Uncategorized

Modern K-12 public libraries will offer intensely engaging learning environments to all students. How they will go about doing this is less certain but the principle trends are readily identified in various research efforts.

The goal of this post is not absolutely to regurgitate the details of high-brow research, but rather to summarize the key points, to paint a picture of what the libraries of the future will look like and how they will support students, teachers, administrators, and even parents.

The first thing to note is that students are going to have, at their disposal, a greater range of resources than ever before (and that is saying something). A principle goal of school libraries is inevitably to engage students and to provide them with skills necessary to effectively function in academic life. With the help of qualified libraries, students learn to independently research and expand their reading and writing via library resources.
Modern library resources, though, include a whole range of elements, from ebooks, to academic databases, to innovative programs that allow students to explore their creative inclinations, learn new skills, and apply their learning in innovative ways.

A key component of future libraries will be increased effectiveness as well as greater access to these types of elements. More K-12 public school libraries will learn to automate their resource management strategies and develop rewarding collaborative partnerships.

Teachers will likely see an increase in direct library supports for the classroom too. Research consistently shows evidence for the general finding that student with access to full-time, qualified librarians and to large library collections perform better in standardized tests for reading and writing.

Administrators are likely to see more return on their investment in library resources. Inevitably, the cost-efficiency of libraries is very likely to increase. This is a general trend in technology, anyway, with new technologies and features such as remote access to resources helping to reduce the general costs associated with library management. Librarians can readily expand their library resources without having to take up additional space.

Parents and students may very well enjoy better access to their public school libraries from home, too, since remote access is set to be a definite future trend. Perhaps most interesting, though, as I touched on before, is the expansion of partnerships. For instance, some public schools have taken to partnering with their local libraries and with online organizations such as Limitless Libraries and MyLibrary NYC. The latter is a major innovation launched in 2011 to essentially combine public library and school library resources for students in New York City, allowing students to request materials from any of the three public library systems that serve the area.

Anyone particularly following library trends and looking to remain up to date must also allow that there will be some further changes and shifts to come. Technology is an inevitably dynamic thing and it is having an impact on most things, education perhaps higher on the list than most.

The test for public school libraries will be the maintaining of a balance between access to resources – innovative access where possible – and managing associated costs. The good news, long-term, is that the future trends look set to help this balance, not hinder it. In the end, though, only time will really tell which trends stick among those that we are already noticing, and what new technologies will do for school libraries in the longer-term.

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

Equity in education has long been an ideal. It’s an ideal celebrated in a variety of contexts, too. Even the Founding Fathers celebrated education as an ideal, something to which every citizen ought to be entitled. Unfortunately though, the practice of equity in education has been less than effective. That is, equity is a difficult ideal to maintain and many strategies attempting to maintain it have fallen far short in the implementation.

The most obvious and horrendous element, of course, is the No Child Left Behind Act. But even Obama has notably dabbled in an attempt to manage equity in education. A 2013 report called, “For Each and Every Child”, reported that “some young Americans – most of them white and affluent – are getting a world-class education” while those who “attend schools in high poverty neighborhoods are getting an education that more closely approximates schools in developing nations.”

With this apparently the situation, the problem of ensuring that every child in the United States receives a quality education is quite a substantial one. This basic hurdle has not even been overcome.

The steps recommended by the government report to remedy this included having states specifically identify and report on the teaching staff, programs, and services they deem necessary for a quality education; and adopting and implementing a school finance system to provide “equitable and sufficient funding” for all students essentially to meet learning standards.

Part of the problem with these proposed solutions, though, is that they assume states and ultimately also schools can figure out what it is they need or what it is they need to do to provide a quality education. The assumption, based on this report and no doubt many others, is that money – preferably money poured into schools – is enough to solve educational issues. That is, reassignment of resources to support schools in poorer areas will be sufficient, along with some reporting on considered needs, to balance the public education system.

This is problematic because the issue of equity, and perhaps equality, is far more complex than this scenario allows. There are many elements at play, not just the immediate financial. Students in certain affluent areas have the benefit of the best teachers, given that it is highly desirable to have a placement in this area. It is also decidedly competitive to even try.

The first step is really for some determination to be made about how, under general circumstances, education can be made equitable to all students. Above all, this assessment should not directly involve teachers or administrators, whose assessment may be skewed, but rather the assessment should be through observation.

Second, the states should provide feedback on those programs and strategies that are most effective for equity building.

