FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE - OSEP POLICY LETTERS Policy letters issued by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), are an effective tool for removal of barriers for access to assistive technology. They can be used in individual cases to remove a barrier and enable a student to have access to technology. In broad systems change efforts they can ultimately lead to legislative changes. Action steps for each policy letter related to assistive technology to date have been published by United Cerebral Palsy Associations. Below is a sample of actions steps suggested from the August, 1990 policy letter related to the right to assistive technology in Individualized Education Plans. State Level 1. Arrange a meeting with your state Director of Special Education. 2. Seek an acceptable resolution to the following issues: What steps will the state agency take to ensure compliance by all local educational agencies in the state with the new OSEP policy letter on the right to assistive technology? Will a set of model or instructive guidelines be developed on a state level to assist compliance of local education agencies? What monitoring of local school systems will be done to ensure LEA compliance? Can agreement be reached in writing on a definition of practices that would improve access and availability of assistive technology on a statewide basis to school-age children with disabilities? 3. Consider the establishment of a task force that includes parents, therapists, non-profit providers, and local school system representatives to develop compliance guidelines. Issues to be addressed include: adequate notice to families about the right to assistive technology; identification and assessment process; building appropriate system capacity and competencies to provide (a) appropriate services (training and equipment purchases); (b) appropriate integration of technology as a means of improving learning, mobility, communication, interaction with non-disabled peers; (c) dispute resolution and transition of technology supports after a student ages out of special education. Local Level 1. Share this article and policy letter with parents, therapists, educators, and administrators. 2. Arrange for a meeting with your local Director of Special Education to discuss a process to ensure appropriate assessment of students' needs for assistive technology: Will notice be provided to parents of the right to assistive technology? Will a process be established or refined to identify students who have needs for assistive technology that remain unmet in the current school year? Who will participate on the assessment team? What are their qualifications to evaluate the utilization of technology devices and/or services to benefit from special education or facilitate a student's education in a regular education environment? What standards will be applied to determine if technology needs meet requirements of FAPE (free appropriate public education) as "special education, related service, or a supplementary aid or service?" To what extent will parents, students, teachers, and therapists be involved in the assessment process and the determination of unmet technology needs to be documented and responded to on the student's IEP? When there are disagreements between the student's [parents and school system personnel] what process will be in place to conduct further or an independent evaluation of technology needs? Will the full scope of technology interventions be considered to respond to problems of learning, mobility, communication, and non-handicapped peer interaction in the least restrictive environment? 3. If the above list of issues are not worked out to satisfaction, consider: Contacting the state Director of Special Education to provide technical assistance. Call and/or write to the Director, Office of Special Education Programs, (202) 205- 5507, 330 C Street, SW, Washington, DC 20202-2736 to intervene and assist in resolving problem issues. 4. Decisions must be made on an individual student basis, not for a group of students or based on a particular type of disability. Cost and availability of devices and/or services cannot be a part of the decision-making process to meet a student's right to a free appropriate public education. INDIVIDUAL ADVOCACY Listed below are some of the steps that can be taken in assisting students who need assistive technology to benefit from their Individualized Education Plan ( IEP): 1. Make the school aware that assistive technology needs to be considered as part of the student's educational plan. This should be done by requesting, in writing, to a representative of the school district, an evaluation or re-evaluation of the child. State that you believe your child can benefit educationally from the use of assistive technology. 2. The school district must provide the evaluation. If you receive an evaluation that is not appropriate, ask for an independent evaluation. 3. Upon completion of the evaluation, an IEP meeting should be convened to determine how to meet the goals and objectives for the student's educational plan with the use of the appropriate assistive technology. 