IncludingStudentsWithSevereAndMultipleDisabilitiesInTypicalClassroomsExcerpt.pdf

Excerpted from Chapter 2 of Including Students with Severe and Multiple Disabilities
in Typical Classrooms: Practical Strategies for Teachers, 3rd Edition, by June E. Downing, Ph.D.

Educational Reform Efforts

This chapter highlights the changes that have occurred in approaches in general education and special education since 1980 and discusses parallels in these changes. This analysis is followed by a discussion of promising practices in general education for the inclusion of students with severe and multiple disabilities. Each of these discussions has four components, including:

  1. A description of the practice;
  2. The empirical or theoretical base related to that practice, including data for students with disabilities, if these data exist;
  3. The rationale for using the practice with students with severe and multiple disabilities; and
  4. Examples of how this approach would be used with students with severe and multiple disabilities.

Since 1980, numerous changes have occurred in education, fueled partly by the publication of A Nation at Risk (U.S. Department of Education, 1983). Title II of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 (PL 103–227)—National Educational Reform Leadership, Standards, and Assessment—called for the development of statewide assessments for all students (Kleinert, Kearns, & Kennedy, 1997). Similarly, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 (PL 105–17) mandated assessment of academic progress for all students with disabilities. This mandate usually translated into students with mild or moderate disabilities taking the same standardized tests taken by general education students with or without accommodations, whereas for students with severe or multiple disabilities, this involved taking an alternate assessment. Another important mandate of this law was the requirement that individualized education program (IEP) teams consider the need for assistive technology in students' IEPs.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107–110) prompted a dramatic overhaul of the then–current educational system. Increased accountability for all students is one of the main focuses of this law requiring the administration of standardized testing of all students in several grade levels as a means of documenting adequate yearly progress in schools. Test result data are disaggregated by disability and by students whose primary language is not English. The material contained on these tests is drawn from content standards in the respective fields of reading, mathematics, and science. Students with severe disabilities are assessed via alternate assessments that might involve developing a portfolio to document progress.

A major change in the education of students with severe disabilities resulted from the 1997 IDEA amendments and was further strengthened in the 2004 reauthorization (PL 108–446). This legislation stresses the rights of all students with disabilities to participate fully in the general curriculum—to have access and demonstrate progress. Furthermore, the legislation mandates that a general education teacher is to be a member of each student's IEP team. Sound rationale exists for all students, including those with the most significant disabilities, to have access to the core curriculum. The core curriculum provides an age-appropriate context within which a variety of skills can be taught, rather than trying to teach these skills in isolation, with little if any context. Students without disabilities provide the impetus for ongoing learning, as they assume primary responsibility for carrying out routine activities of the day, thus providing natural support. Without access to age-level core curriculum, missed learning opportunities can prevail.

Higher expectations for student performance exist when students are in general education classrooms and have access to the core curriculum (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2006). In an inclusive classroom, when all other students are being expected to work on curricular activities, the same expectation is present for the student with significant disabilities (although perhaps in a somewhat different manner and depth). In fact, after reviewing 128 studies on literacy for students with cognitive disabilities, Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim–Delzell, and Algozzine (2006) suggested that students with significant cognitive disabilities may not have learned to read in the past because they were either not taught to read or were not taught with methods that promote literacy. General and special education teachers working together on the same curriculum would likely avoid such a major concern. Finally, without access to the core curriculum, students with disabilities may miss out on topics of interest. Because educators cannot foretell what is going to motivate a particular student to learn, it is critical that each student, with or without disabilities, be allowed access to the core curriculum with the necessary supports and services.

Changes in Educational Approaches for Students with Severe Disabilities

Quite dramatic shifts have occurred in the recommended approaches for educating students with severe disabilities. Until the late 1970s, a developmental curricular approach dominated instruction for these students. This approach was characterized by a belief that in each curricular area (e.g., cognitive, motor), a hierarchical sequence of relatively isolated skills existed, and that students needed to acquire prerequisite skills before moving on to higher-level skills. Assessments based on developmental checklists yielded developmental ages that were used to determine instructional activities, materials, and performance criteria, with little if any attention paid to the students' chronological age or to the demands of the environment. Because instruction occurred in self-contained classes, skills were taught in a decontextualized fashion, and the environment was contrived. For example, a typical classroom for adolescents with severe disabilities often involved students putting pegs in a pegboard, pasting snowmen on a January calendar, and sorting cardboard shapes.

In the late 1970s, a functional curricular model was proposed (Brown et al., 1979). This model suggested that students with severe disabilities be taught the skills they needed to be as independent as possible in school, home, community, and work environments. Instead of teaching individual motor skills, socialization skills, communication skills, and so forth, at a designated time (often out of context) and according to a prescribed hierarchy, these skills would be embedded in skill routines that would be taught within age-appropriate activities at naturally occurring times (e.g., communication skills could be addressed at recess, lunch, and in small–group instruction). This shift toward contextually based instruction appears to parallel the shift toward more holistic concepts that came to dominate general education practices. Yet, because students with disabilities were still being educated mostly in self-contained classes, the classroom context itself was often a departure from general education classrooms insofar as they were characterized by less structure and routine, lower expectations for learning, and less group instruction.

Interestingly, instruction in general education classes follows a developmental model, characterized by scope and sequence charts included in many curriculum guides. The goal of inclusion is to have students with severe disabilities participating in general education classes, while simultaneously addressing the students' IEP objectives, as opposed to having students receive parallel instruction in the general education classroom.

The challenge for teachers is to individualize instruction by having a student with disabilities participate in lessons in an appropriate (same-age) grade and discern what objectives would be relevant for that student. Teachers also need to add a functional component by identifying what IEP objectives could be practiced within each lesson and how learning opportunities to practice those objectives could be presented. The importance of curricular modifications is obvious under such a model, and considerable information exists on modifying the curriculum (Downing, 2002; Janney & Snell, 2004; Udvari–Solner, Causton–Theoharis, & York–Barr, 2004).

In addition, the shift from a multidisciplinary service delivery model to a transdisciplinary model or an integrated therapy model (a variation of the transdisciplinary model) for students with severe disabilities parallels the shift in service delivery in general education. Within a transdisciplinary model, the child is viewed holistically by all team members, and family members play a key role on the team (Orelove, Sobsey, & Silberman, 2004).

Analysis of Curricular Changes for Students with and without Disabilities

Several parallels exist between the evolution of curricular program implementation for students with severe disabilities and for students without disabilities. Both fields have embraced a more holistic approach to education that is child-centered, with teaching taking place in natural and social contexts. As a result, activities planned for students tend to be more meaningful. Other approaches to assessment that stress more authentic evaluation (e.g., portfolio assessment) are being used in conjunction with standardized assessment.

Despite federal mandates, some states are struggling to align curricula for students with severe disabilities with core content standards.  Browder et al. (2004) found that although some states did have strong alignment with math and reading content, other states had vague or weak links between what was taught to students with severe disabilities and content standards.

This chapter addresses educational approaches used in general education classes, which, because they accommodate diversity among learners, appear to be promising for students with severe and multiple disabilities. Although numerous studies support the inclusion of students with severe disabilities as a beneficial practice, few efficacy studies have been conducted to determine specific instructional strategies.

Five approaches will be discussed: cooperative learning, balanced or comprehensive literacy, universal design for learning, differentiated instruction, and culturally responsive practice.