.info. We welcome feedback, new members and all who contribute to our growing knowledge base. A QIAT Conversation:Quality Indicators for AT An Interview with Joy Zabala, Ph.D., Co-Founder, QIAT Consortium
She clearly remembers the QIAT genesis. “Those of us who had been in AT for quite a long time would network at conferences. We found that we were asking the same questions over and over. We were worried about how to provide support and training. We’d say, ‘We’ve got to get together to discuss these issues.’” Finally, Joy recalls, Jane Korsten asked, “Why do we keep talking about getting together? Why don’t we actually get together? Why don’t you come to my pond house?” In the summer of 1998, that’s what the group did. Aligning Professional Development and Training Joy joined forces with Diana Carl, who is now Director of Special Education for the Houston public schools. “I had just left Region 4 in Houston, where Diana was my closest working contact and very good friend.” Region 4, then and now, is a professional development entity providing general support for schools. “Diana and I had been trained to talk about the purpose, expected results and what sort of evaluation was going to be conducted. Using that model at the pond house meeting, we addressed the purpose and expected results of the professional development we’re working on.” “Because it begged more discussion, we said, ‘What do we – who believed we were very aligned thoughtwise – believe that quality assistive technology services are?’ That was a sub-question before we moved on to the professional development aspect. We never got to the professional development piece. We started talking about what services should be categorized as quality services.” Fourteen Individuals, 14 Opinions The impetus for getting started, she says, “was the reality that if we were experiencing so much difficulty seeing what quality AT services would look like, what did that say about all those individuals out there struggling with this issue and without the time to devote to resolving it? What do they see as quality AT services? How does one provide quality AT services if there is no description of what those services are?” The group agreed to formulate a description of quality AT services. The regulations for IDEA 1997 had just been made public, Joy remembers. “The term ‘consideration’ appeared in the regs for the first time, which stated that one must consider whether a student needs AT devices and services. At that point, nobody had a clue as to what that actually meant.” The group members asked, “What are the big concepts that anyone involved in the delivery of AT services has to think about?” In seeking a consensus on those concepts, the group members agreed that the law now demanded that all schools, all districts had to “consider” AT. “We had to have some sense of what evaluation and implementation looked like and what evaluation of the effectiveness of that implementation might look like. We selected those key areas first.” “We took those four areas and produced some drafts that are on the QIAT website now because we wanted those who are interested to be able to trace the evolution of these indicators over time to see how they have morphed. That was the beginning.” Origin of the Species Later in 1998, the group presented its drafts to a session at the Closing the Gap conference, requesting input. “There were 200 attendees. They reviewed the draft quality indicators. We put processes in place for them to provide feedback. We did that for years. We still do it.” This review/feedback process, she explains, was initiated and continued in order “to make sure that the quality indicators were useable, useful and meaningful regardless of location or setting.” Before the publication of the first set of quality indicators appeared in the Journal of Special Education Technology in 2001, extensive working revision had taken place. QIAT, Joy says, “belongs to the QIAT community, which is not the leadership team. The QIAT community consists of anyone interested in the provision of quality services. There are no membership lists or requirements. Thousands of people have been involved in the evolution of the quality indicators.” The quality indicators, she explains, “address the need of everyone in our field to have a common definition of the critical elements in quality AT provision, giving us something to aim for as we develop our services. This meets the need not only of those of us who have been working in this area for a long time but also for those who are brand new to say what we are aiming for.”
