Assistive Technology Services in
Shawnee Mission School District:
Shawnee, Kansas

Shawnee Mission School District, in a suburb of Kansas City, has long been a leader in the provision of assistive technology services. In the early 1990s, the district's special education director applied for and received a three-year grant to start an assistive technology program. The grant was called TEACH (Technology for the Education of All Children with Handicaps). The funding provided for the purchase of equipment as well as salaries for employees to focus their time on assistive technology. There were originally 10 people assigned to the TEACH team, including a speech/language pathologist, an occupational therapist, a vision specialist, a school psychologist, a learning specialist, a special education teacher (serving low-incidence students), a Learning Center teacher (serving high-incidence students), paraprofessionals, and a parent. All served part time in their roles on the TEACH team. An outside agency with a history of assistive technology experience (the Capper Foundation from Topeka, Kansas) was brought in to train the team members during the first year of the grant. The assistive technology services were developed using an "expert" model where the TEACH team members made all of the decisions and recommendations (a state-of-the-art model for the delivery of assistive technology services at that time.)

During the early years of the project, referrals were low, and equipment, even expensive items, was readily available. Training of other staff members was provided only in relationship to the implementation of a specific item of assistive technology in a specific setting. The charge to the TEACH team was to determine what a student needed without consideration of expense. If appropriate data was collected to document the need, the equipment was purchased. While the teachers and therapists directly serving the students were required by the TEACH team to collect data about the students' needs and the subsequent impact of the assistive technology use, they had little understanding of the overall program and how it worked. One of the original members of the TEACH team describes it this way, "It always seemed like the TEACH team and the teams serving the child worked as separate entities, both dealing with the student but rarely working collaboratively" (personal communication, September 19, 2003). The TEACH team members had the responsibility to evaluate the student's need for assistive technology and make a decision about what would be provided. They frequently requested specific data from teachers and therapists but did not include those individuals in the decision-making process.

At the end of three-year grant period, as money ran out, the TEACH team experienced its first reduction in force and became less than two full-time positions filled part time by a speech/language pathologist, an occupational therapist, and two special education teachers. These four individuals found it challenging to keep up with the referrals. The TEACH team always received requested assistive technology equipment, primarily because they provided excellent data about the individual child's performance and specific needs in relation to the requested equipment. However, there was no time for training of other staff members on general information about assistive technology. Therefore, any questions about assistive technology were handled exclusively by the TEACH team members.

In the mid-1990s, referrals began increasing. In an attempt to cope with the decreased number of staff members and increased referrals, the TEACH team developed a referral process with a shorter referral form. It went from an 11-page multidisciplinary team evaluation to a five-page summary, which essentially was information contained in the student's IEP. Still, when IDEA '97 added the requirement that every IEP team consider the student's need for assistive technology, the number of referrals became unmanageable, according to the school district.

In 2002, Shawnee Mission School District changed the model of assistive technology service delivery. The TEACH team was dissolved. The special education director cited "too many referrals and not enough staff time to respond to them" as the main reason (personal communication, September 19, 2003). The school district moved to a decentralized model of providing assistive technology services. Staff time devoted to assistive technology is still about 2.5 full-time equivalent positions filled by two speech/language pathologists, two special education teachers, two vision specialists, and one paraprofessional. These individuals are assigned to specific schools in each of the four sections of the school district and act as consultants and support to the teachers and therapists who are directly serving students with disabilities.

Equipment has begun to break down at an accelerating rate (partly due to wear and tear and its age), and referrals for assistive technology evaluations have increased steadily to a record high. Now, when an assistive technology evaluation is needed, it is completed by the team directly serving the student with the support and assistance of the assistive technology specialist assigned to the student's school. There is no longer any referral process beyond the IEP process. All assistive technology diagnostic information now comes directly from the IEP. Assistive technology specialists report feeling more like a "member of the direct service team" and state there is a more seamless approach to selecting and implementing assistive technology solutions (personal communication, September 19, 2003). They also comment, "AT solutions are explored more quickly and thoroughly with more ownership by the direct service team" (personal communication, September 19, 2003). The assistive technology specialists indicated they feel fortunate that they continue to receive all equipment for which they provide adequate data to demonstrate the impact on the student.

Jane Korsten, one of the current assistive technology specialists and a past member of the TEACH team, described it this way:

There were certainly times when it felt good to be regarded as an authority about something, even if one was regarded as such because everyone else was too confused and overwhelmed to want to learn more about assistive technology. When we had the TEACH team, students were often referred for an assistive technology evaluation as a 'last ditch' effort, and so situations were already strained. In this situation, school teams were looking to someone to whom they could hand off the problem. There was no clear administrative chain of command. The TEACH team just sort of 'sat out there.' Now, since we are part of the child specific teams, there is a much better buy-in to the assistive technology solutions and far greater ownership of the responsibility to effectively implement the use of the assistive technology. I spend much less time trying to clean up difficult situations because I am involved before things get off track." (personal communication, September 19, 2003)

This year, the school district has undertaken a districtwide training program to help more teachers, therapists, and paraprofessionals learn about assistive technology. A variety of training sessions are being provided after school and during scheduled staff meeting times. These training opportunities are empowering school-based staff to take more responsibility for initiating requests for assistive technology and participating in the data collection and decision making about its use. Two groups within the school district, the occupational therapists and the speech and language pathologists, have written small grants to acquire an array of low- to mid-tech assistive technology so it is available to place with students for trial use in order to gather data necessary to determine which assistive technology should be purchased for long-term use. This is a significant change because it indicates these groups of service providers have changed their perception of their own role in the provision of assistive technology.