Finally, to maintain equity, if it is ever achieved, school systems need to have an approach for analyzing findings about recommended shifts in learning approaches and objectives. These approaches should be designed to help teachers and administrators understand not what they have to avoid but also what it is that they can do to achieve optimal equity moving forward.

It’s no secret that technology implementation in P-12 schools comes with some serious red tape. While American colleges and universities tend to be at the forefront of innovative ways of learning, childhood education lags seriously behind. A recent PBS study found that while 90 percent of P-12 classrooms have at least one computer, only 35 percent have tablets or electronic readers. The amount of policy writing that goes into allowing “new” technology like tablets, let alone the budget for them, makes it prohibitive for most schools to implement the equipment in reasonable time frames.

But what about technology that already exists in P-12 classrooms, but in less-flashy ways? Consider the database technology behind virtually every school system in the country. Schools have electronic storage of everything from basic address information of students to their in-class progress in an array of subjects. Schools often track other factors too like socioeconomic status and other defining features like racial background and family circumstances. This private data collection on students starts long before the traditional start of school. Early childhood programs in every state keep track of student information and progress too.

The problem with all of this data keeping is that the numbers are usually kept in isolation. Beginning with early childhood education, individual schools do not reach out to each other or across state lines when it comes to student progress and innovative teaching methods. In fact, a recent study released by The Early Childhood Collaboration found that Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation with a system for linking student data across all education programs, from early childhood learning through grade 12. Progressive California has absolutely no data linking programs in place and no plans to start one. As the report points out:

“Comprehensive and connected data on children, programs, and the workforce are used to track progress over time, pinpoint problems, identify underserved groups, and allocate limited resources.”

Despite such a treasure trove of data, student information seems to be recorded simply for posterity. It’s clearly not impossible to share the information (Pennsylvania does it) but states do not seem to be rushing to do it. Such an undertaking would certainly require an upfront cost which could be behind the hesitancy – but I wonder how much of the delay is simply the convenience of the status quo. Student data has always been collected for internal use, or to satisfy specific state requirements, so going above and beyond that is scary territory. How will schools find the manpower for the extra steps of sharing, and analyzing? Who will be in charge of storing the data? What about student privacy?

I understand the logic behind these questions but to me, these are all minor impositions. It has never been easier to connect all of the nation’s student data sets in order to build a better picture of what America’s P-12 student body looks like today, and set goals for improvement based on actual statistics. Like these databases, many education policies are created in isolation. What if the people who wrote those policies had a complete data set to inform their choices? How quickly would education legislation transform from theory to actionable plans based on fact?

The ECDC report recommends that states strengthen their abilities to securely link to student data amongst their schools, and to expand the information that is screened and collected. Some less tangible advice would be for educators and policymakers to realize the value of interconnected student information and begin to consider the true possibilities of combining that knowledge.

Would you support greater sharing of student data across schools, systems and states?

The latest international report on student knowledge and success worldwide once again paints U.S. pupils in a bad light. This is not the first time American students have lagged behind their peers on the OECD PISA global education survey that tests and compares student outcomes in areas like math, science and reading. The results are really just more of the same.

While I take issue with particular parts of the test (leader China reportedly only tested students in elite schools in Shanghai), it is a wake-up call nonetheless. When it comes to American K-12 student achievement, it is not enough to be a big fish in a little pond. To really make a splash and gain international footing, a few things need to change in U.S. K-12 education. Here are just a few:

Teacher support. This starts from administration in individual schools and extends into the community at large. Parents must also respect the role of teachers in order for kids to follow suit. Unfortunately many times teachers are pitted as servants, and not put on the pedestal they deserve. Perhaps I’m biased but what is more important than imparting knowledge to our next generation? Today’s best teachers are not simply reciting facts and expecting their students to regurgitate them; the teachers in contemporary classrooms are “showing their work” so to speak by imparting the life skills necessary for students to find answers on their own and be successful citizens in other ways.

Teachers need backup from the other people in their students’ lives and from their own colleagues and superiors. Traditionally high-performing PISA countries like Sweden, Australia and Japan all have one thing in common – high levels of community support for teachers and involvement from teachers in the course of instruction and curriculum. When new initiatives are handed down in the U.S., like the Common Core standards, teachers should have access to resources to help them reach goals. Teachers need more input in decisions, more access to continuing education resources and more faith from the administrators and families impacted by their classrooms.

