Title: The Iowa K12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results
1The Iowa K-12 Schools AT Needs Assessment Results
Presented by James Stachowiak, MSE, ATP Noel
Estrada-Hernández, PhD, CRC
2Todays Agenda
- Introduction
- Needs Assessment Methods
- Needs Assessment Results
- Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions
- Current Needs Assessment Conclusions
3Who Are We?
- ICATER Iowa Center for Assistive Technology
Education and Research - We are located in University of Iowas College of
Education - We are a statewide resource for AT
- We provide pre-service education on AT to
- General Education Teachers
- Special Education Teachers
- School Administrators
- School Psychologists
- School Counselors
4Our AT Needs Assessment
- Provides a snapshot of the current state of AT
service delivery, outcomes, and stakeholders
participation in Iowa schools - Allows us to see the progress made over the last
eight years - Identifies gaps in existing service delivery
- Discusses the effects of current AT services on
students with disabilities - Identifies needs of pre-service AT education
- Obtains base data to advance research
opportunities exploring the role of AT in other
areas such as - Standardized testing
- Classroom inclusion
- Other disability-related issues
5Measuring the AT Needs of Iowans with
Disabilities
- Project funded by the University of Iowa
- Office of Vice-President for Research
6Participants
- This study included representation from schools
in all 10 Area Educational Agencies (AEAs) from
the State of Iowa as well as the Des Moines
Public Schools. - Parents
- Teachers
- AT Professionals
- Administrators
7Data Collection
- Data collection was done in two phases
- Electronic/Paper Surveys
- Focus Groups
8Data Collection Surveys
- Developed by ICATER staff
- Tested and proofed for content validity by
- Iowa AT professionals
- Iowa Department of Education staff
- Members of ICATERs advisory board
- Questions designed to understand
- Participants AT knowledge
- Participants AT comfort level
- Participants AT experience level
- Participants personal and perceived satisfaction
9Data Collection Surveys
- Surveys consisted of
- 25-45 statements where participants selected a
level of agreement on a five point Likert scale - Some statements were purposely negatively worded
- Middle option of agreement was neutral
- 2-3 open-ended questions where participants were
able to provide a clearer explanation to their
multiple choice answers
10Data Collection Survey Distribution
- Most surveys were distributed electronically
- Surveys delivered directly to
- Building and district administrators roughly
1500 - Alternative assessment teachers roughly 400
- AT professionals 85
- Surveys delivered indirectly to
- Teachers via administrators
- Parents (primarily paper copies)via Parent
Educator Connection groups
11Data Collection Survey Distribution
- Direct Distribution
- Email with link to electronic survey sent to each
stakeholder once a week for three weeks - Indirect Distribution
- Email with link for teacher survey was sent to
administrators once a week for three weeks and
administrators were asked to pass on to teachers - PEC groups were provided with packets of the
survey and asked to send to parents, each sent a
different amount
12Data Collection Surveys
- Administrators - 285
- AT Professionals - 53
- Teachers - 1106
- Parents - 56
- Total 1497
- AEA Staff - 397
- LEA Administrators - 72
- Special Education Teachers - 74
- General Education Teachers - 65
- Parents - 53
- Others - 72
- Total 733
13Participants
14Survey Results in General
- Neutral was a popular selection
- Dont know?
- Doesnt apply?
- In the middle?