Another challenge, she recalls, was limiting the number of quality indicators in each area. “There had to be no more than six or seven indicators per area. The need for limitations is why the indicators are categorized in several areas. Those areas are all important, and they are meant to be complementary.” Once developed or upgraded, the indicators must be disseminated. “We have an ongoing version that we submit to every conference,” Joy says. “We’ve presented at Closing the Gap since 1998 and at ATIA. The presentation is called ‘QIAT Conversations.’ This is when we talk about new developments. This is another opportunity for individuals to actively participate in the development of the indicators and move the concept forward.” Early on, she remembers, in addition to conferencing, there was the article on the indicators in the Journal of Special Education Technology, a widely read research journal. “There are a number of us who are involved in professional development and training nationwide, so the information is woven into our work in a variety of ways. In addition, individuals who have found the indicators useful have shared them with others. Then there’s the QIAT list and the website, where people can go retrieve information that’s more detailed.” The QIAT Listserv When QIAT began, she was a University of Kentucky doctoral student. “At the initial QIAT meeting we all evidenced our strong commitment to keeping this a grassroots, populist endeavor. How would we engage people in that conversation? So we started the QIAT list.” In 1998, when the Web was quickly becoming a universal tool, Joy returned to the University of Kentucky and spoke with her advisor, Dr. Ed Blackhurst, who was an early and enthusiastic supporter of QIAT’s work. He gave her time in her assistantship to nurture the QIAT project. “Ed said, ‘I think we might want to start a listserv.’ A listerv is a brand name for mailing list software, which is why we call our listserv the ‘QIAT List’ instead of the QIAT listserv.” “I set out to do what needed to be done to start a list on the UK server, including projecting how many participants we expected to participate in our list. I had no immediate projection, however. How could I know? In the beginning there was just Ed and me. Then we added the 14 people who formed our initial founding group.” At first, the UK server administrators told her, “We don’t want a list with more than 200 participants. I thought then that a number that large was an impossibility. Currently, there are 1,100 participants on our list! And the UK server administrators still haven’t kicked us off their server.” Her original intention was to have participants discuss the quality indicators, to review them and to provide input into what needed to be changed. Through the years, however, the listserv “became repository for everything and anything that contributed in any way to the provision and development of quality services. In fact, the leadership team eventually had to decide whether to change the structure of the listserv or to allow it to evolve on its own into a general community discussion list. “We said, yes, by all means, let it evolve.” The listserv, she says, was not meant to be a discussion forum on specific tools. “It was mean to be a discussion about large concepts. Over time, though, we found that both aspects were critically important. The restrictions are that the list cannot be used as a marketing tool.” Positive Manufacturer Involvement The listserv’s current role, she explains, is to be a place where the community meets. “In the eight years since the listserv began, there were times when the growth in participants was exponential. Now the number is holding steady at 1,100. People come up to me now and say, ‘I talked to someone the other day and she doesn’t even know about the QIAT List!’” “There are service providers from the various service areas: OTs, PTs, teachers, administrators, parents, individuals with disabilities, advocacy attorneys, manufacturers, individuals from nine countries in addition to the U.S. Because the quality indicators themselves are those critical elements’ big ideas, they can be applied not just within the venue for which they were originally intended, but with minor tweaking can be applied to other service areas as well.” She adds, “The participants’ multiple perspectives serve us in good stead for face-to-face work, especially in IEP meetings and in decision making. Because participants are writing to individuals whom they can’t see and don’t know, they have to pay attention to how they express themselves.” No Disparagement by Class The goal, she explains, is to use examples that are situational. “I’m the facilitator. We have norms for communication, that they be positive and that we look at any differences of opinion as not a challenge but instead as an opportunity to invite growth in ourselves and in others.” Whenever those norms are violated, “I try to write a very thoughtful message. I remember the first time I had to write such a message. I did not want the original poster to feel less valued, nor did I want the person who reacted from his passion to feel less valued. I wrote this rather lengthy message about how we look at these opportunities to grow, etc. Then I worried that my message wasn’t strong enough, that the person who violated our communication norms would fail to get the point.” Within four minutes, a message came to me from someone who happened to be online. The message read, “We hear you, Mom.” That incident occurred in 1999. Since then, participants have not felt as if their hands were being slapped, more that they were being gently directed, she commented. The Future of QIAT According to Joy, it’s likely that some time in the future the indicators will be expanded. “We have eight areas now. We started with four. The second year we added Administrative Support and AT and the IEP. In the third year we began to draft Transition and Professional Development.” “It takes about two years after drafting for the indicators to become ‘shareable.’ Today, the consensus is that we need to do what we can to support the existing indicators and the implementation of quality services rather than adding more descriptors.” QIAT’s current focus is on the development of tools – meaning not devices but guidelines or forms – that may need improvement or refinement. “We’re trying to not create something that’s already been created by others. For example, there are probably 20 good consideration forms in use. There’s no need for QIAT to have its own consideration form. But a checklist for administrators regarding important administrative functions, yes, we are working on that and it will be on the QIAT website.” QIAT’s efforts, she explains, are aimed more at supporting individuals and entities in implementing the current indicators rather than developing more descriptors. “The quality indicators are under continuous review. There’s never a sense of rock-solid permanence. Yet, it’s not advances in technology that require those indicators to be reviewed. In fact, they are technology-free. The technology used is not important. It doesn’t matter if the technology is assistive or instructional or if the technology is universally designed. What’s important is that these concepts should be in the service delivery.” She does not anticipate that these concepts will change substantially in terms of the larger ideas that frame them. “I base that assertion on my doctoral research, which was a validation of the quality indicators as they were, the first six areas, minus Transition and Professional Development.” She adds, “There were five groups that we thought would benefit from the existence of quality indicators: service providers; educational entities at the district or state level looking to support the development of quality services; consumers, so that they could look at the indicators and decide how they could be active participants in the services they receive; higher education, because while the quality indicators are not meant to be competencies for service providers, higher education is responsible for developing those competent service providers; policymakers, so that as they formulated policy related to AT they could keep their focus on the children’s needs and not on individual devices.” Individuals who were acknowledged leaders from each of the five areas participated in the research, she says. “There were 120 individuals involved. The return rate – which was astounding – on my questionnaire was almost 97%, an extremely high return rate that was hugely, hugely important.” The respondents were required to evaluate the importance of a quality indicator, a time consuming task. The respondents then judged each indicator’s importance. Next they had to suggest revisions. “There were many, many comments in this category for me to sort through. Then they were required to indicate what they thought needed to be added.” While the respondents had much to say about wording, from all of their respective perspectives, not one main idea was categorized as “not very important,” Joy says. “The lowest level of importance for any indicator was 85% very important. That said a lot about how this process had developed. If we had used the same drafts that we began with in 1998 we would not have had nearly that level of agreement. But because so many individuals have been involved through the years, the entire development process had been self-validating.” “That gives me a lot of confidence that our main ideas will remain basically consistent despite their inevitable evolution. That would also show a high level of agreement across families and other relevant groups. Almost no respondent pleaded cluelessness, probably because people who are leaders have opinions. While there will be continual review and improvement to make sure that we are environmentally useful, I don’t anticipate huge changes.” As the environment changes – which would include service provision changes – she anticipates further tweaking. “I expect that the tweaking will focus more on verbiage than on main idea,” she predicts. “Throughout this survey process I was able to watch on my computer screen as respondents completed their forms and I was moved to tears by the intensity of the thought that they were putting into this. They showed such great passion for the work.” Even in the beginning, in 1998, each of the original group assumed that most of us thought alike on most issues and about most indicators. However, that proved to be an incorrect assumption, she says. “So we found the points of agreement and coalesced around those in order to form a consensus. We could agree that the manifestations of those critical elements could look very different from place to place, but that quality was always the main emphasis.” “This experience has been so thrilling to me,” she declares. “When I’m asked, ‘Joy, what did you get out of going to school?’ I can reply, “I got QIAT out of going to school.’ Had I not have had the time to expend on nurturing, the dissemination might not have become as widespread. It likely would have been a wonderful idea that, like many wonderful ideas, would have been lost in the birthing.” AT Quality Indicators and the SETT Framework QIAT is not meant to reflect the SETT Framework, she insists, “but the SETT Framework was born and evolved from the same set of imperatives as QIAT. It was never about what people need to be doing. It was more about, ‘What are people thinking about when it’s working?’ They’re not only thinking about whom the technology is for but also where the technology will be used and for what reason.” The SETT Framework itself is not profound, she notes. “The gift of the SETT Framework is that it seeks to help people remember why and how the technology is employed and by whom. The idea that the quality indicators reflect that same thinking about not just matching a tool with an individual but also examining the environment around the individual in which that individual is expected to use his/her technology and what it will be used for certainly shows up in the quality indicators. Again, not because of the SETT Framework but because that’s what people are looking at when the technology is actually making the difference that it is expected to make.” The “F” in SETT Framework is capitalized, she points out, “because we want people to be aware that SETT is not a protocol. SETT is a framework. It doesn’t provide an answer to a question. Instead, SETT helps discern the question.” The Quality Indicators During the revision process there were many changes in the wording, she explains. “In some instances, the revisions were more wordy than the originals, which was not our intent. Yet in order for the quality indicators to be fully understood across all five of those prospective areas, more words were required.” Joy’s Crystal Ball Another helpful emerging trend, she notes, “is the concept of universal design for learning in which curricular materials and the way we go about setting up environments is much more readily accessible by individuals with a variety of needs and abilities and strengths and challenges.” “It’s not so much a matter of trying to retrofit everything,” she declares. “I believe that AT and universal design are not exclusive of each other. They are complementary supports for student achievement and participation. That’s one of the big pieces with the regulations coming out for IDEA 2004 with the idea of accessible instructional materials.” 