Context, and the Role of Assistive Technology in Irish Mainstream Education.

A paper presented at a conference on: Human Factors in Delivering an Assistive Technology Service - from Global to Local. February 18th, 2000. Dublin. Organised by Client Technical Services, Central Remedial Clinic, Dublin.

Tom Daly

enabletech home

Table of Contents.
1.    Introduction.
2.    Background
3.    Context
3.1  The "Values Context
3.2  The "Ethos Context"
3.3  The "Orientation Context"
3.4 The "Transfer Context"
4.    Conclusion

1. Introduction
This paper briefly examines some of the contextual elements that impinge on Assistive Technology (AT) provision in the Irish educational system. It is being presented from the perspective of a current pilot project that is developing a model of regional AT service provision. This pilot is known as SOLAS SIP and is being supported by the Department of Education and Science through the NCTE's Schools Integration Project initiative. (SIP) SOLAS SIP is examining the development of a paradigm of service that believes in the necessity for AT provision to address all the contextual factors that may influence its potential adoption by pupils.
Before discussing this project and the approach it is taking, I will briefly describe its background. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate that it did not originate from either a clinical or a social model of disability, but from a pedagogical model that recognised AT service provision as one of the key contextual elements necessary to meet the wider unique learning needs of pupils with disabilities, and of the importance of context in this regard.

Top

2. Background
This process originated in 1996 as a schools-based action research project that arose from the difficulties experienced by a mainstream school in getting services for a pupil with a disability. It was observed that the mainstreaming process leads to the dispersal and isolation of pupils and the lack of a similar peer group, which in turn leads to a greater degree of "difference", or "separateness", as experienced by pupils with disabilities.

Equally, the limited exposure of mainstream schools to such pupils results in a lack of understanding, structures or insights into how such unique needs might be met. These needs are often approached from a philanthropic perspective and teachers, reflecting societal attitudes in general, sometimes view pupils with disabilities as having less ability, aspiration or human potential as their non-disabled counterparts. In other words, they are often viewed as being in less need of education.

Added to this, the dominant values in our educational system are determined by achievement in criterion-based terminal examinations. Where intervention does occur to support the pupil, it is more often than not driven by this value system, with an emphasis on "keeping up" with what may a be a completely inappropriate curriculum for that pupil. This struggle to "keep up" is often lost, with detrimental consequences for the pupil. The European Social Fund Programme Evaluation Unit illustrated such outcomes when, in 1996, it commented on the effects of mainstream schooling for pupils with disabilities in Ireland:

It was concluded therefore, that not only is the current system inadequate, but that in a significant number of cases it is a negative educational experience for the pupils and that individuals’ personal growth and development may be diminished rather than enhanced by their engagement with the system. That system may be a re-enforcer, rather than a changer, of either societal attitudes or pupils’ sense of self-worth. The validity of these insights are currently being examined by the DATE project through a separate research project that is listening to the "hidden voices" of pupils and exploring the "realities" of their school experiences.

This conclusion, therefore, gives rise to unique learning needs, and there is a critical need for specific curricular interventions to meet the aspirations of balance, differentiation and equity. However, the dispersal and isolation of pupils creates problems in developing such interventions, but the new Information and Communication Technologies were viewed as a potential solution to this in terms of both peer-group creation and the development of a digital pedagogic environment through which such learning might occur.

This concept took effect as the SOLAS project in 1997, and began with a network of thirteen pupils, from throughout two counties, connected from home by a digital network, and engaged in a learning programme, with constructivist aspirations, as a supplement to their normal schooling. It also has partners in Belfast and Finland. The South-West Regional Authority further developed the scale of the activity through its DATE Project. (Disabled Access To Education) and both projects are closely collaborating under the DATE - SOLAS heading, and in all, 60 pupils from Cork and Kerry were involved in the process.

The evaluation of the SOLAS project has demonstrated that, given the necessary conditions and range of supports by school, project and home, its methodology can have a very positive impact. However, it has learned two fundamental lessons. The first, and most obvious, is the need for a basic structure to support the technical, training and support needs of pupils. The second, though less obvious, is of equal significance. It was the realization that it would not be the intrinsic value of such a process in itself that would determine whether it would go beyond the pilot stage and find wider application. This would be determined by the various contextual elements of the wider educational system in which the process was embedded, how they impinged on that process and the ability of existing structures to absorb change and innovation. The principal such element would be whether its objectives coincided with the dominant values in our system.

