Chew The P.H.A.T.: Policies and How to's in Assistive Technology

Chew The P.H.A.T. Procedures and How-To’s in Assistive Technology Christopher Bugaj, MA CCC-SLP Sally Norton-Darr, MS CCC-SLP Loudoun County Public Schools February 2009

A Description of Loudoun County

Once upon a time in a county far, far away…

Loudoun County Public Schools

Currently 75 schools (51 ES, 13 MS, 1 Intermediate, 10 HS)

Current student population: 57,317+

Current teacher population: 4500+

Student and teacher population has increased by approximately 10% each year for at least the last 9-10 years.

Special education population is typically 10% of the student population.

The county is geographically and demographically diverse (spanning 517 sq. miles).

Generally, the western portion of the county is more rural while the eastern portion of the county is more suburban.

History of AT in LCPS

Pre-1999-

AT team was on a volunteer basis to meet the need mandated by IDEA that AT is considered for each Individual Education Program

Mostly Occupational Therapists and Speech-Language Pathologists

Individuals donated time to participate in trainings and would unofficially consult when educators had questions about AT

Team members made recommendations to county administrators regarding purchase information for specific devices and software

County computers were both Mac and PC

1999-2001

Special Education hired one full-time Assistive Technology person (SLP)

Volunteers still participated in trainings and met with the full-time individual

No official procedures were implemented

Request for evaluation forms and county-wide staff development workshops were developed

Individual staff and student trainings on devices/software were offered on a case-by-case basis

Equipment selection and ordering was handled by the full-time AT individual

2002-

Special Education hired a 5 person team

2 Full-time members (both with special education backgrounds)

1 of these members was deemed “Team Leader” and met with a special education supervisor to give team updates

3 Part-time members (1 - SLP, 2- OTs)

The team was asked to develop consistent policies and procedures for county-wide implementation. The only directive given by Special Education administration was that an evaluation process needed to be linked to a student’s Individualized Education Program.

2002 continued-

Other initial objectives determined by the team included:

Identifying a Service Delivery Model

Establishing a Staff Development Model

Coordinating services with Instructional Technology

Developing an inventory tracking system

Developing a caseload/student tracking system

Promoting assistive technology services

Procuring additional equipment as needed for students and classrooms

Further defining the role of assistive technology services in LCPS (our district)

Team Progression

2003-2004

3 Full-Time team members (2 – Special Education, 1-SLP)

1 full-time team member is “team leader”

3 Part-Time team members (1-SLP, 2-OTs)

2004-2005

5 Full-Time team members (1- Special Education, 2-SLPs, 2-OTs)

1 full-time team member is “team leader”

2005-2008 (Three Years) –

Switched to a school-based workload model (05-06)

1 Full-time Coordinator (12 months)

7 Full-Time team members (2-Special Education, 2-SLPs, 2-OTs, 1-TRT),1 Support Staff

2008-2009

1 Full-time Coordinator (12 months)

9 Full-Time team members including 1 Support Staff

Individualized Evaluation

IEP Team meets and requests Individual AT Evaluation

“ An AT evaluation is requested by the IEP 1x in the customary educational environment to be completed within 65 days.”

Case manager fills out Request for AT Evaluation form linking request to specific IEP goals

NOT A FISHING EXPEDITION

AT Trainers (Primary & Back-up) conduct the evaluation including an observation(s), student interview (if appropriate), case manager interview, and related services interview

IT’S ALL ABOUT TEAMING

Individualized Evaluation (Cont.)

AT Trainer generates a report containing observations, recommendations, and other resources. AT Trainer discusses recommendations with case manager

DO NOT ATTEND IEP MEETING!

IEP reconvenes to discuss implementation of recommendations

AT Trainer provides training and expects follow-up contact from the case manager

CASE MANAGER COLLECTS DATA ON GOALS

The process is dynamic

IT NEVER ENDS but it does get slower

Classroom Evaluation

QUICK AND EASY

Special Education teachers request an observation

General Education teachers who have a class with 2 or more students in special education request an observation

Recommendations are generated that would benefit most (or all) students in the classroom

Report generated is in E-mail form

INFORMAL & FRIENDLY

Many students become familiar with strategies with or without the teacher support.

STUDENTS JUST USE THE STUFF

Strategies and devices are used in a classroom as a whole

PRE-EMPTS POTENTIAL FUTURE INDIVIDUAL EVALS

Pre-IEP Meeting Discussions

After doing many individual evaluations, over 90% of our recommendations were for items/strategies that were already available in the school

Examples of strategies:

Promotion of service delivery model changed from “Do an Individual AT Evaluation” to “Just call us! Don’t write anything in the IEP until you call us!” This resulted in

Less paperwork for teachers

Less paperwork for AT Trainers

Students getting to use strategies much faster

Record Sound Feature in Microsoft Office

Graphic Organizing Templates

Pacing Boards for Communication

Communication Notebooks

High Contrast Feature of Windows

Visual Schedules

Text-To-Speech

Social Situation Stories

“ Traditional” Staff Development

AT Overviews

Offered by each AT Trainer at every school

Discuss how service delivery model works

Workshops

Approximately 1 after-school workshop a week

Initially, all workshops at AT Lab. To increase attendance, workshops moved to schools (cut down on drive time)

Provide individual school workshops by request

Teachers are paid to attend (not much, but they are paid)

ALL workshops center around tools currently available in the school (No “Co:Writer” workshops because “Co:Writer” is not universally installed throughout the county)