STEM emphasis. There seems to be a general societal consensus that science, technology, engineering and math subjects are somehow boring, or uncool. A lot of attention has been placed lately on young women and finding ways to encourage them in male-dominated STEM fields, but I’d argue that young men need the same opportunities. Overall, more American students need to take an interest in STEM topics if we want to be able to compete on a global scale. The rapidly changing field of technology makes this part of U.S. K-12 education even more pressing. As the digital age continues to modify life as we know it, the students in today’s classrooms must have the tools to lead the country in discoveries, inventions and communication technology the coming decades.

Equal opportunities. In country that claims to be based on equality for all, there are still too many achievement gaps in our classrooms. While it should be a non-issue, the color of a student’s skin does seem to impact his or her academic achievement. It is not a direct effect, of course, but still something that needs even more focus to overcome. The best work on closing the achievement gap is in individual schools and I think that makes the most sense. No blanket national program will be able to answer all of the intricacies of why an achievement gap exists in a particular place or school. From a federal standpoint, however, schools should be encouraged to develop programs for eliminating achievement gaps and reaching individual students where it is most effective – their own classrooms.

Why do you think American students lag the rest of the world? What would you add to my list?

Click here to read all our posts concerning the Achievement Gap.

At its core, the American educational system is about democratization of knowledge for all students, regardless of their circumstances. In 2011, 22 percent of non-institutionalized adults with disabilities had less than a high school education. If this statistic was applied to the general population, my suspicion is that there would be an outcry to reform K-12 education to have better graduation results. But for students with disabilities, there is no shock or outrage and that is something that has to change. The key to improving the educational experience for students with disabilities is better accommodations in schools and continued improvements in assistive technology.

Assistive technology in K-12 classrooms, by definition, is designed to “improve the functional capabilities of a child with a disability.” While the word “technology” automatically conjures up images of cutting-edge electronics, some assistive technology is possible with just simple accommodations. Whether high-tech or simple in design, assistive technology has the ability to transform the learning experiences for the children who benefit.

With so much talk about mobile devices at K-12 desks and teaching technology for the majority of students, it can be easy to overlook the strides also being made for students with disabilities when it comes to assistive technology. Here’s a look at strides being made in some common assistive technology areas:

Alternative input devices: These tools are designed to allow students with disabilities to use computers and related technology easily. Some alternative input devices include touch screens, modified keyboards and joysticks that direct a cursor through use of body parts like chins, hands or feet. Some up-and-coming technology in this area is sip-and-puff systems, developed by companies like Microsoft, to perform computer functions through the simple process of inhaling and exhaling. On-screen keyboards are another area of input technology that is providing K-12 learners with disabilities better use of computers and mobile devices for learning.

Speech-to-text options: This technology is making mainstream waves through its use in popular cell phones like the Android-platform Razr M. While it is a convenience tool for people without disabilities, speech-to-text provides a learning advantage for students who have mobility or dexterity problems, or those who are blind. It allows students to speak their thoughts without typing and even navigate the Internet. speech-to-text options can also “talk back” to students and let them know about potential errors in their work.

Sensory enhancers: Depending on the disability, children may need to learn differently than their peers. Instead of ABCs and numbers first, a child with language hindrances may benefit from bright pictures or colors to learn new concepts. Sensory enhancers may include voice analyzers, augmentative communication tools or speech synthesizers. With the rapid growth of technology in the classroom, these basic tools of assistive technology are seeing great strides.

Screen readers: This technology is slightly different from text-to-speech because it simply informs students of what is on a screen. A student who is blind or struggling to see what is on the screen can benefit from the audio interface screen readers provide. Students who struggle to do what so many other Americans accomplish so easily – glean information from a computer screen in a matter of seconds – can learn more easily through technology meant to inform them.

Assistive technology is important for providing a sound education for K-12 students with disabilities but benefits the greater good of the country too. Nearly one-fourth of a specific student population is not being properly served and with so many technological advances, that’s a number I believe can drop. Assistive technology in simple and complex platforms has the ability to lift the entire educational experience and provide a better life foundation for K-12 students with disabilities.

Online learning is more than a fad. The facts are staggering: According to the International Association for K-12 Online Learning, there are nearly 1.9 million K-12 enrollments in online courses every school year, up from under 50,000 in 2000. The current number does not even include students enrolled in primarily online schools. Thirty-one states have full-time online schools that serve on a statewide basis.

