Completing the School Profile of Assistive Technology Services was an eye opening experience. I anticipated above average scores in all categories but, upon finishing the scores and reflection, I realize we operate on more of a case-by-case basis instead of having a uniform plan for referral, evaluation and review across the district.
Referral - Average Score: 3.25
The referral process is above average, yet sporadic. Most staff members are aware of AT and receive some type of training, but the training is not uniform throughout the district. We are required to have training on AT but it can come from any source (e.g. College coursework, workshop, webinar, etc.). The lowest score came on parent input. According to the district technology
…show more content…
We are operating with two major standard deficits. The first is ISTE Standard 5c. We currently do not “evaluate and reflect on current research and progressional practice on a regular basis to make effective use of existing and emerging digital tools and resources in support of student learning (ISTE Standards for Teachers, 2018). The staff completing evaluations simply ask if the AT is “working” and classroom teachers respond with yes or no. The process is too vague because a standardized process is not in place across the district. Part of this issue is due to the district’s lack of a specific technology plan. In a previous class, we were asked to read and evaluate the district technology plan as presented to the school board for review. Other districts have plan ranging in length from 30-50 pages. My district had three pages of important, yet vague vision …show more content…
Quality Indicator #5 states, the “education agency includes assistive technology in the technology planning and budgeting process” (QIAT, 2016). We have the budget for AT, time to meet about it, and a district level consultant available when needed. One issue is that our district AT support is usually pulled for basic technology support (e.g. chromebook repair, networking issues). The district technology support staff does an incredible job, but is understaffed to support the eleven buildings. Next year this will be an increased problem as the role of technology coach has been cut at each school further putting strain on their time.
Periodic Review - Average: 1
This section had the lowest average score showing a major deficit in Quality Indicator #7 (2016). “The education agency uses a systematic process to evaluate all components of the agency-wide assistive technology program.” As stated earlier, the district does not have a specific technology plan. While vision statements are nice, the school board and district administrators need to put a plan in place so that AT is equitable at all buildings.
The Special Education team for learning disabilities will test the student. These students have shown signs of continuous problems with interventions in place. Psychologist, psychiatrist, and any other testing will be conducted with parental consent have evaluated the student. Parents will be mandated to attend all assessment evaluations and the team shall review the findings for referral back to tier two or upgrade student to tier four for special educational services based on educational or problematic behaviors.
Joni had worked for over 25 years in the local school system as an Educational Tech II, otherwise known as a teacher’s aide. In this capacity, she got to know generations of teachers, students and their families. In addition, working with high needs students with challenging intellectual disabilities, she sought to identify opportunities for her students to gain practical knowledge in local organizations and life skills to ensure their dignity as adults. To create these connections she often interacted with numerous small businesses, non-profits, and community-based organizations.
The Toms River High School East Child Stud Team (CST) would like to provide comments and concerns relating to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), No Child Left Behind, and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 requirement of assessments in public schools and that all students must participate, with the sole focus on the state of New Jerseys decision to use the PARCC. Specifically, considering the impact is has on students classified with learning disabilities. I would like to urge you to think about reevaluating the procedure of using the PARCC and other standardized tests that are geared to general education students to assess our students because it seems to be doing more harm than good. During the
6. After looking at the data, the grade span and population that should be of most concern to the district is grades 3-5 IEP-special education. The reading proficiency decreased from 57.8% to 46.7% and the mathematic proficiency decreased from 70.2% to 54.1%. This data could indicate there was a change in the special education program that is affecting the instruction of the students.
I scored the listening and talking topic at 6.67. Helping children understand language received a score of seven because the staff uses a variety of words, including sight words and high frequency words. The staff also does a
In additionally, selecting the most appropriate data was difficult. After lingering through all the statistical numbers between national, state, and county, my brain and eyes were swirling. Additionally, deciphering between which data was the most current verses outdated. Eventually, I believe that all the data needed to fulfill the assessment’s requirements were found.
I have coordinated tests like PSAT, PARCC, and the ACCESS 2.0 tests in an elementary school and at the high school level to meet the requirements set by the state in administering this annual assessment. In this experience, I had to learn to work through multiple obstacles and ask for feedback and communicate with all stakeholders to ensure a smooth administration of these
The instructional setting is an elementary school located in a middle class neighborhood. Technological information will be presented to an audience of educators, administrators, specialist, and instructional aids.
To begin my evaluation, I wanted to find out what my teaching peers already knew about the ELA shift kits. I was also curious as to overall knowledge of our school’s focus on literacy and our student’s literacy needs. Therefore, I created a needs assessment to collect this information. I distributed to the needs assessment to our high school teachers and staff, which is twenty-three total members, not including myself. These members consist of eighteen teachers, two classroom aides, one guidance counselor, and two building administrators.
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) requires all public school districts and charter schools to submit a technology plan that aligns with the district’s improvement plan and the both Long-Range Plan for Technology, 2006-2020 (LRPT). Each year teachers and campuses evaluate their progress in meeting the goals of the LRPT by completing the Texas School Technology and Readiness (STaR) Chart. The goal is for all STaR chart objectives to be at target level.
In the article, A Common-Core Challenge: Learners with Special Needs, the article outlines the proposed plans and conflicts associated with a common core assessment in education. The article highlights the struggles of reaching students within a regular classroom with diversity, then divides into the accommodations and modifications needed to give the same assessment to a student with a disability. With the introduction of Common Core and Smarter Balance, general assessments have become the norm to track a student and a teacher’s progress. Many teachers are struggling with the accommodations needed and not compromising the assessment. Some accommodations questioned in the article are communication devices and being able to read portions to a visually impaired student. Both sides believe that the accommodations can compromise
Part of the challenge is getting buy in from old-time teachers that struggle with technology. It?s a matter of providing the necessary professional development so that teachers are confident. Our professional learning communities? school wide is helping. Last year the district technology director instituted district wide professional learning communities in all 1:1 classrooms. This gave teachers from other schools in the district opportunities to share what has worked in their classroom. We now have a new Technology Director and those same district wide professional learning communities are not in place for 1:1 teachers yet. Bringing back district wide PLC?s specifically for 1:1 classrooms would help improve processes in those educational
Nationally, there has been a large movement for providing help in the school setting for children special needs, which now includes
current technology than the school’s staff. Teachers in turn are placing emphasis on the schools to
My placement school is the Tempe Academy of International Studies (grades 6th to 8th), under the Tempe Elementary School District. The population consists of about 300 students, with a high percentage of them having disabilities ranging from autism to dyslexia, and also a high rate of students experiencing anxiety (Personal Communication). The main goal of the school is to create a community with students, school staff, and teachers and promote a diversified curriculum in both culture and ways of learning (Personal Communication). The overarching mission of the school influences the school’s goal on integrating technology for the purpose of having students, “connect with a global society” (“Technology”), and using advanced resources to challenge students (“Tempe Academy of International Studies - McKemy Campus”).