300-172 Was the Wedge “Many individuals were making that shift in understanding long before it was in the law,” she points out. “As a consequence, AT took on the role of trying to create curriculum accessibility, which brought AT into uncharted territory. With the accessibility of core instructional materials made mandatory by law, our task was finding ways to connect the children to the material. For example, if a website is accessible and I can’t access a computer in the same way that everyone else access it, then I may need AT to get to the accessible site. Once I access that site, I can see it, hear it and do several things that have not typically been a part of the instructional material.” “If something is digital and can be rendered in a variety of formats and those formats reside on a computer, that does not mean that I can give up my switch access or touchscreen. I need that AT as well.” Making NIMAS a Daily Reality She predicts that the next important development “will be finding a way to determine, just like we did with AT, who needs instructional materials.” Fortunately, she continues, “that decision may not have to be made because it will simply be a matter of choice. In other words, if a student prefers to listen to a book on his/her iPod rather than reading a print version of the book, if decoding printed words is not an issue and if what is most important is how a student gathers and applies information, then it may not matter whether that student acquired the information by reading it or via Braille or by ear.” Joy hopes the trend grows to full bloom. “Publishers are now required to create NIMAS files, these malleable digital files, for a subset of the population. The publishers must then make those files available to NIMAC, the library for NIMAS files. If publishers have those files, there’s nothing that prevents them from selling those same files to others who do not qualify to receive them free. In our market driven economy, if I’m a publisher, why would I create something and only give it away to some and not sell it to others? Say, if a publisher is selling a textbook for $85 what is stopping that publisher from also offering that material in a more accessible format? That could create some very significant changes in how we do business. I can’t imagine that education will not emulate the rest of the world in this matter.” This development is not only close at hand, it is at hand, she says. “The NIMAC file library actually opened for business early this month. I was in India when that occurred. I don’t think the NIMAC is filled with NIMAS files. This is not new news to publishers. In states where textbook adoption is an issue, publishers are already asked about accessibility.” If some publishers are unable to provide accessibility options, she concludes, states can and will look elsewhere. “That being the case, we will likely see accessibility achieved faster than we ever imagined. It may be similar to the quick and universal acceptability that the iPod achieved. Don Johnston is already creating digital curriculum that can be rendered on an iPod.” Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services The following has been excerpted from the Quality indicators for Assistive Technology Services developed by the QIAT Consortium. To read the full document, please visit http://sweb.uky.edu/~jszaba0/QIAT.html Quality Indicators for Consideration of Assistive Technology Needs
Quality Indicators for the Assessment of Assistive Technology Needs
Quality Indicators for Including Assistive Technology in the IEP
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Transition
RESOURCES Articles Critical Issue: Enhancing System Change and Academic Success Through Assistive Technologies for K-12 Students With Special Needs
Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services: Implications for Physical Therapists Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services in School Settings Quality Indicators for Consideration of Assistive Technology Needs
http://www.ccids.umaine.edu/facts/facts6/indicators.htm Designing Quality AT Services
KNOWLEDGE NETWORK MEMBERS Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Consortium QIAT has a website that serves two main purposes. It provides access to the work of the QIAT Consortium in the form of Quality Indicators for Assistive Technology Services in school settings. It also provides forums for participation in the work of the consortium and engagement in collegial conversations around the work. On its website, the QIAT Consortium makes available current and historical versions of the Indicators. These documents range from 1998 to 2005. They also have an active listserv that is open for people to join. The topics discussed on this listserv focus on various aspects of special education as they relate to the Quality Indicators. The QIAT Consortium strives to make as much information available as possible that can help people effectively use the tool they’ve developed. They do this through their websites, listserv, resources, and presentations at conferences throughout the country. For more information on the QIAT Consortium, please Assistive Technology Outcomes Assistive Technology (AT) Outcomes is dedicated to providing information about AT and outcome measurement results. The AT Outcomes listserv and website are dedicated to the development, evaluation, and application of outcome measurement tools. These tools should help enable AT practitioners to determine the cost effectiveness of their services, to gauge the value of providing assistive technologies, and to select the best technology from an array of choices. Both the website and listserv contain up-to-date information. Everyone’s input is welcome and the organization values the resources, experiences, and expertise participants can add to the discussion. For more information about AT Outcomes, please contact: Knowbility Knowbility’s programs and services are designed to provide information technology solutions that help all individuals with disabilities. They help make the Internet and other technology accessible to all individuals. Some of Knowbility’s programs work to raise awareness. An example of this is their Accessible Internet Rally (AIR) program, which increases public awareness of IT’s potential for creating opportunities for people with disabilities. Assistive Technology Strategies, Tools, Accommodations and Resources (ATSTAR) is a Knowbility program that consists of an online series of teacher training modules that work to empower each school to develop AT expertise locally. The goal is to support teams of parents, general education teachers, special education teachers, and school administrators as they learn how to assess student need for AT. ATSTAR provides tools to those who have direct daily contact with students. They also help schools move away from reliance on district level AT experts. ATSTAR provides schools with the necessary steps of building the team required by law to make AT considerations. Their method takes the team through a student centered process that may yield improved student outcomes. The staff at Knowbility provides Accessibility Consulting Services to help organizations understand and comply with today’s accessibility standards. Also, their Accessibility Training Programs work to provide professional web developers with the training they need to build accessible websites for everyone. Finally, Knowbility’s Educational and Community Initiatives can create learning opportunities for young people