Nine iPads, Three IEPs, and a Monday Deadline
At Maple Ridge Elementary, a fourth-grade team shares one cart of nine iPads across three classrooms of 27 students each. The inclusive classroom includes Maya, who has dysgraphia and uses a keyboard; Devon, who has low vision and needs 18-point text with high contrast; and Aisha, who uses an AAC app and receives speech-language services. The teacher has planned a 30-minute station rotation for Monday: a district-approved reading app, a paper vocabulary sort, and independent journaling on the iPads. The reading app’s vendor page advertises “accessible on all devices” but provides no VPAT. The building Wi-Fi drops intermittently in the two rooms farthest from the access point, and the cart’s iPads are running three different iOS versions. The principal asks you, the educational technology specialist, to “make the lesson work by Monday” and to avoid delaying the rollout. You have one hour of common planning time with the team and no additional budget this month.
1. What is your first move, and what will you explicitly not do? Explain the reasoning behind both choices.
Read the worked answer
Do not start with the devices. My first move is a 20-minute huddle with the team to separate three problems: legal and accessibility obligations for Maya, Devon, and Aisha; instructional design for 27 students with nine devices; and infrastructure reliability. I would explicitly not accept a vendor marketing phrase as evidence of accessibility, and I would not solve the device shortage by exempting students with IEPs from the technology station or giving them only paper tasks. That would convert a scheduling problem into a denial of equal access.
Accessibility is an IEP and civil-rights issue, not a preference. Without a VPAT or documented conformance, the app cannot be assumed to work with Devon’s low-vision settings or Maya’s keyboard. Before Monday, I would test the app with built-in features such as Zoom, high contrast, speech-to-text, and word prediction; confirm that Aisha’s AAC app remains available at all times; and prepare an equivalent accessible alternative for the reading station. For Wi-Fi, I would map which activities actually require connectivity, download readings in advance, and place connected stations in rooms with stable signal. The principal’s deadline is real, but compliance cannot be traded for speed. I would document temporary accommodations and set a two-week deadline for vendor documentation or replacement.
2. Redesign the 30-minute rotation so all 27 students, including the three students with IEPs, can participate meaningfully with nine devices. Identify grouping, device allocation, and the rationale.
Read the worked answer
I would use three 10-minute stations with three heterogeneous groups of nine, avoiding ability grouping. Only one station depends on the iPad cart, which matches the nine-device supply. Station A is the reading station: eight iPads plus Aisha’s dedicated AAC device, because her AAC must never be taken away as a station reward or rotated out. Maya gets a Bluetooth keyboard paired to her iPad, and Devon uses Zoom and high-contrast settings with the text size verified before the lesson. Station B is the vocabulary sort using word cards and a choice board, with a paper or oral response option. Station C is journaling with a choice of paper, a graphic organizer, or a brief teacher-device voice recording; students who need keyboarding can use that option during Station A or during a designated makeup slot.
The rationale is UDL: multiple means of representation, action and expression, and engagement without multiplying devices. Each group has a printed station card with roles and a visible timer. Aisha’s speech-language goals are supported because her AAC travels with her, not because she is assigned an adult aide at the reading station. I would also build in a two-minute transition buffer and a backup paper passage if the Wi-Fi drops. This preserves the teacher’s core reading objective while making the technology a tool for access rather than a gatekeeper.
3. What evidence would you collect in the first two weeks to determine whether the rollout is improving access rather than merely increasing device use?
Read the worked answer
I would collect evidence tied to access and learning, not device counts. First, accommodation fidelity: did Devon, Maya, and Aisha receive the same core reading activity with their required supports, or were they routed to separate materials? Second, independence and participation data: minutes of active responding, requests for help, and exit-ticket performance by station. Third, a simple Wi-Fi dropout log by room and time, plus help-desk tickets, to distinguish infrastructure failures from instructional ones. Fourth, teacher debrief notes after each rotation and a short student self-report on whether the station felt doable.
I would also review whether Aisha’s AAC remained available and whether Maya’s keyboard pairing worked without adult rescue. A rise in iPad minutes alone would not prove success; a student can be on a device and still be excluded from the task. I would compare the first week with a baseline week of the same objective and look for reduced accommodation delays, fewer repeated troubleshooting interruptions, and comparable exit-ticket accuracy across groups. Finally, I would document any unresolved vendor accessibility questions so the principal sees the difference between a temporary workaround and a systemic procurement problem.