|
|
AAC Testimony at The State House Special Education Hearings on October 16, 2007
|
___________________________________________________________
My name is Cynthia Reed. I am here to testify in support of S. 278. My son, Jantsen, is a 15 yr old boy with Autism. He is non-verbal and currently uses an augmentative communication device called a ChatPC. The ChatPC is a handheld device that looks like a PDA with an additional speech output synthesizer that makes it chunky. His ChatPC gives him a voice literally and allows him to communicate in ways that he never experienced prior to using it.
Jantsen’s path to his current strategies of communication has been hard fought. As a pre-schooler, he relied on family members to anticipate his needs. We introduced the use of industry standardized picture icons. We created situation specific menus to let him choose appropriate options by pointing to the picture icons and labeled everything that he used at home and in school to get him to understand his world. He would use these symbols to let us know what he wanted. But he was dependent upon us to be able to guess his wants and needs with the appropriate selection of icons.
In elementary school, due to his interest and skills in computers, we tried a primitive hand held device. It could be programmed to have a maximum of 128 picture icons, in total, at his command, effectively giving Jantsen a “vocabulary”—although quite limited. The machine was heavy and large enough to require him to use two hands to carry it. We, as parents, decided what icons would be included in the displays, printed the icons, recorded the messages for each icon and maintained the device. We, also, taught each new teacher/aide at school what the device was and how to use it. MessageMate gave Jantsen his first experience of asking for something that he wanted. Our family had the first experience of trying to help teachers learn to use and to encourage Jantsen’s use of an augmentative communication device. The special education teachers did not have experience or training to work with such devices.
In 4th grade, Jantsen moved to a new device, a ChatPC. The ChatPC had much greater capacity and complexity, so we taught Jantsen to navigate the 200 customized screens that gave him choices of over 2000 picture icons to communicate. Again, we had to instruct his teachers how to use the ChatPC. Jantsen had communication breakthroughs such as telling his teacher “I don’t like fish!” after completing a collage with fish in it. He doesn’t like sticky art projects!
Jantsen continued to learn sight words and expand his vocabulary, so we started to include written words with picture icons on his ChatPC. Eventually, we entered words alone as substitutes for icons. Simultaneously, Jantsen started working more and more from the keyboard on his device to spell words to us. He startled me one day spelling “Careful” then “Carefully” while I was driving.
For the past two years, Jantsen has relied almost exclusively on his keyboard to spell directly. He is encouraged to use full sentences as much as possible. He will ask for help when he doesn’t know how to spell something. His switch over to full use of the keyboard has been fast. It is something that we would not have been able to predict just a few years ago. He works hard to learn new words and now is developing longer sentence structure and memory. He enjoys being part of a group and holding court with his ChatPC. Following a dinner with extended family, he looked around at everyone, smiled, and typed “Family”. It brought tears to most and a toast from all at the table.
It is only now, with his keyboard skills and word acquisition, that he is truly able to voice his needs, wants, opinions in an authentic way. He surprises us with his suggestions. He delights us with his humor both telling jokes and saying something that is absolutely perfect for the moment. When asked if he would tell a joke while he was finishing his dessert, he responded “Just a minute please…” Even a simple act of courtesy, such as thanking a person for holding a door, is now part of his life. He has the capacity, expressed thru the ChatPC, to make spontaneous comments and to share ideas. He no longer is constrained by pre-programmed options.
Jantsen’s life as a non-verbal person sets him apart from most of his classmates. Given his progress to date, we expect that he will continue to make strides as his learning is enhanced by his communication skills. The key to understanding who Jantsen is and the obstacles he may face in the education system is to acknowledge his dependency on AAC, and then have teachers with the skills necessary to work with him in the classroom.