4. Remember, according to federal law and policy, if your child needs assistive technology to benefit from his\her educational program, it must be part of the IEP and at no cost to the parent. Policy letters are useful tools in reminding the school district of students' rights as they relate to assistive technology. If you are dealing with a negative response to your requests for proper evaluation, provision of technology, or taking technology home, for example, these letters can and should be used. If you disagree with the school district at any step in the process, you may request an impartial due process hearing. If you need legal assistance, you may contact your state Protection and Advocacy agency. In addition, each state has a Parent Training and Information Center that may be able to offer assistance. ---------- Office Of Special Education Programs Clarifies Right To Assistive Technology By Michael Morris _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 1, Number 3 (1990) United Cerebral Palsy Associations (UCPA), Inc., working in cooperation with Susan Goodman, an attorney and a parent of a child with a disability, has successfully secured a new policy letter from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that clarifies the right of a child with a disability to assistive technology devices and services under P.L. 94-142, the federal mandate for a free appropriate public education. The letter issued on August 10th states clearly: * school districts cannot presumptively deny assistive technology to a student with a disability; * the need for assistive technology must be considered on an individual case by case basis in the development of the child's individual education program (IEP); * assistive technology can be special education or a related service; * assistive technology can also be a form of supplementary aid or service utilized to facilitate a child's education in a regular education environment; * if participants on the IEP team determine a child requires assistive technology in order to receive a free appropriate public education, and designate such assistive technology as either special education or a related service, then the services must be provided at no cost to the parents. State agencies, advocates, and parents should take steps at the local and state level to ensure that this important OSEP policy clarification translates into real benefits for students in the form of access to assistive technology in the schools. In addition, if students in your state are having problems with accessing assistive technology in your school system, write Judy Schrag, Director, Office of Special Education Programs, 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20202-2736. Let her know about what is happening to families. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the letter or a list of action steps, please contact the RESNA TA Project Office. Working together with special education administrators, parents, therapists, nonprofit providers and staff from the "Tech Act" states, this policy memo could open many new and exciting opportunities for children to access assistive technology services with EHA. (Editor's note: this new column has been added to the newsletter to inform states and organizations about changing policy in the area of AT services.) ---------- Right to Take Assistive Technology Home From School By Michael Morris _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 5 (1991) Based on amendments to Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1991 and the 1990 policy letter of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in response to Ms. Susan Goodman there is a clear right to assistive technology for a child with a disability to be determined on an individualized basis by the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team. If the IEP team, including the parents, determines that the child requires assistive technology in order to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as either a means to benefit from special education or a related service or to be educated in the least restrictive environment, then the IEP must include a specific statement of such devices and services needed, including the nature and amount of such devices and services. In school districts across the country, there is a growing awareness and recognition of the right to assistive technology, taking into consideration the unique needs of each individual child. Parents have a right to question assessment and placement decisions, inquire about assistive technology as a means to achieve specific skill levels, seek an independent evaluation, and appeal any aspect of the Individualized Education Program when agreement cannot be reached with the IEP team. Can assistive technology aids or equipment be limited to in school use? In a new policy letter from OSEP, the answer is a very clear no. In a letter to Dr. Judy Schrag, Director of the Office of Special Education Programs, the request was made for another CCTV for home use to accomplish the same results as in school (for homework, reading, books, and any assignment from school). The response was that "if the IEP team determines that a particular assistive technology item is required for home use in order for a particular child to be provided FAPE, the technology must be provided to implement the IEP." It is not a valid rationale for a school system to deny categorically any request for assistive technology to go home because of inadequate property insurance coverage. These decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis recognizing each child's strengths and weaknesses in an educational context. In the same policy letter, OSEP also clarifies the federal intent on two related issues. First, the letter states clearly that a "local school board may not unilaterally change the statement of special education and related services contained in the IEP for a child." A school board can not reject the decision(s) of an IEP team. A school board can not change a child's IEP, refuse to pay for it, or in any way refuse or slow down implementation. Second, the policy letter clarifies that "no delay is permissible between the time a child's IEP is finalized and when special education and related services are provided." Dr. Schrag explains that there are some circumstances