with disabilities and help local communities provide wider access to IT education and training. All of Knowbility’s programs work toward the goal of ensuring compliance with the standards that are in place for accessible information technology. For more information about Knowbility, please contact: Kentucky Education Technology Systems (KETS) Their Master Plan describes how technology will be used to improve teaching and learning for every Kentucky child. One of the goals of this plan is to ensure equal access to technology. KETS also wants to empower teachers and students to use technology. Finally, the plan is meant to help prepare Kentucky’s children to work in the information age. KETS has also implemented the use of the School Management System software, which is used in all of the state’s school districts. The software allows schools to maintain student and staff data for all state reporting requirements. KETS is continually working to ensure that technology is being used in every classroom to benefit all students. For more information on KETS, please contact: Kansas Statewide Technical Assistance Resource System KSTARS was implemented by the Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) in order to build the capacity of local districts, support scientifically-based research practices and create self-sustaining efforts at the district and building levels for support to students with disabilities and their families. KSTARS has developed a list that includes ten priority areas for the statewide project implementations. Included in this list are universally designed instruction, assessment and progress monitoring, response to intervention, recruitment and retention of special education teachers, and more. In order to fulfill their goals, KSTAR is responsible for eight programs. These programs focus on providing technical assistance to the school systems across the state, which is available upon request. It is meant to provide professional development opportunities for schools in the areas of special education. Some of their projects also focus on monitoring the current conditions within the school system. Project SPOT (Supporting Program Outcomes and Teachers) works to promote the improved student outcomes and to build local agency capacity. Their activities include the provision of professional development and technical assistance regarding data analysis tools, processes, and decision making as well as improved student performance, alternative assessment, evaluation, reevaluation, and eligibility determination. With the recent implementation of IDEA 2004, they are increasing their emphasis on the impact of this legislation on the school systems. KSTARS is working to unite all of their efforts so that they can better serve the Kansas Department of Education and the schools in the state in regards to ensuring best practices in special education. For more information on KSTARS, please contact: Trace Research & Development Center Currently, the Center is working on ways to make standard information technologies and telecommunications systems more accessible and useable by people with disabilities. They have a section on their website dedicated to information about making various aspects of life accessible for all. These sections include consumer products, website documents, computers, telecommunications, and more. Under each of these sections, they list guidelines for making these areas accessible. For more information on the Center, please contact: Georgia Project for Assistive Technology GPAT provides a range of technical support and professional learning services to local school system personnel and their students. These services are directed toward improving instruction through increasing the knowledge of the educators about AT devices and services. This is meant to lead to an enhancement of student achievement because they will be provided with the appropriate AT devices and services. GPAT services include professional learning courses, student consultations, and student evaluations. They also operate a device loan program to provide AT devices to students for extended trial use periods. In an effort to assure that best practices are in place in the school systems across the country, GPAT has developed numerous resources to assist educators and families in providing AT services to students with disabilities. These resources are organized by various process topics, which include narrative documents, PowerPoint presentations, forms, on-line videos, and web links. For more information on GPAT, please contact:
Assistive Technology Resource Bank The information and resources available in the ATRB are designed to help teachers, administrators, and service providers of children birth to 5/ pre-K to 12. It is also meant to help families, caregivers and university faculty. They address each of these audience groups in different areas of their website. The section that is devoted to children birth to age 5 contains strategies and helpful hints about how to use AT with young children with disabilities. These strategies support the family-centered care philosophy. They also stress the idea that if AT is used well during this time it can help achieve developmental outcomes that may be contained in the IFSP and IEP. The next section is devoted to teachers, administrators and service providers. They believe that the use of technology can enable students with disabilities to participate in educational programs, meet high expectations, and reach educational goals. This section contains lesson plans, resources, legal issues, implementation strategies, tools for various tasks, and more. The third section is directed towards families and caregivers. Here, you can find resources, legal issues and tools for tasks. Finally, the last section is geared towards university faculty. University faculty are responsible for training future teachers and administrators. They want to offer them training in the best practices possible. Here, you will find many resources, lesson plans, and other information to be used in universities. The Assistive Technology Resource Bank is devoted to providing information to anyone who works with students with disabilities about the best practices to use. They have split this information into sections based on the audience that that information is relevant to. For more information on the ATRB, please contact: Project Director: Jacqueline Hess |
Communication and the desire for consensus were the catalysts that gave birth to the QIAT Consortium and remain the focus for the grassroots nationwide collaborative effort that the original group of founders set in motion in 1998 and have nurtured ever since. Joy Zabala was a member of that group that met in Jane Korsten’s Kansas “pond house” eight years ago and remains active in promoting the QIAT concept and helping it morph to accommodate changing circumstances and emerging imperatives in assistive technology for children with disabilities and for those who provide them with AT. 