- Most answers averaged around 3 neutral
- Many displayed very high standard deviations
indicating high variance in answers
15Survey Results - Administrators
- N 285
- 91.8 of the participants indicated they have not
received formal AT education - 34.8 reported receiving AT training through
professional conferences or colloquia
16Survey Results - Administrators
17Survey Results - Administrators
- The AT Selection Process
- 60 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
meetings - 87 agree that parents and students have an
active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
devices - 84 agree that the AT assessment, recommendation,
trial, and implementation process occurs in a
timely manner
18Survey Results - Administrators
- Funding
- 82.8 indicated that cost is not the primary
factor when choosing AT - 51 indicated not being knowledgeable of AT
funding sources - Only 36.3 agreed that their school had
appropriate AT funding
19Survey Results - Administrators
- Implementation and Follow up
- 48.7 agree that school teachers incorporate AT
in their classrooms in an adequate manner - 41.4 agree that the AEA AT team spends
sufficient time working with students on AT
(25.4 disagree) - 23.1 indicate that they consider AT knowledge,
experience and formal training when hiring staff - 46 agree that students served receive proper AT
follow up
20Survey Results - Administrators
- Universal Design for Learning
- 70.5 either indicated they were neutral or
disagreed that they understood the principles of
UDL - Only 17.1 encourage teachers to use UDL
21Survey Results - Administrators
- Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
- 47 of the participants indicated being satisfied
with the AT services provided in their schools - 65 were satisfied with services provided by the
AEA AT teams (only 5.8 disagree) - 60 of participants perceived that parents are
satisfied with AT services provided through the
school
22Survey Results - Teachers
- N 1,106
- 64.5 - General Education Teachers
- 35.5 - Special Education Teachers
- Training
- 62.1 of the participants indicated they have not
received formal AT education - 20.4 reported receiving AT training through
professional conferences or colloquia. - Only 15.4 indicated that schools/AEA offer
sufficient AT training - 43.9 indicated having worked with a students
that uses AT
23Survey Results - Teachers
24Survey Results - Teachers
- Results combine Gen Ed, Special Ed, and Alt.
Assessment teachers - AT Selection Process
- 28 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
meetings (15 disagree) - 35 agree that parents and students have an
active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
devices (9.9 disagree) - Only 15 agree that AT assessment,
recommendation, trial, and implementation process
occurs in a timely manner (17.2 disagree)
25Survey Results - Teachers
- AT Understanding
- I know how to use AT for students with
- Visual Disabilities 12.5 agree
- Communication Disabilities 17.5 agree
- Physical Disabilities 17.9 agree
- Hearing Disabilities 23.5 agree
- Cognitive/Learning Disabilities 29.2 agree
- 22.1 indicate that they understand the
difference between low, mid, and high tech AT
(51.6 disagree)
26Survey Results - Teachers
- AT Implementation
- Only 16.9 agree that they effectively integrate
AT into the classroom (37.7 disagree) - 39 indicated that they understand their role
during the AT service provision process (40.3
disagree) - Only 19 indicated that they know about their
schools formal policies or guidelines as they
relate to AT services - Follow-up
- Only 18 agree that AT cases receive effective
follow up (17.4 disagree)
27Survey Results - Teachers
- Universal Design for Learning
- 51.5 indicated they did not understand UDL
principles - 10.1 agree that they incorporate UDL in the
class (50.5 disagree) - Accessible Instructional Materials
- Only 21.2 agree that they understand what
qualifies as AIM
28Survey Results - Teachers
- Funding
- 21 of the teachers agree that cost is the
primary factor when choosing AT. - 29.7 agree that the school lacks adequate AT
funding (59.7 neutral) - Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
- Only 15 of teachers indicated that they are
dissatisfied with the work of the AEA-AT team
(64 neutral) - 18 suggested that parents seem satisfied with
how AT services are provided in schools. (76
neutral)
29Survey Results AT Professionals
- N 53
- 96.2 reported receiving AT training through
professional conferences or colloquia - During the past 5 years AT Professionals have
obtained an average of 23.28 hours in AT
continuing education - Only 7.7 of the participants indicated having an
AT related certification endorsed by RESNA (e.g.
ATP, ATS, RET).
30Assistive Technology Professionals
31Survey Results AT Professionals
- AT Selection Process
- 43.2 agree that AT is properly considered in IEP
meetings - 76.5 agreed that parents and students have an
active role in the evaluation and selection of AT
devices - 56.9 agree that the AT assessment,
recommendation, trial, and implementation process
occurs in a timely manner - 56 agree that AT cases receive effective follow
up is provided.
