Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States
With the heightened emphasis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on inclusion in the general curriculum and meeting the associated standards, assistive technology (AT) has become a necessary consideration to ensure a free appropriate public education and to promote...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of special education leadership 2009-03, Vol.22 (1), p.9 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 9 |
container_title | Journal of special education leadership |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Bausch, Margaret E Quinn, Brianna Stegall Chung, Yoosun Ault, Melinda Jones Behrmann, Michael M |
description | With the heightened emphasis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on inclusion in the general curriculum and meeting the associated standards, assistive technology (AT) has become a necessary consideration to ensure a free appropriate public education and to promote education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. An analysis of 10 states revealed that most of the states provided a combination of information that related specifically to AT and information that related generally to the individualized education program (IEP). Recommended practice in AT supports the development of clear guidelines related to AT in the IEP to promote consistency and improved AT decisions. However, this can occur at the local level. Despite differences in how AT was addressed, the 10 states offered examples of quality AT policies that can directly impact directors of special education, IEP teams, AT teams, teachers, service providers, and, ultimately, students with disabilities. The summary includes 12 frequently overlooked topics that all states and districts should include to strengthen their AT policies. (Contains 4 tables.) |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>eric</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ839509</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ839509</ericid><sourcerecordid>EJ839509</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-eric_primary_EJ8395093</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFjMEKgkAURWdRkJR_0OL9gKCJoO0kjGol5F4eM2O-mGbCNwr29blo392cxeHclQiS7JBFSZ7EGxEyP-NlaV7kcRoILJmJPU0aGi1764x7zEAWfK_hahVNpEY09NEKKjVK9OQs1AbtEUqLZl5qcB3UzpAkzYBycMzLmYW7R695J9YdGtbhj1uxP1fN6RLpgWT7HuiFw9xWtzwtsrhI_-gvca9AIw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Index Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States</title><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Bausch, Margaret E ; Quinn, Brianna Stegall ; Chung, Yoosun ; Ault, Melinda Jones ; Behrmann, Michael M</creator><creatorcontrib>Bausch, Margaret E ; Quinn, Brianna Stegall ; Chung, Yoosun ; Ault, Melinda Jones ; Behrmann, Michael M</creatorcontrib><description>With the heightened emphasis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on inclusion in the general curriculum and meeting the associated standards, assistive technology (AT) has become a necessary consideration to ensure a free appropriate public education and to promote education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. An analysis of 10 states revealed that most of the states provided a combination of information that related specifically to AT and information that related generally to the individualized education program (IEP). Recommended practice in AT supports the development of clear guidelines related to AT in the IEP to promote consistency and improved AT decisions. However, this can occur at the local level. Despite differences in how AT was addressed, the 10 states offered examples of quality AT policies that can directly impact directors of special education, IEP teams, AT teams, teachers, service providers, and, ultimately, students with disabilities. The summary includes 12 frequently overlooked topics that all states and districts should include to strengthen their AT policies. (Contains 4 tables.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 1525-1810</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Council of Administrators of Special Education</publisher><subject>Access to Education ; Assistive Technology ; California ; Decision Making ; Disabilities ; Educational Policy ; Educational Quality ; Educational Technology ; Federal Legislation ; Florida ; Individualized Education Programs ; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ; Kansas ; Kentucky ; Mainstreaming ; Massachusetts ; Montana ; Oregon ; Public Education ; Rural Areas ; Special Needs Students ; State Standards ; Texas ; Urban Areas ; Virginia ; Wisconsin</subject><ispartof>Journal of special education leadership, 2009-03, Vol.22 (1), p.9</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ839509$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bausch, Margaret E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Brianna Stegall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Yoosun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ault, Melinda Jones</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behrmann, Michael M</creatorcontrib><title>Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States</title><title>Journal of special education leadership</title><description>With the heightened emphasis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on inclusion in the general curriculum and meeting the associated standards, assistive technology (AT) has become a necessary consideration to ensure a free appropriate public education and to promote education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. An analysis of 10 states revealed that most of the states provided a combination of information that related specifically to AT and information that related generally to the individualized education program (IEP). Recommended practice in AT supports the development of clear guidelines related to AT in the IEP to promote consistency and improved AT decisions. However, this can occur at the local level. Despite differences in how AT was addressed, the 10 states offered examples of quality AT policies that can directly impact directors of special education, IEP teams, AT teams, teachers, service providers, and, ultimately, students with disabilities. The summary includes 12 frequently overlooked topics that all states and districts should include to strengthen their AT policies. (Contains 4 tables.)