which require a short delay (e.g. working out transportation arrangements or an IEP meeting which occurs during the summer). However, the intent of the law and regulations is quite clear. In order for a child to receive a Free Appropriate Public Education, services should begin "immediately" after the IEP is finalized. What does this policy letter mean to states funded under the Technology-Related Assistance For Individuals With Disabilities Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-407)? It is an opportunity to again meet with your state special education director and review your state's policies regarding the right to assistive technology for children with disabilities. Have local school districts been notified in writing about inclusion of assistive technology in the IEP based upon a "benefit from education" test? Have local school districts been notified about consideration of assistive technology for home use as part of a child's right to a Free Appropriate Public Education? Each state department of education faces major challenges this summer in planning for the new school year to begin next September. Building the capacity of the education system to evaluate for assistive technology needs and deliver assistive technology services on a statewide basis is an important responsibility that deserves the attention of all states funded under P.L. 100-407 now as part of a systems change agenda. Please share your state's revised policies with the RESNA Technical Assistance Project Office so we can share them with other states (A full copy of the new policy letter from Dr. Schrag is available from the RESNA Technical Assistance Project Office. ---------- Assistive Technology Devices Receive Wider Role In Student's Individualized Education Program By Michael Morris _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 1 (1994) On November 19, 1993, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a new policy letter clarifying a childūs right to a wider range of assistive technology devices when included in his or her individualized education program (IEP). This new policy letter recognizes the expanded definition of assistive technology devices added as an amendment to the 1990 Public Law 101-476, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This definition is identical to the one contained in Section III of the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 1988. The definition is: "...any item, piece of equipment, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities." Historically, such items as hearing aids were not part of the IEP process because they were regarded as personal and necessary regardless of whether the child was attending school. Asked to respond to whether the new definition included hearing aids, the OSEP's November policy letter makes clear such a device could be covered. The letter further affirms a child's right to assistive technology devices and services when it is determined through the IEP process that they are needed in order for the child to benefit from special education or related services or to enable the child to be educated in the least restrictive environment. A copy of the OSEP policy letter is available from the RESNA Technical Assistance Project Office. Call or write: 1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 1540 Arlington, VA 22209-1903 Voice: 703-524-6686 TTY: 703-524-6639 Let us know about the progress you make improving access to assistive technology under the IEP process. Meanwhile the action steps below make a good jumping-off point. A.T. ACTION STEPS: 1. Although the new policy letter is specifically about coverage of hearing aids, the implications are far broader. Local and state education agencies need to be made aware of the fact that, based on this new OSEP policy, they can no longer make distinctions between assistive technology devices and personal devices. This affects not just hearing aids but also eyeglasses, wheelchairs, seating and positioning, and the like. 2. Technology project staff should meet with the special education director at local and state levels. If they are not already aware, inform them of the contents of the OSEP policy letter and together work on a letter or memo to be circulated to teachers, therapists, administrators, and families. The purpose of the joint memo is to clarify the individual studentūs right to assistive technology services and devices as part of the IEP. 3. State education departments should assist local school districts in identifying and making available assistive technology to respond to individual student's needs. Check to see if your state education agency or department has a plan to: a. Improve assessment of assistive technology needs on an individualized basis; b. Improve teacher and therapist knowledge and understanding of the use of assistive technology to enable the student to benefit from education; c. Increase state-wide funding to enhance the availability of assistive technology at the local level; and d. Notify and educate families about their right to assistive technology as an integral part of their child's free appropriate education. ---------- Fast Facts On Individualized Education Programs By Christopher Button _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 2, Number 5 (1991). As the end of the school year approaches, many school systems will begin their annual review of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students receiving special education and related services. IEP meetings must be conducted at least once a year to review and revise each child's IEP. Although these meetings may be held at any time during the year (including the summer), frequently schools review and revise IEPs towards the end of a school