___________________________________________________________________
My name is Leslie Lockhart. I am here to testify in support of S. 278. This is my daughter, Julia, who turned 22 in Dec 2007. Julia has never used speech to communicate. She uses actions, gestures, some signs, a paper communication board and a computer. Although Julia is very good at communicating, a lot of people ignore her because they don’t know how to interact with someone who speaks with a voice output device or their hands. Sometimes people ask me if she understands what they’re saying because they don’t understand her mode of communication. Julia does understand very well and she appreciates it when people make the effort and take the time to understand her.
Julia attended public school in Newton from age 3 to 22 – 19 years of her education were in mainstream classes with an aide. Julia had many speech therapists and several AAC specialists, who helped develop communication boards and program her computer to communicate. And Julia had classroom aides who would help to implement the communication system. But throughout her years in the classroom, whether in elementary school, middle school, or high school, the classroom teachers often were frankly often at a loss with how to communicate with Julia because they usually had no training in augmentative and alternative communication methods. Many of the teachers were understandably intimidated by Julia’s AAC equipment—they did not know how her communication supports worked or how they could include Julia in class discussions. And as Julia’s mother, I had to wonder how a teacher could actually teach my daughter, if they could not communicate with her.
I realize this was no fault of the teachers, for they usually had no training or experience in methods of Augmentative and Alternative communication. However, communication does not happen in isolation. The teacher must have the skills necessary to implement methods and programs developed by the AAC expert, speech therapist, and in Julia’s case, the aides. Making augmentative and alternative communication successful for an individual requires practice every day and the understanding and participation of everyone (peers, aides, teachers, other students) in the individual’s environment. The classroom teacher is the most important person in the class, teaching and guiding the students. For the teacher to understand how to interact and support someone using AAC, training is essential. Julia did not get her computer and immediately become someone who spoke but with an artificial voice. It may take longer to say something with assistive technology and the volume and tone of the voice requires listeners to pay attention, especially in a classroom of students. The teacher is also a model for the students – if she is interacting with the assistive technology user appropriately, the students will follow her example. For an assistive technology user to be truly included in mainstream classes, teachers and students have to understand how to communicate with them. Even with a speaking computer, an individual may be virtually mute if no one listens to their voice because it takes longer or sounds different.
I urge you to support S. 278, so that teachers in the future will have the course work and practical experience necessary to communicate effectively and teach all the Commonwealth’s students with disabilities.
___________________________________________________________________
My name is Julia Lockhart. I attended Newton Public Schools until last December. I have cerebral palsy and don’t speak. I use a computer, a communication board and sign language to communicate. I need another way to communicate than sign language because I can only use my left hand, and it’s hard to make some of the signs.
I always had an aide in school who helped me get my computer and books out. My aide helped me to communicate. But sometimes the aide left and it was hard to get the teacher’s attention in a large class.
It was hard in math and biology because I had trouble understanding, and I couldn’t ask questions. I couldn’t write the question and have the computer speak it fast enough. Sometimes I felt angry when the teacher didn’t pay attention to me or hear my computer. I would have felt better in school and learned more if the teachers had understood how I communicate. Then I could have gotten answers to my questions and maybe been part of class discussions.
Please support S. 278 so all kids can be part of their classes and be heard.
Thank you.
Julia Lockhart
46 Clyde St
Newton, MA 02460
__________________________________________________________________
My name is Dr. Liz Fleming and I am presently Dean of the Faculty at Bay Path College.
How appropriate to be here today to testify in support of S.278, since this month has been designated by both the International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication and the United States Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communicatio as the first annual international AAC month. I am sure you all thought of this as you placed this bill on your schedule this month.
I have been in the field of education for over 30 years and have been in every role including professor, chairperson, program director, and assistant dean in the field of special education.
In Massachusetts, I have served on many task forces revising Massachusetts teacher licensure program, have been a past and current member on several Massachusetts Department of Education committees including MCAS-ALT, and co-initiated several new higher education graduate training programs, including a Masters and a Education Specialist degree in both assistive/special education technology and behavioral education. Additionally, at the national level, I am Co-Editor of a Journal for Teacher Educators and past Vice-President of the National Association of Alternative Certification.
