Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014
Full Report
By National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials
Published: 2014
National Center on AEM at CAST; 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3; Wakefield, MA 01880-3233
Voice: (781) 245-2212 TTY: (781) 245-9320 Fax: (781) 245-5212 Web: http://aem.cast.org
The content of this document was developed under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, #H327Z140001. However, this content does not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Project Officer: Michael Slade, Ed.D.
National Center on AEM at CAST; 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3; Wakefield, MA 01880-3233
Voice: (781) 245-2212 TTY: (781) 245-9320 Fax: (781) 245-5212 Web: http://aem.cast.org
National Center on AEM at CAST; 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3; Wakefield, MA 01880-3233
Voice: (781) 245-2212 TTY: (781) 245-9320 Fax: (781) 245-5212 Web: http://aem.cast.org
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.
National Center on AEM at CAST; 40 Harvard Mills Square, Suite 3; Wakefield, MA 01880-3233
Voice: (781) 245-2212 TTY: (781) 245-9320 Fax: (781) 245-5212 Web: http://aem.cast.org
National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials. (2014). Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved [insert date] from http://aem.cast.org/about/publications/2004/ncac-background-knowledge-udl.html
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014 | 2
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014 | 3
Table of Contents
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014 4
Executive Summary 4
Purpose and Data Collection 4
Analysis and Reporting 5
Summary of Key Findings 5
Notable Areas of Progress from 2010 to 2014 6
Additional Areas in Which the AIM TTA States Reported Progress 7
Areas in which Greater Progress is Needed for All States 8
Recommendations 9
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 12
PART II: METHODOLOGY 13
Instrumentation: 13
Respondents: 14
Recruitment of Respondents: 14
Assurances of Confidentiality and Anonymity: 15
Data Collection: 15
Analysis of the Results: 15
PART III: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 17
SECTION 1: DEVELOPMENT OF SYSTEMS FOR THE PROVISION OF ACCESSIBLE INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS (AIM) 18
SECTION 2: TIMELY MANNER 25
SECTION 3: COLLABORATION 27
SECTION 4: WRITTEN GUIDELINES 36
SECTION 5: LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 41
SECTION 6: SYSTEMATIC DATA COLLECTION AND USE 46
SECTION 7: ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES 57
SECTION 8: OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION OF AIM 62
PART 4: SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 65
Areas of Progress from 2010 to 2014 65
Additional Areas in Which the AIM TTA States Reported Progress 68
Areas in Which Greater Progress is Needed for All States 68
RECOMMENDATIONS 70
Actionable Recommendations for SEAs and LEAs 71
Recommendations for the National Center on AEM for Learning 73
Actionable Recommendations for OSEP 74
Appendix: Critical Components of Quality Indicators for the Provision of Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) 75
Critical Components of Quality Indicators for the Provision of Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) 75
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014 | 3
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014
Status of State Systems for the Provision of NIMAS/AIM in 2014 | 3
Executive Summary
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the U.S. Department of Education has charged the National Center on Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM Center) with developing and reporting national snapshots of the current status of state systems to ensure the timely provision of accessible instructional materials (AIM)[1] to students with disabilities who require such materials (34 C.F.R.§300.172(b)). To inform these snapshots, the AIM Center developed a survey aligned to the seven areas of the Critical Components of Quality Indicators for the Provision of Accessible Instructional Materials (see Appendix A of the full report) as well as collaboration across all areas. The first administration of the survey took place in 2010, the second administration in 2012, and the final administration in 2014. A total of 52 respondents completed the 2014 survey, including designees from each of 49 states and designees from three additional educational entities. To ensure anonymity, all respondents are referred to as “states,” “respondents,” or “participants” throughout this report.
Purpose and Data Collection
The main purpose of the 2014 survey was to gather data to assist with the development of the snapshot by identifying areas of progress as well as areas of continuing challenge in the development and implementation of coordinated systems to ensure the timely delivery of AIM to students served under IDEA, both those who meet copyright criteria as well as others who need such materials. Quantitative data were gathered by questions requiring a single response (forced choice) and by questions allowing the selection of all items that apply (multiple answers). Quantitative data were analyzed by tabulation of the aggregate responses from the entire sample and calculation of the percentage of responses that were received for each option in the response array. Responses were compared, when possible, across 2010, 2012, and 2014 data sets to determine areas where change had occurred and where ongoing focused attention and support is needed.