year so that they will be in effect at the beginning of the following school year. On August 10, 1990 the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) issued a policy letter on the right of a student with a disability to assistive technology services and devices under P.L. 94-142, the federal mandate for a free, appropriate public education. The following is intended to help parents and advocates work with school personnel to develop or revise the IEP for children based on this important policy letter. * Parents should be included in IEP meetings as equal participants. The meeting should be held at a mutually convenient time, with sufficient notice given that it will be held. * The IEP must be developed jointly at the meeting. Some schools prepare a draft IEP in advance of the meeting to use as a "working" document. If the school does so, request a copy of the IEP in advance so that it can be reviewed beforehand. * Parents should not be afraid to request additions, deletions, or other changes once they get to the meeting. Better yet, parents should develop and bring their own "working" document to the meeting. * Parents should have the right to request that certain services, such as assistive technology, be included on their child's IEP. Parents should be prepared to discuss why it is believed that A.T. is important for their child's education. * If modifications in the regular education program are necessary to ensure that a child can participate in regular education, those modifications must also be included on the IEP. This applies to all regular education activities in which the child participates including art, music, physical education, lunchroom, recess, and of course, the regular classroom. Modifications might be as simple as minor rearranging of the desks to allow for movement of a wheelchair, or special seating arrangements for a child with vision or hearing difficulties. Or they can be more complex, including such things as a computer, specially adapted switches, modifications in how assignments are presented, or a classroom aide. * The IEP must be individually designed to meet the needs of each child, not to fit pre-existing programs or services for administrative convenience. Just because a child has a disability does not mean that he or she must automatically be segregated from friends, from classmates without disabilities, or from the mainstream of school life. * Lack of availability of services or sufficient funds may not be used by school personnel to deny services, or to eliminate a needed service from a child's IEP. * All services must be provided at no cost to the child's family. The school system may ask the family to use their private insurance to pay for some of the services, such as speech or physical therapy. Parents do not have to do this! Consider the long term effects, such as lifetime limits on coverage, before agreeing to use the family's insurance. * Parents may request an independent evaluation of their child at the school's expense if they are dissatisfied with the evaluation provided by the school system. * Parents may bring another individual such as an advocate who is familiar with the law, or someone who conducted an independent evaluation of the child, to the IEP meeting. The IEP is a written record of decisions parents make jointly with school personnel regarding the special education program for their child. It is a commitment on the part of the school to provide specified services. Parents have a right to a copy of this document. Parents may request a review of the IEP at any time if they do not feel that their child's IEP accurately reflects the program he or she needs. If the request for inclusion of specific IEP goals is met with resistance or if the parents are dissatisfied with the program, they may request a due process hearing. Attorney fees must be paid by the schools if the hearing officer decides in favor of the parents' request and an attorney was used. United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Inc., is interested in receiving copies of any child's IEP which incorporates assistive technology devices or services. Please send these to: Christopher Button, UCPA, Inc., 1522 K Street, N.W., Suite 1112, Washington, DC 20005; 800/USA-5UCP or 202/ 842-1266. [Editor's Note: This article, written for parents, is a condensed version of an article that appeared in the UCPA Spring 1991 issue of Family Support Bulletin.] ---------- Scott's IEP Includes Technology By Paula and Bob Guzzo _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 3, Number 1(1992). As our eight-year old son Scott begins his third year of special education, we have feelings of pride and concern. We are very proud of the progress Scott is making. Our expectations are continuously raised as he proves his increasing desire and willingness to learn. Yet we are concerned that this desire and willingness may be someday suppressed by his physical disabilities. During the past three years, we have slowly come to a realization that Scott may increasingly struggle with life. The lower expectations of childhood will be replaced by the need to function at a higher performance level after he leaves grade school then enters middle school, high school, vocational school or (dare we hope?) college and the workplace. Hence, our attention is shifting to focus on the quality of his education and, ultimately, his life as an adult. Our primary concern involves his communication skills. Scott has little understandable speech and currently just writes his name. We believe that Scott, like any child, can learn best during his early years. Moreover, we wonder if he will have a second chance, if his disabilities may cause his interest in learning to decline. SCOTT THE