Suddenly, she recalls, “we had 14 different opinions from 14 individuals who had arrived at the gathering assuming they were aligned with each other. We learned that we couldn’t even agree among ourselves – and we had been in the field for a long time.”
In Joy’s professional environment, schools, AT is universally perceived as a means to an end, not a goal in itself. “We’re moving in that direction. I’d like to see that momentum continue. I’d like to see the day when there is no distinction between assistive and instructional technology. I’d prefer to see the emergence of a technology for learning, or a technology for learning and living. Technology is a tool like any other tool. If you need to open a can, you need some type of can opener.” 
Many individuals in the U.S. are working very hard to make NIMAS (National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standards) a daily reality for those it was intended to help, she notes. “Federal law stipulates who NIMAS files are for, but the law also says that if a student does not qualify for NIMAS files, or if the NIMAS file is not available, the educational agency is not relieved of the responsibility to provide accessible materials for that student.”
With the explosive growth of the technology field in the past few decades, choosing appropriate AT devices can be extremely challenging. There is not yet a clearly defined, reliable method for matching AT devices and services with specific individuals. As a result, AT practitioners, administrators and researchers struggle to establish methods for demonstrating that AT services and recommendations are both effective and meaningful.
Knowbility is a national non-profit organization that has grown from a community collaboration that produced the first Accessibility Internet Rally in Austin, Texas. The mission of the organization is to support the independence of children and adults with disabilities by promoting the use and improving the availability of accessible information technology. They envision a world of barrier-free information technology in which children, youth, and adults with disabilities have greater options to learn, work, and fully participate as producers and consumers in the information marketplace. 
The Kentucky Education Technology Systems (KETS) is a product of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990. They have developed a Master Plan along with the KETS Implementation Plan in order to guide their work. As they have proceeded with their efforts to assure the best education possible for the students of Kentucky, they conduct surveys and develop reports to check the status of the schools, particularly relating to the technology present in the classroom. 
The purpose of the Kansas Statewide Technical Assistance Resource System (KSTARS) is to stimulate and enhance the capacity of local school districts to design, implement, and evaluate improved learning and outcomes for children and youth with disabilities.
The Trace Research and Development Center works to prevent the barriers and capitalize on the opportunities presented by current and emerging information and telecommunication technologies, in order to create a world that is as accessible and usable as possible for all individuals. 
The Georgia Project for Assistive Technology (GPAT) provides a range of AT professional development and technical support services to local school system staff, students, and their families. Their mission is to develop and enhance local expertise in AT to ensure that students with disabilities have access to the AT devices and services that they need in order to participate, progress, and achieve in their educational programs.
The Assistive Technology Resource Bank (ATRB) is a source of capacity building information and multimedia resources on topics of importance to the development and provision of quality assistive technology services in schools. The ATRB is a collaborative endeavor of Valdosta State University’s Preparing Tomorrow’s Teachers to Use Technology Grant (PT3) and the Georgia Project of Assistive Technology (GPAT).Academy for Educational Development (AED) 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW 7th Floor Washington, DC 20009-5721
phone: (202) 884-8068 fax: (202) 884-8441 email: fctd@aed.org
Copyright 2010