32Survey Results AT Professionals
- Roles and Policy
- 60.7 of AT professionals indicated that their
AEAs has formal operational policies and
procedures to provide AT services - Only 17 indicated that there is a lack of
coordination between AEAs and schools who need AT
services - 77 of the participants indicated that they do
not collaborate or communicate with other AEAs
regarding AT services
33Survey Results AT Professionals
- Implementation
- 39 perceived that teachers in the schools they
served are prepared to use AT in the classroom - 55 indicated that teachers do not integrate AT
effectively into the classroom - However, 58.9 indicated that the schools offer
AT training to teachers
34Survey Results AT Professionals
- Funding
- 58 disagreed that cost is the primary
consideration when providing AT services to
students with disabilities - 37.3 indicated that their schools/districts lack
adequate AT funding - 58.8 of the participants indicated that their
AEA has an effective collection of demonstration
collection of AT software and devices.
35Survey Results AT Professionals
- Satisfaction (Personal and Perceived)
- 55 of were satisfied with the services provided
by their AT team - 72 perceived students were satisfied with
services provided by the AT team - 52.9 perceived schools were satisfied with the
services provided by the AT team - 56.9 perceived parents as satisfied with the
services provided by the AT team - 82 of the AT professionals indicated that
students demonstrate improved academic
achievement after receiving AT
36Survey Results - Parents
- N 56
- 22 parents indicated a personal investment that
ranged between 30 and 10,000 with a mean of
1,291.25 on AT devices. - Other parents indicated that they have invested a
lot, yet had not kept track of how much they had
spent.
37Survey Results - Parents
- AT Selection and Process
- 57.1 agreed that AT is sufficiently considered
in IEP meetings - Only 30.4 of the parents indicated they had been
active members on the selection of an AT device
during IEP meetings - 49 indicated that their child received their AT
device in a timely manner - 51 indicated that their child used the acquired
AT device effectively in the school setting
38Survey Results - Parents
- Impact on Student
- 63.6 of the participants indicated seeing
improvement in their childs academic achievement - 69 perceived AT as having a positive effect on
their childs self-esteem
39Survey Results - Parents
- Knowledge (Personal and Perceived)
- 60 indicated being able to help their child use
their AT effectively at home - 53 indicated knowledge of resources to identify
information regarding AT - Only 32, however, indicated seeking consultation
from resources outside of the school system - 41.8 agreed that school personnel does not seem
adequately prepared on AT issues
40Survey Results - Parents
- Funding
- 34 of the parents surveyed agreed that their
childs school had inadequate funding for AT - 52.8 perceived that cost was the schools main
determining factor when purchasing AT devices - Satisfaction
- 41.9 were dissatisfied with the system the
school has in place for the evaluation,
selection, and training of AT - Only 38 were satisfied with AT training
available for parents and students
41Open-Ended Questions
- In your opinion, what are some of the issues
negatively impacting AT service and provision in
your school? - In your opinion, what are the most positive
aspects of AT service provided in your school? - What are your AT training, support and resource
needs? - What obstacles do you encounter when attempting
to provide quality AT service in the schools you
serve?