PATIENT Although almost full-term, Scott weighed only two pounds, twelve ounces at birth. He was born with a complete mid-facial cleft: no skull bone, cranial stenosis, cleft lip and palate, hydrocephalus, wide set eyes, low set ears, club foot, short fingers/toes. Scott has endured 16 major surgeries, endless exams, blood tests, and therapies. He has been seen by more than 100 doctors, therapists and other health care professionals. His medical records are measured in feet. Despite all this, his diagnosis remains simply "Multiple Congenital Anomalies of Unknown Etiology." SCOTT THE CHILD In spite of, or perhaps due to all this, Scott has always had a wonderful personality that few people who take the time to know him forget. His quick wit and laugh are contagious. He loves a prank more than anyone. His determination is remarkable. His love of music, fans and, most importantly, people is beyond description. He is well accepted (and popular!) with his classmates and the kids without disabilities at his school. No one loves a good time more than Scott - if you could have seen him on the dance floor at the RESNA conference in Kansas City, you'd know what we mean! We're biased, but we think we truly do have a "special" son. It's hard to describe, but we feel privileged to be his parents. COMMUNICATION The first few years of Scott's life were centered on his surgeries and development of gross motor skills. During this time we recognized that his receptive communication skills far exceeded his expressive skills. By age three, we were looking for ways to help him express himself and found that sign language worked for us. By four, he had a sign vocabulary of about 250 words he recognized and signed. But we later discovered that, while we could understand most of his signs, they were too imprecise for others to follow. We next tried manual communication books. This showed potential. Scott could make sentences that were meaningful to others. But he was frustrated by his inability to turn pages and find the words he wanted to put his sentences together quickly enough. As with signing, another problem was these books were silent. He still had to get our attention when he wanted to "say" something. Then when he was five, we "discovered" electronic communication devices. We went gangbusters on it for six months or so and, with the help of our insurance company, he soon had a VOIS 136. He used it in his preschool total communication class along with signing. However, since Scott then weighed only about twenty-five pounds and used a wheelchair, walker, or crawling to get around, he could not lug it around by himself. So, he depended on others to place it in front of him and change his overlays. While his teachers and therapists willingly did so, this did not give him the spontaneity he wanted. Moreover, we usually understood his signs. Thus, the VOIS was used infrequently. In 1989, Scott began his first year in the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation in a self-contained classroom with eight other children with multiple disabilities. We were very proud to send Scott off to school with his VOIS 136. At their request, I, Paula Guzzo (Scott's mother), spent the first two days familiarizing his new teacher, two aides, therapists, and others with Scott and his equipment. We discussed the use of the VOIS and agreed that we would continue to program it and make overlays as needed. Even with this added training, we soon realized the VOIS remained virtually unused. But we didn't place a lot of importance on this since we had so many other aspects of this new school to get used to. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY (A.T.) INVOLVEMENT In April 1990, the Special Education Director of our school corporation, Mr. Lewis Browning, created a multidisciplinary team for evaluating children for AT. I (Paula) was named a parent advisor to it. It was through this team involvement that we were able to attend the RESNA conference in June 1990, in Washington, D.C. This was Scott's first opportunity to have hands-on experience with computers. He loved it, especially the Touch Screen. This conference was an opportunity for us to make several national contacts. We also observed others with varying disabilities successfully using assistive technology. This motivated us to envision what we wanted for Scott someday and set off all kinds of "light bulbs" once we saw all that was out there to choose. Indiana had just been funded for its first year as a Tech Act State and I (Paula) had been asked to serve on the project's advisory board as a secondary consumer. After much thought and discussion (each monthly board meeting in Indianapolis would involve a three and one half hour trip each way), we made a commitment to the Indiana project. We felt that we had a lot to offer from a parentūs perspective and we hoped there would be a lot to gain personally by getting started on the ground floor of this project. Scott's second year of school (1990-91) brought no change in his VOIS usage. There was a major change in his mode of transportation, though. In his first year, he cruised around in his electric wheelchair, fitted with a swing-away arm for mounting his VOIS. But, since Scott couldn't raise and position the VOIS on this arm, there wasn't an efficient way for him to independently use it. Scott began his second year of school with a brand new purple Enduro Little Tykes manual wheelchair. This chair is close to stroller size. To date, we still don't have a good way to attach the VOIS to this chair in a position where Scott can access it. At the beginning of that school year, an Apple IIGS was placed in the classroom. As I (Paula) had signed up to be a classroom volunteer, Scott's teacher asked