All teachers must expect they will have the opportunity to work with students with special needs. IDEA, NCLB and our state special education law have created a focus of an increased presence of children with special needs in the general education classroom. Unfortunately, even in 2007 it is not uncommon for learners with moderate and severe communication challenges to enter our schools as kindergarteners and then first graders without having access to the conversational tools available to their current fellow classmates.
As a college practicum supervisor, I have seen learners who cannot use their voices to practices sounds and words, and these students were not given adapted reading equipment or computers. I have seen students having difficulty answering questions in class and participating in social conversations; and yet, they were not being provided with an AAC system for communication.
When I have asked the educators in the classroom about the use of a speech synthesizer, the responses from these educators were: “I am not sure what you are talking about”, or “Our computer is broken”. And sadly to say, more often than not, the response was “I didn’t know this was an option”.
As we all know, most instructional interactions in our classrooms rely on communicative responses. I shake my head and wonder how a teacher can teach without two way communication.
It is incomprehensible that in 2007 AAC equipment isn’t fully utilized or implemented in inclusive classes because general education and special education teachers currently lack the training and experience in AAC. We are overdue in requiring all educators to be skilled and trained in AAC.
Teachers of students with special needs who have utilized augmentative and alternative communication methods have long known that technology can come close to working miracles in bringing many learners with disabilities into the general education mainstream. All educators need to develop a depth of skills to work with learners who do not communicate in the current traditional way. We have only begun to understand the learning potential for learners with communication challenges. We need to make sure all educators in every school building have the skills to get the best from each learner to ensure that we will never hear stories like what you have just heard today from previous testimonies.
Teacher training programs can best serve teacher candidates in learning and understanding knowledge and skills in AAC by embedding instruction in methods and education field-based courses. We need to revise the Massachusetts education licensure regulations to ensure that all educators, including teachers of special education and general education, specialists and administrators receive sufficient coursework and practical experience in methods of augmentative and alternative communication so that they can facilitate interaction of learners who are nonverbal or have limited speech and ensure access to the general education curriculum in inclusionary settings.
Linda Darling-Hammond's simplistic, yet profound observation addresses the basis of reform in teacher education today. “What teachers know and can do makes the most difference in what children learn”.
___________________________________________________________________
Testimony in Support of S. 278
An Act to Improve Augmentative and Alternative Communication Opportunities for Students with Disabilities
October 16, 2007
My name is Julia Landau. I am the Director of the Autism Special Education Legal Support Center and the Disability Education Justice Project at Massachusetts Advocates for Children (MAC).
The impetus for this legislation stemmed from our work in the Autism Center, representing children on the spectrum who are nonverbal or who limited speech, and you heard the needs of such children described quite eloquently by Cynthia Reed today. The impetus for this bill also came from our work in the Disability Justice Project where we represent the interests of children with a range of disabilities who rely on AAC, as Julia Lockhart herself testified so powerfully.
Frankly, we filed this bill in the hopes that in the future we will improve outcomes for students with significant disabilities, and frankly diminish the need for advocacy and litigation. As you heard from the previous panelists, many students do not even receive devices necessary to communicate because so many teachers have not received sufficient training regarding Augmentative and Alternative Communication.
Think about what happens to children who do not have parents with economic resources, educational background, and English skills like Cynthia and Leslie? What happens to children who don’t have parents who can go out on their own, arrange for communication specialists to develop AAC methods for their children and then train the teachers themselves?
Think about the unlocked, wasted potential of those children.
Furthermore, when attorneys and advocates get involved and advocate successfully for a child’s need for AAC equipment, too frequently the AAC device remains in the classroom unutilized , gathering dust, or not fully utilized because special and regular education teachers, due to no fault of their own, have not received adequate training about Augmentative and Alternative Communication methods.
Our vision and hope is that with enactment and implementation of this bill, we won’t have to expend advocacy resources trying to enforce the rights of a child who is nonverbal or has limited speech—because all educators will have the experience and training necessary to recognize the student’s potential.
|
|
|