42Focus Groups - Logistics
- Sessions
- 8 Total (3 via video conference 5 in person)
- 6 AEA AT Professionals
- 1 School District
- 1 Administrator group
- Participants ranged from 2 to 13
- Time 55 75 minutes
43Focus Groups - Analysis
- Focus group sessions were transcribed
- Two analysts looked at the transcripts and
created a set of themes that they viewed - After measuring the agreement of their themes,
they went back and counted occurrences of each
theme
44Focus Group Results - Emerging Topics
- Technology/Equipment
- Training/ Knowledge
- Roles
- Support Staff/ Process
- Organizational process and data
- Equity and Access
- Information Technology Obsolescence
- Teacher Acceptance
- Funding
- Time
45Focus Group Results - Emerging Topics
- Many issues that need further investigation
emerged from the focus groups that were not
conveyed in the surveys - IT professionals as barriers to use
- Paraprofessionals as barriers to use
- Obsolete standard technology as a barrier to use
- Social aspect of AT can be an issue for students
46Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (1990)
- Need more awareness regarding benefits of AT
- Need for a central source of AT information
- Need AT training for education professionals
- Need clarity on coordination and development of
comprehensive AT services - No satisfaction or other program evaluation data
was reported or known to be collected
47Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (2000)
- Results were not clear on level of knowledge of
concepts related to AT (e.g. legal requirements,
AT applications) - Funding was identified as barrier to provision of
adequate AT services - Parents were dissatisfied with AT services,
support, and follow up - AT teams, established in 1990, were thought to be
working at highest level
48Previous Needs Assessment Conclusions (2000)
- Various system-related issues were identified
- Need more clear outcomes and their relation to
funding - Need for better understanding among and between
systems (agencies) as related to coordination and
development of services - Teachers need to receive adequate training on AT
- Need for more inclusion of AT into curriculum and
development of awareness of student as stakeholder
49The Current Status of AT in Iowa
- 2009 Positive or Improved Areas
- Significant increase of awareness on how AT can
affect a student with a disability including
areas such as academic achievement, self esteem,
and socialization - Increased visibility of a support group in the
provision of AT services (AT Professionals) - Increased awareness on where to get information
regarding AT (e.g. AT groups listserv) - Lending library is a great resource to keep up
AT skills and facilitate assessment, trial, and
recommendation of AT equipment
50The Current Status of AT in Iowa
- 2009 Positive or Improved Areas
- Satisfaction with AT professionals is in the
moderate to high category - Training requests from AT Professionals are on
high demand - AT Professionals are introducing AT into the
general education classroom. This serves to keep
teachers more aware of AT issues and avoids the
standing out experience of students with
disabilities
51The Current Status of AT in Iowa
- 2009 Areas of Needed Improvement
- Need more current and frequent training/capacity
building at a local level - AT Professionals need training to keep up with
new technologies - Teachers were identified as most in need
- Need to also include paraprofessionals and
teaching assistants in AT trainings - Follow up after provision of services should be
emphasized in AT trainings - Administrative issues
- Training involvement of time, staff, and
financial resources
52The Current Status of AT in Iowa
- 2009 Areas of Improvement or Needs
- Systemic issues
- AT services are not provided uniformly across the
State. - Limited coordination or collaboration between
subsystems - Roles of stakeholders need to be clarified,
especially of teachers, IT and other support
staff - Emphasis on students as stakeholders
53The Current Status of AT in Iowa
- 2009 Areas of Improvement or Needs
- Need to clarify perception of funding in relation
to the provision of AT services - The bulk of responses suggested that funding is
not a major concern, but also that their schools
did not have adequate funding for AT and this
affect services
54Limitations
- No students were surveyed
- No direct access to parents or teachers
- Unaware how many actually received the survey
through indirect distribution - People could have potentially entered data
multiple times - Direct distribution list may have had inaccuracies
55Limitations
- The neutral option was likely interpreted in
different ways by different people - Did not reach the farthest west AEAs with focus
groups - Limited contact with administrators and teachers
limited the ability to conduct groups with them - Potential researcher-based errors in the
management, analysis, or interpretation of a big
data set like the one generated in this study.
56Potential for Larger Impact
- Although Iowa is a small state (pop. 3,000,000)
many part are similar to parts of other states,
thus results may help describe AT issues
elsewhere - Many small rural schools
- Large districts in suburban areas around Des
Moines and Cedar Rapids - Moderately sized college town ( Iowa City and
Ames) - Urban Areas (Cedar Rapids, Des Moines, Davenport)
- This can also be a model for carrying out large
scale needs assessments
57Statewide Collaboration
- Such a large project isnt possible without
collaboration such as - Funding from the University of Iowa
- Backing from AT Coordinator at Iowa Department of
Education - Support in creating and disseminating surveys
from statewide AT Liaisons group - Support from state director of Parent Educator
Partnership - Support disseminating parent and student surveys
from Parent Educator Partnership in each AEA
58Questions and Comments
- For more information regarding ICATER and our
projects, please contact us! - James R. Stachowiak, MSE, ATP CoordinatorThe
University of IowaCollege of EducationN168
Lindquist CenterIowa City, Iowa 52242-1529 - http//www.education.uiowa.edu/icater