Abstract
Graduate students participating in a grant to learn how to use assistive technology with students with disabilities were matched with parents of children with disabilities and technology needs. During the course of an academic year the graduate student and family participated in community and school based activities. Graduate students did observations of the students in school and attended Individual Educational Plan meetings for the child. As a result of these pairings, both the graduate students and the parents gained a better understanding of the difficulties faced by teachers and families in achieving a fully integrated educational program for children with disabilities. This proposal will share some of the powerful stories that came from the interactions of the students and families. These will include what was done right by school systems and family members as well as suggestions for improving the working relationship between the school and the family in order to achieve the best possible integrated education for all children.
For the last three years a federally funded grant has provided financial support for graduate students in special education with an interest in learning more about assistive technology. Assistive technology is a broad category which refers to devices and services that allow individuals with disabilities to become more independent and to achieve goals in academic, personal and community activities. Because of the extensive documentation about how much better students perform in school when their parents or family members are involved, a family component was added to the grant. In addition to their academic classes and field experience with assistive technology, the graduate students were required by the grant to spend one academic year with a family who have a child with disabilities. The child was to be someone who either currently used some type of assistive technology or who was in need of assistive technology. The following is a brief description of what we did and what we learned from these activities.
Graduate Student/Parent Matches
In the initial grant application a subcontract was established with PEAK Parent Center. PEAK is a parent resource and training center with its headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado. PEAK provides training for parents in IEP development, advocacy skills, transitions, friendship development and in many other areas. They send out a monthly newsletter and periodic informational publications to a mailing list of over 6,000 people. The purpose of the subcontract was to have access to PEAK's mailing list for recruiting parents to participate in the grant and to hire a parent coordinator to work with parents, graduate students and the project coordinator.
Recruitment materials were developed which asked parents to help train future teachers. Requirements for the parents were that they live in the Denver metro area, had a school age child with a disability who either was currently using assistive technology or had need of assistive technology and their child was being educated in an inclusive school setting. The initial recruitment efforts resulted in there being more applications from parents than there were graduate students to match with them. Over the three years of the grant there has been quite a bit of diversity among the families. There have been families with two parents, one parent and where grandparents were the primary guardians. Families have come from all levels of socioeconomic backgrounds and in three families, Spanish was the primary language spoken in the home. The children who have participated have ranged in ages from six years old to sixteen years old. The types of disabilities represented have included sensory, physical, communicative, and cognitive. They have all been remarkable individuals.
Match Activities
While many of the specific activities were based on the needs and interests of the families participating in the grant, there were some specific conditions that had to be met. These included that a total of ten visits between the family and the graduate student per academic year were made. These visits were to take place in the school, home and community. Graduate students were told that they could not all take place during holiday breaks, but needed to be distributed through out the year. Additionally, not all visits were to take place at the school, but were to include the home and time that the family and their child spent in community activities. A list of activities that would be appropriate was suggested, but the actual activities they did together were determined by what worked best for the families and the graduate student. A partial list of activities that families and graduate students did together includes bowling, grocery shopping, birthday parties, bike riding, downhill skiing and physical therapy sessions.
Graduate students were also asked to independently care for the child for a short period of time. The initial request was to have the graduate student provide 24 hours of continuous care. However, not all parents were comfortable with being away from their child for that length of time. Instead each graduate student was to independently care for the child for a shorter period of time, but that time would include a major life activity such as eating a meal, dressing or preparing for sleep.
Finally the graduate student was to create a low-tech device for the child. All of the graduate students who participated in the grant had taken an introductory course on assistive technology, an advanced course on assistive technology and were in technology rich practicum placements for their licensure field experiences. These devices included communication boards, straw holders, and a modified ski pole for a young man with visual impairments who wanted to downhill ski.