Therefore, the ideals and principles of the current pilot regional assistive technology support service developed directly from a non-specialist pedagogical perspective and was not embedded in any long-established clinical or institutional settings or interests. It arose from a questioning of the role of education for pupils with disabilities and it recognized that the development of a model of service must consider the contextual elements in which the service, and its users, will operate.

Top

3. Context
Before examining current AT provision in Ireland, and SOLAS SIP's response to it, I will briefly discuss some of the contextual elements that I see as being relevant. Context places constraints on the general applicability and acceptability of principles or methodological procedures. Practically speaking, the implementation of new structures needs to be creative in finding approaches and procedures uniquely suited to the particular context that it is dealing with.

Top

3.1. The "Values Context."
I refer to the first of these contextual elements as the Values Context, and it pervades all aspects of the mainstream sector. As I have already mentioned, our examination system and its overwhelming influence dominates values. We all agree, I’m sure, that in order to enhance personal development, services, such as education, should set goals that are appropriate for that individual’s unique differences and abilities, and that they should be supported towards achieving these goals at an appropriate pace. Such would be in line with what we refer to as the social view of disability. Education in Ireland, however, especially in relation to exams, is firmly stuck in the clinical mode where the emphasis is still on "access", but where access is viewed as making provision for the individual to fit the norm, as defined by curriculum and assessment.

Thus for example, a pupil with a functional condition that results in slower writing, might be given the concession of extra time to do an examination, rather than a shorter paper that would test the pupils’ ability within the same time-scale as everybody else. Therefore, there is little or no concession to any interpretation of inclusiveness and this is demonstrated by lack of differentiation. There is little differentiation by outcome whereby alternative outcomes to the norm might be accredited. There is little differentiation by activity whereby, for example, material might be adapted so that it can be accessed by AT application. There is little differentiation by direction whereby the material is structured to suit the individuals' cognitive and physical capacity, or his or her particular AT application.
Therefore, while technology has enormous potential to facilitate alternative models of learning experiences, as well as the mainstream curriculum, its exploitation is being limited because of this lack of differentiation and its perceived use will therefore be devalued.

This is compounded in practice by the current structure for making special provision for examinations. While our Department of Education and Science would probably argue that it is generous in its response to applications for special consideration for pupils with disabilities, such pupils are dependent on schools deciding on what the best solution might be for each individual and making a submission on their behalf. But, as I have argued, mainstream schools often lack the experience, expertise, insights or obligation necessary for deciding what the best solution might be, AT or otherwise.

It must be noted that pupils with visual and hearing impairments have a dedicated service and they are more accommodated in this regard. It must also be noted that these points have been highlighted and acknowledged by various Government agencies. As recently as last year, the Junior Cycle Review Report referred to the need for curriculum flexibility for pupils with special needs and an "Expert Advisory Group on Certificate Examinations" has recently reported to the Minster on "Arrangements for the Assessment of Candidates with Special Needs."

While this is a well-balanced discussion document that attempts to advise on special provision without compromising on the integrity of the system, it again raises the values question. In its opening paragraph it acknowledges the perceived importance and status of the Leaving Certificate and compares it to the Junior Certificate which is viewed as being "obviously of less importance." This leaves one wondering about those students with disabilities who will never sit the Leaving Certificate but for whom the Junior Certificate may be a realizable goal at a critical stage of their development.

The report outlines 13 principles on which special arrangements should be made. Number 3 states that: "Special arrangements should not put the integrity, status, or reputation of the examination at risk." This would be generally acceptable. However, principle 12 states that in certain circumstances, including where "…the method of examining has been significantly altered", that this "…should be indicated by the presence of an explanatory note on the candidate's certificate of results." You may consider why a pupil with a disability should be further labelled by a note on his or her Leaving Certificate, when the "…integrity, status, or reputation" of the examination has not been put at risk? Equally, might certain forms of assistive technology come under the definition of "…where the method of examination has been significantly altered"? If so, it is clear, as I have suggested, that this particular value system may militate against the adoption of AT.