The top reason that districts give for offering online options is for credit recovery, with 81 percent of urban schools citing this reason. Are online courses really equal to ones in the classroom though? It really depends who you ask. Recent news reports out of California show that high school graduation rates are at an all-time high of 78 percent, with even higher numbers in areas like San Francisco and San Jose. While some educators use these numbers to point to student success, critics say the rise in graduation numbers does not necessarily mean that students are college ready. The rise of online courses as a means to “make up” failed or incomplete classes are part of the reason more kids graduate – but do they know what they should?

It is of course impossible to answer that vague of a question but the debate rages on just the same. Just how rigorous is an online high school course? This is likely a cloudy area for those of us who grew up before the Internet forever changed the face of distance education. On a basic level, if a student reads the material, and is able to give correct answers on a test, that means he or she has “learned” the content. When an educator takes into account other influential factors like learning style, intelligence and work ethic, that basic definition becomes murky. The general consensus in the education community seems to be that even though online courses have merit, they are less rigorous than classroom settings.

Then there is the issue of online learning as an overarching ideology. Embracing the inevitability that online learning is a very real part of the average college education, the state of Florida began requiring in 2011 that high school students in the 24-credit graduation option to take at least one online course. The public, Internet-based Florida Virtual School leads the way in this innovation and is considered a national leader in the e-Learning model. So in this example, Florida is not simply offering online courses as a backup; the state mandates that students on a college prep path get early exposure to the type of learning they are likely to see in college.

This point really accents the two very different ways to look at online courses in K-12 education. On one hand, there is educational merit, though that education is debatable as to the actual extent of its effectiveness. On the other hand, there is the practicality aspect of exposing students to online learning long before the college years. The second point paints online learning as a life skill of sorts – something for kids to understand before entering the real world as adults, much like balancing a bank account or learning how to create a resume. Without a solid understanding of online learning before graduation, students are less prepared for what they will face academically following high school.

The K-12 online course dissenters are just wasting their breath, in my opinion. The momentum of online learning is gaining speed.

The educators I know love online courses, because they can teach online from anywhere. What are your thoughts?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here. 

In his State of the Union address last week, President Obama brought up the topic of universal Pre-K learning and praised the programs already in place in states like Florida, South Carolina and New Jersey. He connected Pre-K initiatives to his Race to the Top program that has the lofty goal of making the U.S. the worldwide leader in college attendees and graduates. His administration contends that the academic skill sets needed to reach that goal must have their foundation before Kindergarten and that the responsibility for that lies in public funding.

From an educator’s point of view, I’d say the President and his education advisors are right on. It’s no secret that the U.S. lags behind other developed nations when it comes to academics, particularly in areas like science and math. To compete as a nation on a global scale, this generation of K-12 (or P-12) students simply need to know more than their parents did as children. This fact has led to some passionate discourse both for and against more stringent academic standards that start in early childhood and extend into the college years.

Admittedly, universal Pre-K programs tend to benefit disadvantaged and at-risk students the most. Children from middle-to-high class socioeconomic backgrounds do not feel the positive effects of preschool as strongly as their low-income and minority peers. In families where at least one parent can be home with children in the early years, and able to do basic learning activities with them, the impact of Pre-K programs are virtually non-existent by the time the child is in mid-elementary school. Children that participate in play-oriented preschool programs but have attentive parents that expose them to minimal learning fare just as well, or better than, peers who attend regimented Pre-K programs.
Of course academics are not the only benefit to Pre-K programs.

Socialization and an idea of what to expect when the school years come along are also an integral part of the Pre-K process. Kindergarten used to be an adjustment year for children, but now kids who arrive in these classrooms are expected to know much more. Common Core standards exist at the Kindergarten level, with the expectation that these students will know how to read simple sentences competently, do basic addition and subtraction problems and understand basic time concepts. States that already have tax-funded Pre-K programs test Kindergartners and report back to the preschool provider the results. In some cases, future funding rests on whether or not the Pre-K program adequately prepared enough students for the academic rigors of Kindergarten.

So then the question becomes one of impact. Will universal learning at a younger age make a big enough difference long-term to justify the added cost and resources? How much time do children really need to learn what they will need to know to compete globally?

Parents seem to be split on the issue, with one side affirming the need for stronger academic standards and the other side bemoaning the difficulty of material their young children bring home from school. Districts throughout the country have listened to parents’ complaints when it comes to implementation of all-day Kindergarten (versus the traditional half-days) and some parents have even decided to homeschool their children because they so strongly disagree with the academic rigor. Given this cultural climate, I wonder what is to be expected when more states roll out Pre-K programs? Right now it is voluntary for families – but will that always be the case?

