youtube videos youtube videos a cash kart a cash kart acash kart acash kart a cashkart a cashkart Om laxmi matha neve kalavu... Welcome To arecblog.blogspot.com Network This Blog is made for affiliate marketing and YouTube videos . Affiliate Marketing :is a referring companies products...when you buy the products by given links ,the companies website will open and when you make a purchase we get commission... Our blog has multiple services: search engine,YouTube,affiliate marketing,google ads Youtube Link: our blog a cash kart. com our YT traditionalone our YT traditional-video Standard Charges Apply Scan or Download QR and pay per month : 1,500/- Rs - 20 USD These charges for making more and more videos.. try to Donate to improve website and post more videos... invest.... .. you will become a and channels sponsore This charges for arecblog network websites click the below links and get purchase yo...
Assistive technology—from visual timers to help students with learning differences keep track of their schedules to digital captioning software for those with hearing difficulties—can improve outcomes for students in special education if states and districts take full advantage of those tools, concludes guidance released recently by the U.S. Department of Education.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—the main federal law governing special education—has long required school teams developing an Individualized Education Program for students in special education to consider if assistive technology is needed to provide a particular student with a quality education, said Glenna Wright-Gallo, the assistant secretary in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in an email.
But this is the first time the department has released guidance on how assistive technology relates to the special education law. That’s partly because schools have come to rely so much more on technology for teaching and learning, Wright-Gallo said.
“As the pace of advancement, access, and use of education technology rapidly increases, there is a need to provide information about how to meet the requirements of” the special education law with respect to assistive technology, Wright-Gallo said.
What’s more, “since the pandemic accelerated schools’ and workplaces’ use of technology to provide opportunities for online and hybrid learning and work, there remains an ongoing need to ensure that technology devices and platforms are accessible to the needs of all students, including those with disabilities,” she added.
The guidance, released last month, is aimed at parents, specialists who provide services to babies and toddlers at risk of developmental delays, special educators, general educators, school and district leaders, technology specialists and directors, and state education officials, Wright-Gallo said.
It seeks to knock down misconceptions—what the guidance calls “myths”—about assistive technology.
For instance, the guidance:
The guidance also makes it clear that schools and districts aren’t alone in researching assistive technology. They can reach out to their local Assistive Technology program—there’s one in every state and territory—for help in figuring out which devices might work in a particular student’s situation, testing devices out, seeing assistive tech demonstrations, or financing devices.
That provision will “encourage states and districts to really better explore the ways to ensure that students with disabilities access the assistive technology that they need,” said Audrey Busch, the executive director of the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs, a nonprofit. The association represents state assistive technology programs nationally.
The department intentionally released the guidance on Jan. 22 alongside the National Education Technology plan.
That plan emphasizes how technology can help tailor instruction for all students—not just those who receive special education services—using the principles behind Universal Design for Learning. UDL is a strategy that encompasses a wide set of teaching techniques, allowing multiple ways for teachers to present information and for students to engage in lessons and demonstrate what they know.
Releasing the guidance at the same time as the national tech plan was meant to “promote accessibility and address divides in digital use, design, and access,” Wright-Gallo said. “We know that the use of accessible technology and [assistive tech] can transform learning, reduce barriers, and improve outcomes for students with disabilities of all ages.”
Taken together, the national technology plan and the assistive technology guidance “really present a holistic vision of how we need to think about education and technology in our schools,” said Lindsay Jones, the CEO of CAST, a nonprofit education research and development organization that created the Universal Design for Learning framework. “I think that by showing how all sorts of people use technology, you will decrease the stigma on those who are using” assistive technology.