Our values context will be reflected in our legislation. While the Education Act again offers great promise, there are numerous references to the need to have regard for "the resources available". The distribution of available resources will, of course, be largely determined by our values. I will refer to the Education Act again.
Our values, therefore, are part of the legacy environment in which AT provision must operate and the current values context must be viewed as an obstructionist element in relation to the realization of the potential of AT.

Top

3.2. The "Ethos Context".
Operating within the values context of the overall system is the ethos of the school in which the pupil is functioning, and the eventual success of AT will depend to a great extent on school management, ethos and attitudes towards inclusiveness for all pupils with unique needs. A "whole school approach" assumes an understanding and acceptance that all teachers are responsible for teaching pupils with unique needs and that meeting these needs is not the sole role of an individual speciality within the school or of an outside agency. Such a school will have management and accountability structures that will reflect this, and there will be an acceptance of difference.

This is not the situation in a large number of cases, with referrals arising from the insistence of parents, or from individual concerned teachers, rather than from case management. Often, where equipment is provided, the school ethos does not match the hopes of the individual concerned. In one such case that the project encountered recently in a Primary school, there is a girl who is unable to speak but is not allowed to use her computer to generate synthesised speech, as this is considered disturbing to the class!

This is also exemplified by the increasing trend towards teachers transferring responsibility to classroom assistants, even though the role of assistants is clearly defined by the Department. Where special provision for the pupils and the management of technology is viewed as an unwelcome burden by the school, the pupil will sense that prevailing ethos.

What should the role and response of AT providers be in relation to such circumstances? Will we just provide the equipment and consider the job done, or should we insist on a support plan where we know it is necessary for the intended use of the technology to be realized? Should we be involved formally in the development of such plans, in the briefing and skilling of staffs, and in the raising of awareness that might lead to a more accommodating ethos?

Top

3.3. The "Orientation Context"
The Orientation Context occurs where the pupil is faced with the prospect of a new technology that he or she may essentially view as an extension of themselves and part of their sense of identity. In this situation, the pupil will attempt to determine his or her position with regard to the technology, and family and peers will be crucial in this regard. Thus, the human factors involved such as peer-group acceptance, or how the pupil may perceive the technology as adding a further handicapping label to themselves, may determine the level of acceptance of the AT. While service providers may consider a device good enough if it does the job, how many of us, for example, will want to use a piece of assistive technology, such as glasses, that we consider to be ugly?

This is the vital area of matching people and technology and as it is being adequately discussed in other areas of these proceedings, I will not dwell on it further, other than to make one observation.

For many, assistive technology is viewed from an educational perspective and is associated with schools. Assistive technology must be viewed as a basic right in order to facilitate functional literacy and communication. In this regard, we must attempt to re-define our meaning of literacy for those who have functional barriers to achieving our conventional interpretation of its meaning. Digital literacy and communication must be put to the forefront as a basic need, and not merely as an aid to formal education.

Therefore, where the ethos context of a school may not be conducive to success, other approaches must be considered. In one particular case, for example, SOLAS SIP chose to ignore the school initially and concentrate on the home where the orientation process between the child, his family and the technology, was less tense and more likely to succeed.

Top

3.4. The "Transfer Context"
Finally, I will address the Transfer or Organisational context, with which SOLAS SIP is directly concerned. The transfer or organisational context includes the strategies, tactics and systems through which assistive technology is effectively transferred from being an abstract concept into a reality that helps to liberate an individual’s abilities.

The need for a structure such as this has long been highlighted. In 1993, the NCCA described the provision of computers for special needs as "urgently necessary" and the SERC report dealt with the matter extensively. In 1996, the Commission for the Status of People with Disabilities outlined how the lack of assistive technologies was a barrier to education and the Colgan Report further highlighted the situation in 1998. It is clear, therefore, that the mainstreaming policy has not been realistically supported in this regard. The policy of mainstreaming, without the necessary supports, puts further distance between disabled children and their counterparts, thus re-enforcing the handicapping condition.

There is an AT scheme in place since 1995, known as M11/95 from the reference of the Department of Education circular in which the details were issued. This governs current provision in the Second-Level sector, and there is no equivalent system for Primary Education. Without addressing the characteristics of the current system in detail, it is generally regarded as not being an adequate mechanism to supply the necessary AT provision, and is typical of many AT schemes in their earlier stages of development that do not contain a training or support element.