Is universal Pre-K a necessity – and if so, are American educators, parents and young students really ready for it?

There is a debate about equity in education that extends beyond zip codes, race and socioeconomic status and cuts right to the heart of something predetermined: sex. The controversy over whether or not single-sex schooling models actually make an academic difference is one that has raged for the better half of a century. Early reasons for separating young men and young women in their studies were simple enough – there was a cultural belief that removing the distraction of the opposite sex would lead to greater focus and higher academic gains. As the country moved away from the “separate but equal” mentality in all facets of life, the virtues of single-sex schooling faded too. In some eyes, separating young women and young men was not just pointless but was sexist.

The back-and-forth over single-sex schooling never completely faded from the educational landscape, though, and neither did all-girls or all-boys schools. In recent years, it seems that the argument FOR single-sex schooling is making a comeback for many of the same reasons it was born in the first place. Around 500 public schools in the U.S. now offer some form of all-girls or all-boys schooling, either in entirety or in individual classrooms. It is a fact that young women, even those who show strong propensities toward STEM topics, lose interest in math, science and affiliated fields around middle school. This is also a sensitive age where young women traditionally start to put more stock in what the opposite sex thinks about them. This is enough to make some people like former New York City mayoral hopeful

Christine Quinn spearhead campaigns to open public magnet middle schools for girls where they can pursue STEM topics without a loss of self-confidence around men.
But is the loss of interest in traditionally non-glamorous topics like engineering, science and math really related to the presence of the opposite sex? It seems that would be a simple answer but of course, nothing simple can ever be accepted at face value. This idea that young women are dropping non-feminine topics at an impressionable age because of the opposite sex is flawed.

It is possible that outside factors like parental influence weigh on what a young woman pursues as she gets older. This can be a direct effect when a parent steers a child in a certain direction, or it can be the indirect effect of seeing the roles a mother and father play in their own homes. If father is an engineer, and mother is a preschool teacher, it is possible that a young woman will relate more fully to her mother’s path, even if she has an interest like dad in engineering topics. A preschool teacher is a noble career, of course, but one that is also dominated by females. In 2011, only 2.3 percent of U.S. preschool teachers were male. In this example case, even a young woman who attends an all-girls STEM school may end up taking the young childhood education path for reasons that have nothing to do with her feelings about the opposite sex.

And what about LGBT students? The number of K-12 students who identify themselves as non-heterosexual in one way or another is rising. One of the arguments for single-sex schooling is that it takes away the tingly, budding attraction emotions in young people but it becomes irrelevant if a student has no interest in the opposite sex anyway.

The American Civil Liberties Union has even come out against single-sex schools, particularly in cases where those schools are public ones, in its “Teach Kids, Not Stereotypes” campaign. The ACLU believes that separating young women and young men is a slippery slope and one that could inadvertently bring unfair outcomes to the students. It seems that there must be a better way to encourage young women, and men, in their academic studies without implementing the archaic practice of total separation in classrooms.

Are you in favor of, or against, single-sex schooling models?

One of the education issues that President Obama has been the most vocal in reforming is America’s need to lead the world in number of college graduates. His administration’s Race to the Top initiative has already earmarked $4 billion for 19 states (serving 22 million K-12 students) to reform public education programs to improve technology, raise teacher accountability and heighten learning standards. Another 34 states have modified their laws to better reach these goals, and 48 states total have developed career and college-ready standards.

It all sounds good in a condensed summary, but upon closer review, Race to the Top has not had the intended impact. As the grant period comes to a close this summer, it is clear that reform has fallen short – particularly when it comes to student performance. A few areas that have not lived up to Race to the Top goals include:

College enrollment. While graduation rates are above target, the number of high school graduates enrolling in college or some other form of post-secondary learning has actually decreased. Proficiency on standardized testing nationwide has not risen as quickly as promised, either. There are exceptions, of course. North Carolina secured $400 million in 2010 to be used to advance public education through technology, teacher training and evaluation, changes in classroom standards and a focus on low-performing schools. The state still has about 25 million unspent dollars of the grant and is asking to extend the program by one more year. In 2013, the U.S. department of Education praised N.C’s progress.

Unused vouchers. In order to attract better teachers, Race to the Top grants are allowed to be used for vouchers created to lure high-performing teachers to low-performing schools. These vouchers have a relative amount of freedom-for-use attached, with vouchers being allowed to pay students loans, tuition, housing and other options. Unfortunately, many of these vouchers has gone unused by the districts. In 2012, only 35 of 106 schools eligible to receive bonuses for improved student performance received the extra $1,500 per teacher.

