Voting+Results

** Region 3- Voting Results on the Relative Importance of the Barrier ** Generated by the participants at the Region 3 CoLab in September 2010, at Allegan Area ESA

===Triggering Question: "What are barriers for your region to what "ought to be done" to create a sustainable model of assistive technology to support students in accessing and progressing in the general education curriculum?" ===

** 6: **// (16 Votes) // LACK OF FORMALIZED APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTING TECH INTO THE CLASSROOM ** 16: **// (15 Votes) // LACK OF PD FOR ALL STAFF - GEN ED AND SPEC ED - IN ASSISTIVE TECH ** 21: **// (11 Votes) // LACK OF A DATA COLLECTION SYSTEM TO ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ASSISTIVE TECH ** 14: **// (10 Votes) // UNDERSTANDING ASSISTIVE TECH IS A TOOL TO ENGAGE STUDENT PARTICIPATION ** 22: **// (9 Votes) // STAFF FEELING OVERWHELMED WITH NEW REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS ** 18: **// (8 Votes) // INSUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR ASSISTIVE TECH DEVICES AND ESPECIALLY FOR PD/TRAINING ON THE DEVICE ** 33: **// (6 Votes) // THE INADEQUACIES OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF TECH AVAILABLE IN SOME SCHOOLS ** 11: **// (4 Votes) // IDENTIFYING STAKEHOLDERS TO IMPLEMENT A SUSTAINABLE MODEL ** 1: **// (3 Votes) // A LACK OF VESTED INTEREST FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS ** 2: **// (3 Votes) // TIME TO IMPLEMENT TRAINING FOR STAFF, PARENTS, AND STUDENTS ** 35: **// (3 Votes) // DIFFERENT VIEWS ON HOW MUCH ASSISTIVE TECH SHOULD BE PERMITTED FOR USE BY STUDENTS ** 7: **// (2 Votes) // LACK OF COLLABORATION BETWEEN ASSISTIVE TECH CONSULTANTS AND CONSULTANTS FOR RTI AND THE CURRICULUM CONSULTANTS ** 8: **// (2 Votes) // LACK OF A CONSISTENT PROCESS FOR IDENTIFYING AND DELIVERING ALTERNATIVE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS ** 10: **// (2 Votes) // THE PERPETUATION OF THE 'EXPERT' MODEL ** 29: **// (2 Votes) // WE LACK TEAMS TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSISTIVE TECH ** 3: **// (1 Votes) // DIFFERING VIEWS OF A CHILD'S POTENTIAL ** 12: **// (1 Votes) // DIFFERING VIEWS REGARDING THE LEVEL OF NEED/ EXPERTISE FOR ASSISTIVE TECH PERSONNEL ** 13: **// (1 Votes) // NOT ENOUGH STAFF TO SUPPORT TECH ** 17: **// (1 Votes) // WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION GEN EDUCATORS MISUNDERSTANDING OR POTENTIALLY NEGATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF THE ROLE OF ASSISTIVE TECH ** 19: **// (1 Votes) // LACK OF EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT ASSISTIVE TECH DEVICES AND SYSTEMS ** 37: **// (1 Votes) // THE TIME ELEMENT REQUIRED FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ** 48: **// (1 Votes) // LACK OF STAFF'S EMPOWERMENT AND PASSION TO STATE THEIR WANTS AND NEEDS ** 54: **// (1 Votes) // HIT AND RUN ** 55: **// (1 Votes) // LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF GENERAL ED TEACHERS FOR SPECIAL ED STUDENTS AND THEIR DIFFERENTIATED NEEDS ** 4: **// (0 Votes) // NO SENSE OF URGENCY ** 5: **// (0 Votes) // MISUNDERSTANDING OR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE REGARDING DIFFERENTIATION AMONG STUDENT POPULATIONS ** 9: **// (0 Votes) // [DELETE] LACK OF COLLABORATION TO ENSURE ONGOING EFFECTIVENESS OF ASSISTIVE TECH ** 15: **// (0 Votes) // ACCESS TO TEACHING STAFF FOR PD  ** 20: **// (0 Votes) // THE TEACHERS UNWILLINGNESS TO ALLOW STUDENTS TO USE ASSISTIVE TECH DUE TO FAIRNESS ISSUE ** 23: **// (0 Votes) // [DELETE] CONFLICT BETWEEN OLD SCHOOL AND NEW SCHOOL IDEAS ON HOW TO DELIVER CURRICULUM ** 24: **// (0 Votes) // SOME INFLEXIBILITY BY STAFF BECAUSE ASSISTIVE TECH ADAPTATIONS MAY BE PERCEIVED AS MORE WORK ** 25: **// (0 Votes) // THE DIFFICULTY IN DEALING WITH PARENTS WHO ARE INDIFFERENT TO TRAINING AND EDUCATION ** 26: **// (0 Votes) // THE LACK OF ACCESSIBILITY TO QUALITY STUDENT LITERATURE AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL ** 27: **// (0 Votes) // THE NEED FOR FOCUSED COLLABORATION ** 28: **// (0 Votes) // LACK OF COLLABORATION WITH OUR STATES STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AND WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE ACCOMMODATIONS ** 30: **// (0 Votes) // THE PRESENCE OF A DEFENSIVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISTRICTS AND FAMILIES ** 31: **// (0 Votes) // LACK OF INCLUSION MODEL - WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND HOW IT IS SUPPORTED ** 32: **// (0 Votes) // NO CLEAR PATH ** 34: **// (0 Votes) // LIMITATIONS BY STATE AND FEDERAL USE OF FUNDS ** 36: **// (0 Votes) // LACK OF ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION AFTER TRAINING ** 38: **// (0 Votes) // LIMITED USE OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF PD  ** 39: **// (0 Votes) // LACK OF AN ORGANIZED DATABASE FOR ACCESSIBLE CURRICULUM MATERIALS ** 40: **// (0 Votes) // THE LACK OF PHYSICAL SPACE, TIME, AND FLEXIBILITY WITHIN SCHOOLS FOR EFFICIENT USE OF TECH ** 41: **// (0 Votes) // INADEQUATE TRAINING OF PROVIDERS - SCHOOL TO HOME ** 42: **// (0 Votes) // BURN-OUT ** 43: **// (0 Votes) // MINIMAL USE OF A THOROUGH DECISION-MAKINNG PROCESS ** 44: **// (0 Votes) // CONFLICT BETWEEN GEN ED AND SPECIAL ED  ** 45: **// (0 Votes) // FAILURE FOR ALL PLAYERS TO PLAY NICELY ** 46: **// (0 Votes) // INADEQUATE LEVEL OF EVALUATION TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT ** 47: **// (0 Votes) // NEGATIVE PERCEPTION BY OTHERS OR STIGMA BY STUDENTS THEMSELVES WHO NEED TO USE THE ASSISTIVE TECH IN GEN ED CLASSROOMS ** 49: **// (0 Votes) // ABSENCE OF MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS ** 50: **// (0 Votes) // POOR COMMUNICATION ** 51: **// (0 Votes) // STAFF CHANGES ** 52: **// (0 Votes) // PROCESS ORIENTED VS. CONTENT ORIENTED INSTRUCTION ** 53: **// (0 Votes) // [DELETE] LACK OF AVAILABLE TECH

Total Votes Cast: 105