me to be the "computer tutor." This was a perfect opportunity for me to learn about the computer, as well as about the opportunities for assistive technology for Scott and his classmates. The kids in the class all loved their time with the computer. When I walked into the classroom, their hands all shot up in the air meaning "take me first". As there wasn't any software for the IIGS, much of the year was spent familiarizing them with the mouse and keyboard. Later a Touch Screen was acquired, which allowed many of the children to successfully use it. The Indiana A.T. Project, now known as ATTAIN (Accessing Technology Through Awareness in Indiana) also flourished during the year. Through ATTAIN, we attended the RESNA Technical Assistance Project's Specialized Training Workshop on Consumer Responsiveness and Systems Change in March 1991 in Las Vegas. The workshop was the turning point for us. It was there that we understood what Scott's rights really include. We returned home with the knowledge and confidence to ask for what was rightfully Scottūs: access to assistive technology that can help him be all he can be. STATE POLICY LETTER ON A.T. At Scott's annual 1991 IEP conference, the team agreed to evaluate him to better understand his learning needs and abilities. We also requested an assistive technology evaluation be done on Scott. Since this was our school's first request for an assistive technology evaluation, Mr. Browning wrote to the Indiana Department of Special Education to ascertain what services the school should be providing to its students in this regard. His questions were answered by a letter from Glenna Greever, Speech/Language Consultant at the department. Greever's letter has now become a policy letter for the State of Indiana. It affirms that school corporations in Indiana do have a responsibility to provide assistive technology/augmentative communication evaluations. Also, based on a case-by-case decision of the student's educational needs, if this evaluation determines that assistive technology equipment or services are needed for a student to benefit from a free appropriate public education, the school must provide this service and equipment (at no cost to the student). Mr. Browning sees this policy letter as being vitally important to local Directors of Special Education since they now have a directive from the state which can be taken to superintendents and school boards to assist in obtaining funds for this equipment and related services. As parents, we want to see a copy of it in the hands of every parent who has a child receiving special education services (Editor's Note: The Indiana Department of Special Education policy letter on assistive technology is modeled after the one issued by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education. Other systems change projects might want to consider pursuing a similar course in their states). THE EVALUATION When Scott began his third year of public schooling in August 1991, it was with much expectation on our part. We knew that this was the year that he was to be evaluated and assistive technology was to become a part of his IEP! In September 1991, Scott was evaluated and the team (now called the ACCESS Team) had its inaugural evaluation! This evaluation was conducted under the watchful eye of Dr. Flo Taber, a national expert in the area of assistive technology evaluations. We are fortunate that Dr. Taber is able to provide this expertise through funding from the State Department of Education. In advance of the ACCESS evaluation, Dr. Taber had observed Scott and made her own recommendations which remained unknown to the team throughout their evaluation. With much relief on our part, the team came up with almost the same recommendations. Mr. Browning wisely invited many administrators to Scott's evaluation: the superintendent, assistant superintendent, curriculum director, director of psychological services, and Scott's principal. This gave them first-hand experience on the importance of what the team has to offer and what a difference assistive technology can make in a child's future. When we heard that the superintendent was going to stop in, we programmed Scott's VOIS to say, "Hello, Dr. Schoffstall. Thank you for coming." Upon Scott's introduction to Dr. Schoffstall, he immediately activated the greeting. Dr. Schoffstall was taken off guard but responded positively. Scott's "talk" with Dr. Schoffstall, while socially pleasant, hopefully served one other purpose. That is, it is vital that school administrators be thoroughly informed of the importance technology plays in the educational setting. IMPLEMENTATION We have now been provided with the team's recommendations for Scott. He is to use an expanded keyboard, speech synthesizer and printer along with the computer which is already in his classroom. Software with enlarged print is recommended. Also, Scott's VOIS is currently sufficient and is to be fully utilized. Requisitions for the purchase of this additional equipment are being processed. A case conference is being scheduled to incorporate the ACCESS team's findings in Scott's IEP. We will then give a sigh of relief and wait for the next step: the training of those involved in Scott's school curriculum on this assistive equipment so that they can competently provide services to him. SOME CLOSING THOUGHTS... The thrust of this entire article is that what we accomplished for Scott was through a cooperative effort with the school corporation. It is our feeling that monies and energy can much better be spent on equipment and services, rather than on lawyers and courts. Fortunately, our school corporation agrees. We realize that all readers of this article may not be in the same position and we do acknowledge