What we learned
The graduate student family matches proved to be a very positive experience as well as very educational. Graduate students spent time in schools observing how these children were taught, how they interacted with teachers and peers and how the families and schools interacted. One of the first impressions the graduate students had was that schools don't know how to integrate technology through out the day. There were numerous stories from the graduate students about children who were using augmentative communication devices as their method for communication, but were only allowed to use them when the speech therapist was present and were never allowed to use them at recess or during lunch. Many of the teachers they observed did not have a good understanding of the device the child was using and simply ignored it during instructional activities.
The second thing that became apparent was that graduate students had no idea what families go through in living day to day with a child with a disability. Even though some of the graduate students were parents themselves, they did not understand the amount of time and energy that these families give to raising their children. Graduate students saw families coordinating outside therapies, doctor visits, and school visits. They experienced the amount of time and equipment it sometimes took, just to make a simple trip into the community or to visit at another family members' home. Wheelchairs, oxygen and special meals were all part of managing the day to day activities. Graduate students gained a new respect for what families do for their children.
It was somewhat surprising to find out that families did not always understand the school's regulations and responsibilities in providing an appropriate education for their child. Many times this seemed to be the result of poor communication between the school and home. It is the schools responsibility to ensure that all students are safe on school outings and fieldtrips. There are school regulations that have to be followed in requesting special equipment or services. Parents gained a new understanding of the bureaucracy involved in running a school. They did not necessarily like it, but they understood it better.
Initial Outcomes
The grant is still continuing and the data is still being analyzed. However, there are some initial outcomes and conclusions that can be drawn. In several cases where graduate students were frequently in the school building and talked with a child's teacher, schools did learned how to work better with parents and became better at integrating assistive technology throughout the day. In two cases, this happened because the graduate students were able to provide training to the school personnel on how to use the assistive technology. In another case, the graduate student videotaped a child successfully using their assistive technology and showed it to her teacher.
Another outcome was that the parents learned how to work with school personnel to achieve their goals for their child. Parents were provided training on evaluation and funding of assistive technology so they were better informed of all the resources available. They received additional training on IEP development and how and where assistive technology should be included. The parents learned about school regulations and became less defensive when talking with school personnel. They also gained confidence in talking about their child's strengths and weaknesses as it related to his/her education.
One of the most important outcomes was that graduate students learned the importance of families in the educational process. Nearly all of the students who have participated in the grant have learned the value of family input and participation in their child's education. Several of the students who participated in the first year of the grant have graduated. The portfolios they turn in as part of their graduation requirements reflect this new attitude. The statements of their philosophy of education included family participation. The reviews of their lesson plans indicate future plans to include parents in the instructional process. And they have developed formal strategies for increasing positive communication between school and families where ever they decide to teach.
Conclusion
Family/school relationships can be a very useful tool in the successful education of a child with a disability. Unfortunately, these relationships often become a barrier to a child getting the best education. The experiences of the parents, children, graduate students and grant personnel have demonstrated this many times over. The following conclusions are offered:
1. Communication is critical. Families and schools must talk frequently and openly about the educational, physical and social needs of the child. If either party becomes defensive or engages in hostile behavior, communication will suffer.
2. Assessment of a child's technology needs that is based on the child's current and future roles and is respectful of their individual needs and preferences will be much more successful than when assistive technology is simply prescribed by school personnel. It will also reduce the likelihood of technology abandonment, which often causes schools to be reluctant to purchase high cost technology because of fears it will not be fully utilized.
3. Community and home observations are necessary for teachers to completely understand the range of strengths and weaknesses that a child possesses. The graduate students gained a new understanding of what the child they worked with could do by working with them in their homes and communities. They saw how well a child could do when they were motivated. They heard conversations between peers when they thought adults could not overhear. They learned that small behaviors had great meaning.
4. Understanding the responsibilities and limitations of the school, the teachers and the families provides a reality check for all. All three have specific responsibilities in the education of the child. When the three groups understand their responsibilities and work together, a child's education will be richer. In addition, schools, teachers and families all have limitations. They need each other to make sure all the bases are covered.
 |
 |