Currently, SOLAS SIP, in collaboration with CTS, is having a survey conducted on the efficiency of this system from the perspective of the users. While it is still in progress, I expect that it will highlight the large proportion of pupils in need that are not benefiting from it, the difficulties encountered by those who try to avail of it, and significant levels of unfulfilled potential where equipment was supplied.

Thankfully, the Education Act appears to now require the development of such "support structures", that are intended to ensure "…a level and quality of education appropriate to meeting the needs and abilities…" of pupils. As a Department funded project, SOLAS SIP must therefore consider itself to be piloting one of these potential structures.

In its engagement with approximately 60 pupils, including the provision of computers and internet access in their homes and through schools visits, the DATE and SOLAS projects were able to closely observe the situation of a representative cross section of Irish pupils with disabilities in relation to technology and its provision. This, along with the pedagogical background of the project, has had a large influence on its principles, and the CRC's CATA course also contributed to the development of these.

I will now briefly describe some of the themes and objectives that the project is attempting to address and the contextual factors that I have discussed will appear in varying degrees. Some of these are aspirational, as the project's ambitions are bigger than its budget and it some of its activities will be constrained by procedures over which it has no control.

As I have mentioned, the project is investigating the efficiencies of the current system, from the perspective of the pupils and schools, with a view to providing information to the Department and to act as a base-line for assessing the project's work.

SOLAS SIP is piloting a regionally-based structure, and as such is exploring a potential relationship with a central body that would have a role in standards and procedures, deal with more complex cases, carry out research and that would keep abreast of International developments. The project works proactively in identifying pupils that might need the service and sees awareness-raising as part of this. It believes that significant efficiencies could be achieved through the flexible regional supply, maintenance and re-use of equipment, and that the burden of maintenance and responsibility should be lifted from schools.
The project believes that where a school has a pupil with long-term needs, the main focus should be on providing skills to the school necessary to support the view that provision is basically that school's duty.

SOLAS SIP believes strongly in liasing with other education structures and service providers, both locally and nationally, and in this regard I wish to acknowledge the significant support provided to the project by our hosts at this conference, the Client Technical Services division of the Central Remedial Clinic.
The project does not have any clear distinction between the AT in relation to physical needs or learning needs. For example, in conjunction with the DATE Project, the University of Limerick and another SIP project called SPEAK, it is exploring the joint assessment and provision for pupils with both physical and learning needs.

Top

4. Conclusion
Finally, I will describe the very first case that the SOLAS SIP project formally dealt with, as I think it may illustrate some of the issues that I have raised and I am sure that it will provoke some thought.

Because of our policy of being proactive in identifying pupils, we became aware of a thirteen-year old girl, in a remote rural location, who had a significant physical impairment as well as a mild learning disability. She was not enrolled in any school and therefore could not strictly be provided with a service through present educational structures. However, it appeared an opportunity to do wonderful things. The project co-ordinator, Dana Swanton, accompanied by a local CPI service-provider, visited the child and met a family that was in obvious need of assistive technology, as well as many other services.
However, even though the child was clearly in need of the technology, we decided after much discussion and consultation, that we could not recommend it because the variety of complex contextual elements would inevitably determine that the technology would not work. In such a case, it would be a further unfulfilled promise for the family, a regressive experience for the child and a waste of public funds.

This pilot service was therefore challenged at a very early stage to make decisions at to whether, as an AT service provider in the educational sector, it should just be a provider of technology or whether it should be making collaborative decisions on the educational outcomes of technology interventions.

The assistive technology movement is at a formative stage in relation to education in Ireland. It must go beyond the "gadget stage", and not be content with the provision of equipment without regard of the consequences. It must not create false expectations that lead to unfulfilled promise. It must not allow technology to be a distraction from other needs and it must not allow the mere provision of technology to be used as a demonstration that funding and services are being provided.
A system of provision will inevitably develop with the growing demand and expectation, but such a system must be systemic in planning and organization, rather than systematic, and must consider all the contextual elements that eventually determine an outcome for the pupil.

Top