that if a cooperative effort had not been possible for us, then we were willling to pursue whatever end was necessary. We encourage parents and school administrators to work together. Parents first have to know their rights. They then need to seek support and encouragement form local, state or national groups. Admnistrators should follow Mr. Browning's good example of determining their obligations and take responsibility for following through on them. We hope that you, the reader, can take heart from our experiences and perservere to get what you need for your own child. ---------- Early Intervention (Part H) Final Regulations Include Assistive Technology By Michael Morris _________________________________________________________________ This article is reprinted from the A.T. Quarterly, Volume 4, Number 3 (1993) On Friday, July 30th the Department of Education issued final regulations for the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. The 1991 amendments to Part H of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were enacted to "promote a seamless system of services for children with disabilities from birth through five years of age and their families." The final regulations include a definition of assistive technology services and require that the need for assistive technology devices and services be determined on an individualized basis as part of the development of the individualized family service plan (IFSP). Background All 50 states are currently at various stages of planning, development, and implementation of the federally mandated system of early intervention services for children with disabilities from birth to age three. Beginning this October, sixteen states will reach full implementation status with all the requirements of these new final regulations expected to be in full force. Each state has a lead agency designated by the governor, an Interagency Coordinating Council with membership appointed by the governor, and a plan that must be reviewed and revised annually with public participation. Core Requirements In order to receive federal funding, a state's plan must be approved by the Office of Special Education Programs in Washington, D.C. Each state plan must address the minimum components of a statewide system of coordinated comprehensive, multidisciplinary, interagency, programs providing appropriate early intervention services to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. Each system must include the performance of a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of each child, birth through age two, who is suspected of experiencing developmental delays in one or more of the following areas: cognitive development, physical development, communication development, social or emotional development or adaptive development. For a child who is determined to be eligible, an individualized family service plan (IFSP) must be developed within a 45 day time period and reviewed at least every six months. The plan must include a statement of major outcomes expected to be achieved for the child and family, and a list of the specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique needs for the child with a description of the frequency, intensity and method of delivering the services. Each IFSP must also include the name of a service coordinator to assist the child and family. Funds under Part H may be used only for early intervention services that an eligible child needs but is not currently entitled to under any other federal state, local, or private source. The regulations do explain that Part H funds may be used to pay a provider to guarantee the timely provision of services pending reimbursement from the agency that has ultimate responsibility. A state may choose to establish a fee-for-service system with a sliding fee schedule. Each state must establish and publicize procedures for filing and resolving complaints from individuals or organizations about possible violations of Part H mandates. Opportunities for Assistive Technology Section 303.12 of the final regulations defines early intervention services to mean "services designed to meet the developmental needs of each child" and selected in "collaboration with the parents." Types of services defined as included under "early intervention services" are both assistive technology devices and assistive technology services. Assistive technology device means "any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of children with disabilities." Assistive technology service means "a service that directly assists a child with a disability in the selection, acquisition, or use of an assistive technology device. Assistive technology services include: 1. The evaluation of the needs of a child with a disability, including a functional evaluation of the child in the child's customary environment. 2. Purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by children with disabilities. 3. Selecting, designing, fitting, customizing, adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacing assistive technology devices. 4. Coordinating and using other therapies, interventions, or services with assistive technology devices, such as education and rehabilitation plans and programs. 5. Training or technical assistance for a child with disabilities, or if appropriate, that child's family. 