The Impact of Federal Public Policy on Curriculum and Instruction for Students With Disabilities in the General Classroom

By Hardman, Michael L Dawson, Shirley

ABSTRACT: The promise that all children will achieve higher levels of academic performance is the foundation of the current educational reform movement. Standards-based reform began with financial assistance to the states for the development of content and performance standards, improved teacher quality, and increased school accountability. The reform movement has evolved to federal corrective action under the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 for schools and states that fail to make adequate yearly progress. In this article, the authors briefly examine (a) the history of the federal role in standards-based reform over the past two decades, (b) the role of federal policy in ensuring access to the general curriculum and research-based instruction for students with disabilities, and (c) future policy issues pertaining to achieving higher levels of academic performance for all students. KEYWORDS: disability reform, education, policy, standards

THE UNCOMPROMISING PROMISE of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2001) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 2004) is that every student in U.S. schools will achieve much higher levels of academic performance. As mandated in NCLB, every student will succeed (defined as being on grade level) by the year 2013 if schools develop the highest academic standards, provide a rigorous curriculum, and use scientifically based instruction. If students do not meet these expectations, the federal government will hold their schools and the professionals who work in them accountable for the students’ failure. Student performance on universal content standards established by each state determines the federal definition of success in today’s schools.

The promise of academic success is nonexclusionary and therefore includes students with disabilities. Although historically schools have ignored these students in accountability systems, they must now ensure access to the curriculum on which universal standards for all children are based. Students with disabilities must have access to the assessments that measure performance on these standards and be included in the reported results that determine if schools, districts, and states are meeting performance criteria.

This article examines (a) the history of the federal role in standards-based reform over the past two decades, (b) the role of federal policy in ensuring access to the general curriculum and research-based instruction for students with disabilities, and (c) future policy issues in achieving higher levels of academic performance for all students.

The Federal Role in Standards-Based Reform

In the 21st-century United States, access to education for every child on an equal basis is national policy. This has not been the case for most of the nation’s history. In fact, education policy in most states was exclusionary, rejecting significant numbers of students on the basis of race, ability, or gender. The implied purpose of education was to teach only those students who had the greatest potential to learn-the most academically capable. A school did not have to alter its programs to meet the individual needs of any given child. For policymakers, the U.S. Constitution was clear on the federal role: Education is the exclusive responsibility of the states. As such, federal policy remained silent while many states openly excluded students from public schools until well into the 20th century.

The evolution of a more inclusive education policy at the federal level is a recent phenomenon that is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and manifested through the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. For students with disabilities, the U.S. Congress codified access to public education into federal law in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), later renamed as the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004. Although the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975) initially focused the national discussion on how to ensure access to education for students with disabilities, the release of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education) in 1983 significantly broadened the debate on the federal role in education policy. Using ominous and sometimes provoca-tory language, the National Commission on Excellence in Education stated that U.S. public schools were failing. Thus, by implication, so were educators. In the past two decades, the message has not changed: Public education is broken, and the federal government must take an increasingly stronger role in fixing schools by ensuring that states and local agencies become accountable for student learning.

Following the release of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), the federal government sporadically increased incentives for states to voluntarily improve results for students both with and without disabilities through standards- driven reform. States received additional federal financial assistance to set higher standards for what should be taught (i.e., content stan-dards) and how achievement should be measured (i.e., performance standards). Federal legislation in the 1990s, such as Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994) and the Improving America’s School Act (1994; amendments to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965), provided financial support to assist states in developing high standards, improving the quality of teaching, increasing student achievement, and establishing greater public school accountability.

However, the federal push for a standards-driven educational system prompted an uneven response from the states. For some state educators and policymakers, federal involvement was an unwarranted intrusion into local control. For others, it was the leverage necessary to improve their schools. Gandal (2007) pointed out that by the end of the 1990s,

most states had not even established academic standards in each grade, let alone tests, and some were experiencing significant resistance from educators in the few grades where they were already testing. In a good number of states, moreover, policymakers did not believe grade-by-grade testing was necessary or desirable. (p. 7)

As the new century began, states continued to respond in varying degrees to the federal call for the development of content standards and assessments of student performance. The state-developed and sanctioned assessments’ effects on students, teachers, and schools varied significantly. Thus, assessments were described as high stakes or low stakes depending on their impact. In a low-stakes environment, states used assessments to gather data on student performance and establish accountability for learning without imposing sanctions on students or schools that failed to meet established standards. In a high-stakes environment, states could choose to impose a range of consequences on students and teachers for failure to meet established standards. The impact of high- stakes assessments differed on the basis of when they were used and who they targeted.

The era of high-stakes accountability hit its pinnacle in 2001 with the passage of NCLB. NCLB not only strengthened the standards approach to education but also sent a clear message from the U.S. Congress: In spite of efforts by some states to establish an accountability system, Congress was not confident that student performance will improve consistently without a stronger federal role. Thus, NCLB expanded federal involvement ranging from assisting states in setting standards and improving local performance to imposing fiscal sanctions and corrective action for both states and schools that fail to meet criteria.