sourceUsing TechindiaUsing TechchinaUsing TechusaUsing Tech
CanadaUsing TechkuwaitUsing TechAntigua and Barbuda
Using TechArgentinaUsing TechArmenia
Using Tech
Australia
Using TechAustria
Using TechAustrian Empire*
Azerbaijan
Using TechBaden*
Bahamas, The
Using TechBahrain
Using TechBangladesh
Using TechBarbados
Using TechBavaria*
Using TechBelarus
Using TechBelgium
Using TechBelize
Using TechBenin (Dahomey)
Using TechBolivia
Using TechBosnia and Herzegovina
Using TechBotswana
Using TechBrazil
Using TechBrunei
Using TechBrunswick and Lüneburg*
Using TechBulgaria
Using TechBurkina Faso
Using TechBurma
Using TechBurundi
Using TechCabo Verde
Using TechCambodia
Using TechCameroon
Using TechCanada
Using TechCayman Islands, The
Using TechCentral African Republic
Using TechCentral American Federation*
Using TechChad
Using TechChile
Using TechChina
China
Using TechColombia
Using TechComoros
Using TechCongo Free State, The*
Using TechCosta Rica
Using TechCote d’Ivoire
Using TechCroatia
Using TechCuba
Using TechCyprus
Using TechCzechia
Using TechCzechoslovakia*
Using TechDemocratic Republic of the Congo
Using TechDenmark
Using TechDjibouti
Using TechDominica
Using TechDominican Republic
Using TechDuchy of Parma, The*
Using TechEast Germany German Democratic Republic*
Using TechEcuador
Using TechEgypt
Using TechEl Salvador
Using TechEquatorial Guinea
Using TechEritrea
Using TechEstonia
Using TechEswatini
Using TechEthiopia
Using TechFederal Government of Germany *
Using TechFiji
Using TechFinland
Using TechindiaUsing TechchinaUsing TechusaUsing Tech
CanadaUsing TechkuwaitUsing TechAntigua and Barbuda
Using TechArgentinaUsing TechArmenia
Using Tech
Australia
Using TechAustria
Using TechAustrian Empire*
Azerbaijan
Using TechBaden*
Bahamas, The
Using TechBahrain
Using TechBangladesh
Using TechBarbados
Using TechBavaria*
Using TechBelarus
Using TechBelgium
Using TechBelize
Using TechBenin (Dahomey)
Using TechBolivia
Using TechBosnia and Herzegovina
Using TechBotswana
Using TechBrazil
Using TechBrunei
Using TechBrunswick and Lüneburg*
Using TechBulgaria
Using TechBurkina Faso (Upper Volta)
Using TechBurma
Using TechBurundi
Using TechCabo Verde
Using TechCambodia
Using TechCameroon
Using TechCanada
Using TechCayman Islands, The
Using TechCentral African Republic
Using TechCentral American Federation*
Using TechChad
Using TechChile
Using TechChina
China
Using TechColombia
Using TechComoros
Using TechCongo Free State, The*
Using TechCosta Rica
Using TechCote d’Ivoire
Using TechCroatia
Using TechCuba
Using TechCyprus
Using TechCzechia
Using TechCzechoslovakia*
Using TechDemocratic Republic of the Congo
Using TechDenmark
Using TechDjibouti
Using TechDominica
Using TechDominican Republic
Using TechDuchy of Parma, The*
Using TechEast Germany
Using TechEcuador
Using TechEgypt
Using TechEl Salvador
Using TechEquatorial Guinea
Using TechEritrea
Using TechEstonia
Using TechEswatini
Using TechEthiopia
Using TechFederal Government of Germany *
Using TechFiji
Using TechFinland
Assistive technology—from visual timers to help students with learning differences keep track of their schedules to digital captioning software for those with hearing difficulties—can improve outcomes for students in special education if states and districts take full advantage of those tools, concludes guidance released recently by the U.S. Department of Education.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—the main federal law governing special education—has long required school teams developing an Individualized Education Program for students in special education to consider if assistive technology is needed to provide a particular student with a quality education, said Glenna Wright-Gallo, the assistant secretary in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in an email.
But this is the first time the department has released guidance on how assistive technology relates to the special education law. That’s partly because schools have come to rely so much more on technology for teaching and learning, Wright-Gallo said.
“As the pace of advancement, access, and use of education technology rapidly increases, there is a need to provide information about how to meet the requirements of” the special education law with respect to assistive technology, Wright-Gallo said.
What’s more, “since the pandemic accelerated schools’ and workplaces’ use of technology to provide opportunities for online and hybrid learning and work, there remains an ongoing need to ensure that technology devices and platforms are accessible to the needs of all students, including those with disabilities,” she added.
The guidance, released last month, is aimed at parents, specialists who provide services to babies and toddlers at risk of developmental delays, special educators, general educators, school and district leaders, technology specialists and directors, and state education officials, Wright-Gallo said.
It seeks to knock down misconceptions—what the guidance calls “myths”—about assistive technology.
For instance, the guidance:
The guidance also makes it clear that schools and districts aren’t alone in researching assistive technology. They can reach out to their local Assistive Technology program—there’s one in every state and territory—for help in figuring out which devices might work in a particular student’s situation, testing devices out, seeing assistive tech demonstrations, or financing devices.
That provision will “encourage states and districts to really better explore the ways to ensure that students with disabilities access the assistive technology that they need,” said Audrey Busch, the executive director of the Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs, a nonprofit. The association represents state assistive technology programs nationally.
The department intentionally released the guidance on Jan. 22 alongside the National Education Technology plan.