Analysis and Reporting
Data from the 2014 administration of the survey were analyzed and reported in two groups: 1) all states and 2) a disaggregated sub-set of 10 states receiving intensive targeted technical assistance (TTA)[2] from the AIM Center. To focus attention on the national picture of the implementation of AIM/NIMAS, the first, all states group, consists of all 52 entities that responded to the survey, including the 10 states that received intensive, targeted technical assistance. Data submitted by the total sample in 2014 were compared to data submitted by the total sample in the 2010 and 2012 survey administrations. This group is referred to in the report as “All states.” To assist with determining the impact of intensive, targeted technical assistance, the second group includes only the disaggregated data submitted by the 10 states that have received intensive TTA from the AIM Center. Data submitted by these 10 states in 2014 were compared to data submitted by the same states in 2010 and 2012. This group is referred to in the report as “AIM TTA states.” Data sets for each group were primarily compared within the group across the three administrations of the survey. However, when pertinent, differences were noted between “All states” and “AIM TTA states” and those differences are also mentioned in the report.
Summary of Key Findings
Data across the three survey administrations suggest that progress has been made by states in the development of coordinated systems for the timely provision of AIM to students with disabilities. In some areas, particular progress is apparent among the states that have received targeted technical assistance (TTA) from the AIM Center over the past four years. In 2014, high percentages of respondents in both the total sample (75%) and the disaggregated AIM TTA states group (100%) reported that their state’s current implementation of AIM is much better or better than it was five years ago. While advancements have been made, there are still a number of areas in which additional work is necessary. It is both noteworthy and realistic that only a small percentage of respondents in the total sample (8%) and AIM TTA states (10%) reported that their state’s current implementation of AIM was excellent. Key areas of reported progress as well as areas in which additional work is needed are included in the Key Findings and Recommendations sections of the full Report and are highlighted here.
Notable Areas of Progress from 2010 to 2014
1. Increased reporting of efforts to serve a broader range of students who need AIM
Data submitted in 2014 suggest increased efforts are being made to provide AIM to a broader range of students as indicated by notable increases in the following areas: categories of students served (see Table 3.1 and Table 3.2), learning opportunities topics (see Table 20.1 and Table 20.2), and allocation of resources (see Table 31.1 and Table 31.2). These data suggest that, while maintaining high levels of provision of AIM to students who are served under IDEA and meet copyright criteria, there is a growing awareness of the need to provide AIM to students who require accessible materials but do not meet copyright criteria even when doing so is challenging. Because students who do not meet the definition of blind or other persons with disabilities cannot receive AIM through the NIMAC or accessible media producers, the purchase of instructional materials that include features leading to wide usability across the full range of student variability becomes extremely important.
2. Increased collaboration with the NIMAC, AMPs, state assistive technology (AT) agencies
Data submitted in 2014 suggest that progress has been made with respect to collaboration between the states and the NIMAC and AMPs. Responses indicate that states have named more NIMAC authorized users (AUs) over time (see Table 7.1 and Table 7.2). Similarly, higher percentages of respondents in 2014 than in 2010 reported having named Bookshare and/or Learning Ally as a NIMAC authorized users (see Table 8.1 and Table 9.1). Additionally, the percentage of respondents reporting that their state uses quota funds and additional APH services increased from 2010 to 2014 (see Table 11.1). It is also noteworthy that, from 2010 to 2014, there is an increase of states reporting collaboration with their state AT agency by both the total group (see Table 13.1) and by the AIM TTA states group (see Table 13.2). This finding is important because IDEA requires states to work collaboratively, to the maximum extent possible, with their state agency responsible for AT programs. Moreover, the effective use of most specialized formats requires technology for students to perceive and interact with the content.
