Diane beal 3

425 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
425
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Diane beal 3

  1. 1. Slide 25 ___________________________________ Los Angeles Unified School District, OAH No. 2012060829  7-year-old student eligible as OI  Significant fine motor deficits  IEP team determined Student may require AT and initiated AT assessment process  AT assessor recommended desktop touchscreen; mother preferred iPad ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________  IEP team agreed to 60-day trial of desktop touchscreen from District’s Lending Library ___________________________________  Trial showed student could not meaningfully use touchscreen technology 25 Slide 26 ___________________________________ Los Angeles Unified School District, OAH No. 2012060829, cont.  Student made progress on goals using manipulatives; used desktop touchscreen as toy and punched screen  Mother requested again that District provide student with iPad for school use  District denied request on basis that (1) student did not access curriculum with touchscreen technology; student accessed curriculum through other supports; and (3) District did not have iPads  Held: District’s refusal to provide student with iPad reasonable and did not deny student a FAPE 26 Slide 27 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Carlsbad Unified School District, OAH No. 2011120317  Third-grade student with autism and apraxia  District provided iPad with speech generating app  When student became verbal, District staff determined written social scripts more appropriate  Parents disagreed and wanted iPad continued to ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ assist social interactions  Held: IEP team’s decision to address communication deficits with written scripts instead of iPad was choice of educational methodology and did not deny FAPE 27 ___________________________________ ___________________________________
  2. 2. Slide 28 ___________________________________ Cupertino Union School District, OAH No. 2011070771 ___________________________________  Parents claimed language goals should include iPad ___________________________________ for alternative communication  District trialed iPad but student lacked dexterity and cognitive ability to meaningfully use iPad  Student made progress on language goals using Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS)  Held: Using PECS instead of iPad appropriate; student made good progress on all language goals with PECS 28 Slide 29 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ User Agreement Clauses ___________________________________  Describe AT device  Agreement to board      policies Property owned by district Property loaned to student for educational use only Honor hardware/software licensing agreements Connected to district server Not to be connected to PC  Turn in for maintenance  District right to take all necessary security measures  Agreement for proper care  Agreement to pay for cost of repair or replacement if damaged, lost or stolen due to misuse of negligence  Disclaimer for any negative effect on home computer 29 Slide 30 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ AT and Home Use ___________________________________  LEA must provide school-acquired AT in the home setting if necessary for the provision of a FAPE (20 USC 1414(a)(1) and (a)(12)(B)(ii); 34 CFR 300.105)  If required in home, LEA should train students and parent on use and care of AT device  LEA’s insurance should also cover home usage  AT agreement to cover loss, theft or damage for home usage 30 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________
  3. 3. Slide 31 ___________________________________ A Tale of Two Homes: AT and LRE ___________________________________  LEA did not deny student a FAPE when it failed to ___________________________________ provide VTC to homebound student who engaged in negative peer interactions on VTC and was disruptive to class (Eric H. Methacton School District (2003) 38 IDELR 182)  LEA denied student with debilitating genetic condition a FAPE when it failed to provide webcam during student’s homebound instruction, depriving student of his LRE (Southern York County School District (2010) 55 IDELR 242) 31 Slide 32 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ AT and Section 504 ___________________________________  Failure to provide required AT devices contained in a ___________________________________ Section 504 plan denied student a FAPE (Bellingham (MA) Public Schools, 112 LRP 28747 (OCR 2012))  Failure to implement 504 plan requiring weekly electronic messages from student’s teachers regarding assignments and progress violated section 504 (Morris (NJ)School Dist., 111 LRP 70051 (OCR 2011)) 32 Slide 33 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Equal Access under Section 504  Dear Colleague Letter: Electronic Book Readers (OCR 2010) 110 LRP 37424: advised post-secondary institutions that use of electronic book readers denied equal access to blind and low vision students  Dear Colleague Letter and Frequently Asked Questions (OCR 2011) 111 LRP 36986: established that Section 504 and the ADA requires public schools to ensure that educational technology is equally accessible to disabled students 33 ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________
  4. 4. Slide 34 ___________________________________ Quiz ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ AT Quiz to be Provided at Conference 34 ___________________________________

×