6. Training or technical assistance for professionals (including individuals providing early intervention services) or other individuals who provide services to or are otherwise substantially involved in the major life functions of individuals with disabilities." The definitions are basically the same definitions first included in federal law under the Technology-Related Assistance For Individuals With Disabilities Act Of 1988 (Herein referred to as the "Tech Act"). The final regulations notice describes an attempt by some commentators to the Department of Education to limit the right to assistive technology devices and services under Part H. Some commentators suggested limiting access to assistive technology devices to include "only devices that result in an educational benefit to children with disabilities. The final regulations reject such a notion." Linking the provision of assistive technology devices to an educational benefit is not appropriate under a program that serves children from birth to age three. In the context of the Part H program, assistive technology devices are required "only if they relate to the developmental needs of infants and toddlers served by the program." Such needs would be determined on an individualized basis through the IFSP process. In comments following the final regulations the Secretary does express concern that "the costs of AT devices and services be manageable. Interagency cooperation will be needed to identify all available sources of assistive technology funding, both public and private." A state lead agency under the Tech Act, parents, advocates, and assistive technology professionals need to become active and visible in Part H planning and implementation in every state. These final regulations provide a new opportunity to begin or reopen a dialogue with Part H planners and each state's Interagency Coordinating Council. There are three major areas for discussion: a) capacity building; b) parent and professional training; and, c) monitoring, oversight, and enforcement of federal mandates. Please consider the following Action Steps at a state level to accelerate implementation of the right to assistive technology as an integral part of the Part H program. Assistive Technology Access in the Part H Program A.T. ACTION STEPS 1. Schedule a meeting with the lead Part H agency staff in your state to discuss status of planning efforts to include access to assistive technology as part of early intervention services. 2. Find out if their comprehensive plan for personnel development includes building understanding of effective approaches to technology-related assistance as part of early intervention services for professionals and parents. If not, discuss ways you can work together to develop continuing education programs on assistive technology assessment and service delivery. 3. Consider co-sponsorship of a conference for parents and professionals on early intervention and assistive technology; effective approaches to assessment and service delivery. 4. Discuss the possibility of joint development of sample IFSP's that include access to assistive technology devices and services and the dissemination of such materials statewide. 5. Consider the collection and development of a catalog of IFSP's from across the state that include technology-related assistance for children with different types of developmental delays. 6. Conduct training for parents on how to effectively include in an IFSP technology devices and services and their appeal rights. 7. Identify opportunities for cooperative funding of assistive technology devices and services at a local and state level. 8. Identify a list of experts and programs in the state that feature technology-related assistance in the delivery of early intervention services. Disseminate the information to families statewide. 9. Seek time on the agenda of a quarterly meeting of the Interagency Coordination Council to discuss access to assistive technology as part of early intervention services and the need to expand capacity for service deliver and the monitoring of the mandate statewide. Monitor progress at future quarterly meetings. 10. Work cooperatively with the lead agency to make a commitment of Part H funds for the next three years to build capacity to provide assistive technology as part of early intervention services statewide. 11. Consider jointly funding several model demonstration programs that foster parent and family involvement with assistive technology with very young children with disabilities in the home and in inclusive settings. 12. Consider jointly funding computer and adaptive toy loan programs for families. 13. Seek agreement from the lead agency to include as part of its monitoring and oversight responsibility of local programs the inclusion of assistive technology in IFSP's and the timely delivery of such services. Finally, please consider the following ten question checklist in the box below to stimulate discussion in your state. STATE PART H PLAN CHECKLIST Answer Yes or No. 1) Any discussion of assistive technology in plan for personnel development? 2) Any planning effort to build capacity of assistive technology service delivery? 3) Does plan explain how assistive technology will be funded? 4) Does plan describe when assistive technology will be considered as part of IFSP? 5) If considered as part of IFSP who will pay for the assistive technology? 6) Will assistive technology in IFSP's be monitored statewide? 7) Will any assistive technology demonstrations be funded? 8) Any training planned on assistive technology assessment and service delivery? 9) Any activities focused on how use of assistive technology can foster inclusion? 10) Are there lead policy and program experts on assistive technology in early intervention services? _________________________________________________________________ The A.T. Quarterly was a newsletter developed by the RESNA TA Project under a contract with the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education (ED). The content, however, does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of NIDRR/ED and no official endorsement of the material should be inferred