3. Increased provision of learning opportunities with respect to AIM
Data submitted in 2014 show increases in both the types of learning opportunities offered and the range of topics identified (see Table 19.1 and Table 20.1). This is important because high-quality learning opportunities can help facilitate the effective provision of AIM to students who need such materials by building the capacity of key stakeholders. It is noteworthy that all respondents in the AIM TTA group reported providing learning opportunities on the following five topics: 1) awareness of statutory requirements and limitations, 2) identification of the need for AIM, 3) identification of students with print disabilities as defined by copyright law, 4) selection of specialized formats and tools that address student needs, and 5) acquisition of AIM for students who qualify as having a print disability as defined by copyright statute. Furthermore, for each of the three survey administrations, the AIM TTA states reported providing learning opportunities on the acquisition of AIM for students who need such materials but do not meet copyright criteria.
Additional Areas in Which the AIM TTA States Reported Progress
1. Collaboration with general education departments
Because the instructional materials that form the basis of AIM are intricately connected to the general education curriculum, it is important for state AIM systems to include collaboration between special education and general education. Data submitted in 2014 show that high percentages of the AIM TTA states collaborate with various general education departments—namely, curriculum and instruction, instructional and information technology, materials procurement, assessment, and data systems (see Table 5.2).
2. Collaboration with families
The data show that from 2010 to 2014 there was an increase in the percentage of respondents in the AIM TTA states who reported that their state shares information, shares training calendars, and conducts joint training with their Parent Information Center (see Table 12.2). The AIM TTA states also demonstrated an increase over time in the percentage of respondents reporting that their state disseminates written guidelines to families (see Table 16.2) and the percentage of respondents reporting that they provide learning opportunities to families (see Table 18.2).
Areas in which Greater Progress is Needed for All States
1. Collection and Use of AIM-Related Data
A key facet of ensuring that coordinated systems for the timely provision of AIM are working as expected involves the collection and use of data to identify areas of concern and to improve AIM-related services and activities. Examination of data across the three survey administrations reveals that states continue to struggle with the collection and use of AIM-related data. Three areas were identified as needing improvement: collection of data, the type of system used to collect data (see Table 23.1 and Table 23.2), and the type of data being collected (see Table 24.1). In 2014, while it is promising that a higher percentage of states indicated that some data are being collected, responses also indicated that those data are seldom integrated into the broader statewide student data collection system, making it difficult to determine the equity of AIM-related activities. Additionally, lowest reported percentages of the types of data being collected include changes in achievement for students who have AIM, quality of AIM, and the use of AIM to improve learning (see Table 24.1), all important to the use of AIM to improve access to learning materials and learning outcomes.
2. Incorporation of AIM into the State Systemic Improvement Process
In order for SEAs to move toward the scaling up of AIM-related systems and procedures, it is critical for them to understand the connection between AIM and other areas that are being addressed as part of the SSIP process (e.g., graduation rates; assessment) Data show that many states have not incorporated AIM into the SPP/APR process. This finding suggests that states either have limited awareness of the relationship between the provision of AIM and various SPP indicators (see Table 27.1 and Table 27.2) or the inability to collect and analyze relevant data. Similarly, respondents in the total sample and AIM TTA states demonstrated limited knowledge of whether and how AIM might be included in the SSIP process, also known as Indicator 17 (Part B) and Indicator 11 (Part C) (see Table 28.1 and Table 28.2).
3. Preference given to publishers who offer accessible materials
Data indicate that states could be doing more to provide incentives for the development and provision of accessible learning materials for purchase. Although respondents in the total sample and in AIM TTA states reported that their state provides guidance to LEAs about the need for purchasing contracts to include the requirement that NIMAS files be deposited in the NIMAC, a much smaller percentage reported that the SEA gives preference or recommends that LEAs give preference to publishers who offer accessible versions of print materials for purchase (see Table 14.1 and Table 14.2). Given the importance of accessibility considerations as part of procurement decisions, it is disappointing that only one third of respondents in the total sample in 2014 reported that the general education department “Materials Procurement” was involved in their state’s AIM-related activities (see Table 5.1). It is critical for SEAs to emphasize the importance of accessibility considerations as part of purchasing decisions that are made at all levels with respect to the acquisition of both curricular materials and technology.