Poverty still too big a player. Many of the states receiving funding were targeted that way because of higher-than-average low-income students, or those living in poverty conditions that impacted their educations. The fact that Race to the Top does not address overemphasis on standardized testing and teacher accountability is a problem, according to people like Elaine Weiss of Broader, Bolder Approach to Education. Weiss’ group calls for better focus on poverty and the issues that accompany it, especially in urban classrooms, and believes that without that specialized attention in Race to the Top grants, the true problem of K-12 Americans becoming college graduates will never be addressed.

To be fair, the biggest grant-funded Race to the Top changes are largely unseen – at least so far. They are invisible to the general public. Some things are simply not cut-and-dry, or able to be seen in the short term. Some of the grant money that has been distributed has paid for summer institutes for teachers and principals where they were trained in the new Common Core standards.

Technology improvements like building Cloud infrastructures are still in infancy and have not truly been realized just yet. It is also too soon to see what positive changes recruiting high-quality personnel will have. In North Carolina, principals at underperforming schools have been replaced with better candidates to the tune of 87 percent. Race to the Top is not a failure; it has just not turned out to be the golden child of promise of its intention.

As the grant period comes to a close, it will be interesting to see if these issues are debugged and if more money is allocated.

[Tweet "Has Race to the Top impacted your state positively?"]

The concept of assistive technology to help special education students achieve more in K-12 classrooms is nothing new, but the portability of many of the devices is a relatively new trend that is making a big impact on the ways students with special needs learn. Assistive technology devices used to be big, clunky pieces of equipment that drew attention to learning and physical disabilities. Today, assistive devices are often the save types of technology K-12 students are using in traditional classrooms and there is a “coolness” factor in both instances.

The way that assistive technology looks is just one aspect of the effectiveness of the educational equipment, though. The use of assistive technology is also changing to provide students with more customized learning experiences. Studies show that dropout rates for special education students are on the decline – at least partially because the technology exists to keep these kids comfortable and in class longer than in the past.

Strides in Arizona

In December, the Arizona Department of Education announced a $260,000 federal grant among traditional public and charter schools in 12 districts to aid specifically with assistive education efforts. Through the grant, students with special needs can get personalized technology for iPads, notebook-size word processors and electronic pens that can scan words and display definitions. All of these efforts are intended to keep special education students in the K-12 system through graduation by having the technology to keep up in class.

This is not the first effort by the state to give an advantage to students with special learning needs. To help with the small technology budgets, the Education Department has an assistive-technology loan library on the Northern Arizona University campus. Last year, schools checked out over 2,000 items – ranging from pencil grips to iPads – to allow teachers and students to give the devices a trial run before the district made the purchase.
The assistive technology initiatives in Arizona district place traditional classroom inclusion on a pedestal with a heavy emphasis on technology. What administrators are finding is that non-verbal kids with devices prove they know a lot more than ever they themselves realize. Students with autism, cerebral palsy and other disorders that impair speech are reaping the benefits of these devices and feeling successful. Best of all: the students are developing better relationships with one another.

Autism and iPads

Depending who you ask, the iPad has varying effects on children with autism – but most parents and teachers would say that the device has made in-roads in their students’ attitude about learning. Experts at Apple say that iPads “cure” sensory overload and give autism children control, along with a way they can communicate effectively. Using less extreme language, researchers at Vanderbilt University say that speech-generating devices, like iPads, can encourage late-speaking children with autism spectrum disorders to speak, even from the ages of 5 to 8. In other words, the basic technology that is readily available in classrooms and many households is also effective in learning initiatives for children with a specific disorder that impacts traditional learning.

The iPad is just one example. E-readers with screen variance in size of font, brightness and even speaking command options make in-classroom learning possible for children with sight obstacles. Students who need extra help learning to read can spend that extra time with e-readers or computer programs that customize the experience. Students with physical disabilities can sit at a regular computer in a traditional classroom and use specific equipment or simply their voices to achieve the same academic results as their peers.

As assistive technology continues to integrate with typical technology, the students are the beneficiaries. The technology is not enough to keep them in their seats if they are not comfortable using it.

How has the assistive technology of the past few years had a positive impact in your classrooms?

Read all of our posts about EdTech and Innovation by clicking here.