That plan emphasizes how technology can help tailor instruction for all students—not just those who receive special education services—using the principles behind Universal Design for Learning. UDL is a strategy that encompasses a wide set of teaching techniques, allowing multiple ways for teachers to present information and for students to engage in lessons and demonstrate what they know.
Releasing the guidance at the same time as the national tech plan was meant to “promote accessibility and address divides in digital use, design, and access,” Wright-Gallo said. “We know that the use of accessible technology and [assistive tech] can transform learning, reduce barriers, and improve outcomes for students with disabilities of all ages.”
Taken together, the national technology plan and the assistive technology guidance “really present a holistic vision of how we need to think about education and technology in our schools,” said Lindsay Jones, the CEO of CAST, a nonprofit education research and development organization that created the Universal Design for Learning framework. “I think that by showing how all sorts of people use technology, you will decrease the stigma on those who are using” assistive technology.
sourceUsing TechindiaUsing TechchinaUsing TechusaUsing Tech
CanadaUsing TechkuwaitUsing TechAntigua and Barbuda
Using TechArgentinaUsing TechArmenia
Using Tech
Australia
Using TechAustria
Using TechAustrian Empire*
Azerbaijan
Using TechBaden*
Bahamas, The
Using TechBahrain
Using TechBangladesh
Using TechBarbados
Using TechBavaria*
Using TechBelarus
Using TechBelgium
Using TechBelize
Using TechBenin (Dahomey)
Using TechBolivia
Using TechBosnia and Herzegovina
Using TechBotswana
Using TechBrazil
Using TechBrunei
Using TechBrunswick and Lüneburg*
Using TechBulgaria
Using TechBurkina Faso
Using TechBurma
Using TechBurundi
Using TechCabo Verde
Using TechCambodia
Using TechCameroon
Using TechCanada
Using TechCayman Islands, The
Using TechCentral African Republic
Using TechCentral American Federation*
Using TechChad
Using TechChile
Using TechChina
China
Using TechColombia
Using TechComoros
Using TechCongo Free State, The*
Using TechCosta Rica
Using TechCote d’Ivoire
Using TechCroatia
Using TechCuba
Using TechCyprus
Using TechCzechia
Using TechCzechoslovakia*
Using TechDemocratic Republic of the Congo
Using TechDenmark
Using TechDjibouti
Using TechDominica
Using TechDominican Republic
Using TechDuchy of Parma, The*
Using TechEast Germany German Democratic Republic*
Using TechEcuador
Using TechEgypt
Using TechEl Salvador
Using TechEquatorial Guinea
Using TechEritrea
Using TechEstonia
Using TechEswatini
Using TechEthiopia
Using TechFederal Government of Germany *
Using TechFiji
Using TechFinland
Using TechindiaUsing TechchinaUsing TechusaUsing Tech
CanadaUsing TechkuwaitUsing TechAntigua and Barbuda
Using TechArgentinaUsing TechArmenia
Using Tech
Australia
Using TechAustria
Using TechAustrian Empire*
Azerbaijan
Using TechBaden*
Bahamas, The
Using TechBahrain
Using TechBangladesh
Using TechBarbados
Using TechBavaria*
Using TechBelarus
Using TechBelgium
Using TechBelize
Using TechBenin (Dahomey)
Using TechBolivia
Using TechBosnia and Herzegovina
Using TechBotswana
Using TechBrazil
Using TechBrunei
Using TechBrunswick and Lüneburg*
Using TechBulgaria
Using TechBurkina Faso (Upper Volta)
Using TechBurma
Using TechBurundi
Using TechCabo Verde
Using TechCambodia
Using TechCameroon
Using TechCanada
Using TechCayman Islands, The
Using TechCentral African Republic
Using TechCentral American Federation*
Using TechChad
Using TechChile
Using TechChina
China
Using TechColombia
Using TechComoros
Using TechCongo Free State, The*
Using TechCosta Rica
Using TechCote d’Ivoire
Using TechCroatia
Using TechCuba
Using TechCyprus
Using TechCzechia
Using TechCzechoslovakia*
Using TechDemocratic Republic of the Congo
Using TechDenmark
Using TechDjibouti
Using TechDominica
Using TechDominican Republic
Using TechDuchy of Parma, The*
Using TechEast Germany
Using TechEcuador
Using TechEgypt
Using TechEl Salvador
Using TechEquatorial Guinea
Using TechEritrea
Using TechEstonia
Using TechEswatini
Using TechEthiopia
Using TechFederal Government of Germany *
Using TechFiji
Using TechFinland