Education

Scholarships / Funding

Excuse #5: Computer For Your Child Will Constitute The Best Educational Program, But Not Required For An Appropriate Program

Response: All children with disabilities are entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education. Schools that will oppose specific educational programs or services on the basis of "appropriateness" almost always are attempting to save money, protect the school's control over the design of programs, or both.

"What we provide is appropriate; what parents seek is 'best,'" is a common response to a request for programs or services other than what the school district offers. When school districts refuse to provide assistive technology, all of these "excuses" will be at work.

A program is "appropriate" when it confers "educational benefit." Unfortunately, there is no substantive requirement in the IDEA concerning the "degree" of benefit that must be provided. While there is no precise standard as to how much "benefit" must be conferred, it is clear that educational programs must do more than prevent regression, or provide 'de minimis' (i.e., something greater than zero) benefit. Rather, the "benefit" must be "meaningful."

Computer aided instruction will very definitely confer educational "benefits." They will permit students to be more integrated with children who have no disabilities, it will improve their perceptual and psychosocial functioning, improve their social interaction skills, and improve their performance in academic subjects. Each of these "benefits" is a fundamental part of all children's education. For some children, the degree of benefit will be the elimination of the educational limitations imposed by the child's disability. This will be most clear for children who were placed in segregated classes because they had physical disabilities.

Although this practice never was justified, except by the prejudices, fears and ignorance of educators, it was done, and many such classes still remain, even 15 years after the EHA/IDEA was enacted. For such children an assistive device can result in placement in a regular education classroom, and instruction in the mainstream curriculum.

For other children, the device may permit the development of new goals related to each of the areas of benefit, based on new expectations of the child's potential.

But are these improvements "appropriate" or "best"? The answer lies in the description of the child's program before the computer aided instruction is considered. Questions must be asked about the child's goals in each of the areas the assistive device can address:

• Has the child reached the same level of social maturity as his/her age peers?

• Is the child placed in a regular classroom, receiving the mainstream curriculum?

For almost all students who are appropriate candidates for computer aided instruction, the answer to these questions is almost certainly to be "no." If so, the next question is whether the school has set instructional and related services goals that will enable the child to achieve those performance levels prior to age 21 when the child's educational entitlement ends? That too is likely to be answered in the negative.

What then, are the levels to which the school is expecting the child to reach? It may be that the school district has set very limited goals for the child, if it has considered his/her long term goals at all. Schools that maintain segregated classes for children with physical disabilities are likely to have stated the lowest -- and least realistic -- expectations for these children.

Yet here is where the benefits of computers and other assistive devices can be seen most clearly. These devices may provide significant opportunities for the child that never before were considered attainable: participation in the regular education curriculum, employability, independent living. Changes in educational programs that will lead to any of these goals are not "best" programs; rather, the denial of instruction and/or services that will lead to these goals is not appropriate.

A critical review of the child's individualized education program ("IEP") is required. The IEP should describe the special education and/or related services designed to increase the child's integration into regular education; cognitive development, physical development, social maturity, and academic skills.

But not every child who is an appropriate candidate for assistive devices will have such goals on his/her IEP. Many children with disabilities may not be receiving any instruction designed to increase these skills.

Parents should be particularly alert to IEPs that omit any functional skills development and/or academic skills development goals for children with disabilities (for example, the elimination of expressive communication goals for a child who is non-speaking). When any of these fundamental educational goals are omitted, the schools are stating their assumption that the child has no potential to benefit from instruction in that subject.

Such conclusions stated for any child, particularly in light of the vast array of educational software programs that are available should be suspect.

For these children, computer aided instruction may enable them to develop and benefit from many different academic and social opportunities. Increased learning, increased communication skills, less restrictive placements will all increase the child's general level of benefit from the educational experience.

By being able to be more attentive and receptive to instruction, these children may be able to benefit from instructional opportunities, develop friendships, and participate in extra-curricular clubs and activities that previously were thought unattainable.

By contrast, where no such goals are stated on a child's IEP, the school district will be required to demonstrate that the child could not develop such skills even with computer aided instruction, an augmentative communication device, and/or appropriate follow-along services. Like the proof of any "negative assertion" this is likely to be an impossible task.

For school districts that are supplying "some" computer instruction, or other services that address social and academic skills development, the degree of these services must be measured in regard to the abilities of children without disabilities who are the same age.

The district will have to prove that either the current level of services enables the child to develop these skills to the same degree as his or her age peers; or that even with computer aided instruction, that the child would not develop these skills at a rate or to a degree significantly greater than s/he will without the device. This standard also is unlikely to be met.

In general, computer technology may open up many new opportunities for children with disabilities. Schools cannot use the criterion of an "appropriate" education to retard their development.

By Susan Goodman, Esq.

The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of the opinions expressed herein should be inferred.

Send This Article To A Friend