</description><subject>Access to Education</subject><subject>Assistive Technology</subject><subject>California</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Disabilities</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>Educational Quality</subject><subject>Educational Technology</subject><subject>Federal Legislation</subject><subject>Florida</subject><subject>Individualized Education Programs</subject><subject>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</subject><subject>Kansas</subject><subject>Kentucky</subject><subject>Mainstreaming</subject><subject>Massachusetts</subject><subject>Montana</subject><subject>Oregon</subject><subject>Public Education</subject><subject>Rural Areas</subject><subject>Special Needs Students</subject><subject>State Standards</subject><subject>Texas</subject><subject>Urban Areas</subject><subject>Virginia</subject><subject>Wisconsin</subject><issn>1525-1810</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFjMEKgkAURWdRkJR_0OL9gKCJoO0kjGol5F4eM2O-mGbCNwr29blo392cxeHclQiS7JBFSZ7EGxEyP-NlaV7kcRoILJmJPU0aGi1764x7zEAWfK_hahVNpEY09NEKKjVK9OQs1AbtEUqLZl5qcB3UzpAkzYBycMzLmYW7R695J9YdGtbhj1uxP1fN6RLpgWT7HuiFw9xWtzwtsrhI_-gvca9AIw</recordid><startdate>200903</startdate><enddate>200903</enddate><creator>Bausch, Margaret E</creator><creator>Quinn, Brianna Stegall</creator><creator>Chung, Yoosun</creator><creator>Ault, Melinda Jones</creator><creator>Behrmann, Michael M</creator><general>Council of Administrators of Special Education</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200903</creationdate><title>Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States</title><author>Bausch, Margaret E ; Quinn, Brianna Stegall ; Chung, Yoosun ; Ault, Melinda Jones ; Behrmann, Michael M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-eric_primary_EJ8395093</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Access to Education</topic><topic>Assistive Technology</topic><topic>California</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Disabilities</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>Educational Quality</topic><topic>Educational Technology</topic><topic>Federal Legislation</topic><topic>Florida</topic><topic>Individualized Education Programs</topic><topic>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</topic><topic>Kansas</topic><topic>Kentucky</topic><topic>Mainstreaming</topic><topic>Massachusetts</topic><topic>Montana</topic><topic>Oregon</topic><topic>Public Education</topic><topic>Rural Areas</topic><topic>Special Needs Students</topic><topic>State Standards</topic><topic>Texas</topic><topic>Urban Areas</topic><topic>Virginia</topic><topic>Wisconsin</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bausch, Margaret E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Brianna Stegall</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Yoosun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ault, Melinda Jones</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Behrmann, Michael M</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><jtitle>Journal of special education leadership</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bausch, Margaret E</au><au>Quinn, Brianna Stegall</au><au>Chung, Yoosun</au><au>Ault, Melinda Jones</au><au>Behrmann, Michael M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ839509</ericid><atitle>Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States</atitle><jtitle>Journal of special education leadership</jtitle><date>2009-03</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>9</spage><pages>9-</pages><issn>1525-1810</issn><abstract>With the heightened emphasis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 on inclusion in the general curriculum and meeting the associated standards, assistive technology (AT) has become a necessary consideration to ensure a free appropriate public education and to promote education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities. An analysis of 10 states revealed that most of the states provided a combination of information that related specifically to AT and information that related generally to the individualized education program (IEP). Recommended practice in AT supports the development of clear guidelines related to AT in the IEP to promote consistency and improved AT decisions. However, this can occur at the local level. Despite differences in how AT was addressed, the 10 states offered examples of quality AT policies that can directly impact directors of special education, IEP teams, AT teams, teachers, service providers, and, ultimately, students with disabilities. The summary includes 12 frequently overlooked topics that all states and districts should include to strengthen their AT policies. (Contains 4 tables.)</abstract><pub>Council of Administrators of Special Education</pub><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1525-1810 |
ispartof | Journal of special education leadership, 2009-03, Vol.22 (1), p.9 |
issn | 1525-1810 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_eric_primary_EJ839509 |
source | EBSCOhost Education Source |
subjects | Access to Education Assistive Technology California Decision Making Disabilities Educational Policy Educational Quality Educational Technology Federal Legislation Florida Individualized Education Programs Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Kansas Kentucky Mainstreaming Massachusetts Montana Oregon Public Education Rural Areas Special Needs Students State Standards Texas Urban Areas Virginia Wisconsin |
title | Assistive Technology in the Individualized Education Plan: Analysis of Policies across Ten States |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T02%3A25%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-eric&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assistive%20Technology%20in%20the%20Individualized%20Education%20Plan:%20Analysis%20of%20Policies%20across%20Ten%20States&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20special%20education%20leadership&rft.au=Bausch,%20Margaret%20E&rft.date=2009-03&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=9&rft.pages=9-&rft.issn=1525-1810&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ceric%3EEJ839509%3C/eric%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ839509&rfr_iscdi=true |