Access to the General Curriculum and Research-Based Instruction for Students With Disabilities

Federal policy supporting the development of a standards-driven education system strongly influenced educational reform for students with disabilities. Prior to the passage of the 1997 amendments to IDEA, federal policy was primarily concerned with ensuring access to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). In clarifying the definition of FAPE, the courts required schools to make available individualized, specially designed instruction and related services resulting in some educational benefit. Eventually, the educational benefit standard was expanded to ensure meaningful progress that could be measured for each student.

Throughout the 1990s, research suggested that in spite of the educational benefit standard, lowered expectations for students with disabilities resulted in their exclusion from national and state assessments (Ingels, 1996; McGrew, Vanderwood, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 1995). The U.S. Congress felt the need to deal with this issue and to intrinsically link the concepts of educational benefit and meaningful progress to disabled students’ access to the general curriculum and their participation in the same assessments as peers without disabilities. The 1997 and 2004 amendments to IDEA represented a significant shift in federal policy in the education of students with disabilities, expanding the focus beyond access to education to one in which schools were expected to improve results within the context of general education. In the findings on the history of IDEA, the 105th Congress stated that the implementation of IDEA has been impeded by low expectations and an insufficient focus on applying research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities. “Over 20 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access in the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible” (IDEA, 1997). Congress expanded this phrasing in IDEA of 2004, indicating that “almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible” (IDEA, 2004). Implicit in IDEA of 2004 is the concern about the possibility that although students with disabilities have access to education, it is insufficient to generate the valued outcomes of employment, independence, and community involvement that were in the original intent and spirit of the law. Among the substantive changes designed to improve results that Congress embedded into law were (a) the need to ensure students with disabilities access to, involvement in, and progress in a challenging general education curriculum and (b) the need to make educators accountable for student learning. Federal policy evolved into implementation of the view that the only way students with disabilities can be as successful as their peers without disabilities is to ensure that they have an opportunity to learn the same instructional content. To ensure compliance with this provision, federal policy required that a student’s individualized education program (IEP) have a statement of measurable annual goals that enable the child to access, participate in, and progress in the general curriculum. Further, the school district must ensure that the IEP team reviews each child’s IEP periodically to address any lack of expected progress in the general curriculum.

Future Policy Issues: Ensuring That Access to the General Curriculum Translates to Results for All Students

Although NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) are explicit in their views that the key to success for students with disabilities lies in access to the general curriculum, the issue has engendered considerable and often heated debate in the field of education. Within this debate, a critical question for the future remains unanswered: Will participation of students with disabilities in a standards-based curriculum result in higher academic achievement?

The promise that every student will have the opportunity to learn is a critical element within educational reform at the federal level. Although the opportunity to learn is integral to successful student performance, states have not developed opportunity-to-learn (OTL) standards as originally conceptualized in Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994). As defined in federal law, OTL standards include sufficiency or quality of the resources, practices, and conditions necessary at each level of the education system. Moving from policy to practice, this translates into (a) assessments and curricular materials that are accessible to every student, (b) the use of research-based instruction consistent with individual need and ability, and (c) sufficient material and human resources to deliver the instruction and to assess student learning (see Table 1).

Thurlow (2000) suggested that federal policy has clearly outpaced “the technology of standards-based education and assessment” (p. 12), forcing the educational system to try to catch up. For example, the testing- and curriculum-development industry has yet to successfully design or revise assessment instruments or instructional materials that are accessible to every student or that can accommodate their individual needs. For students with disabilities, the concept of catching up means that the system must promote and use instructional practices that have proven to be effective in meeting diverse needs. These practices include an individualized approach to learning, intensive instruction, and the explicit teaching of skills (National Research Council, 1997). The hallmark of special education is individualization-developing and implementing instruction that is based on the unique needs of each student. Historically, the fundamental differences that characterize the ways in which special educators approach instruction distinguish them from their general education colleagues.

Although general education has traditionally been guided by a utilitarian approach (i.e., the greatest good for the greatest number), individually referenced decision making drives special education practice. Special-education teachers continually plan and adjust curriculum and instruction in response to the student. However, both general and special education teachers must have at their disposal multiple ways to adapt curriculum, modify instructional approaches, and motivate their students to learn (Nevin, 1998; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2007). Thus, all teachers need to acquire a core of knowledge and skills that facilitates their ability to teach and work collaboratively in meeting the needs of all students.

Because of the differing paradigms in general and special education, concern arises about the willingness and capacity of schools to recognize and accommodate the diverse needs of each student. Will schools continually seek ways to instruct and track students with disabilities separately from peers without disabilities, or will schools ensure success for all students? There are many challenges ahead:

1. Ensure that content and performance standards are broad enough to meet the individual and diverse needs of students with disabilities.

2. Extend the assessment system to include students with disabilities who require accommodations to demonstrate the mastery of knowledge and skills.

3. Use results of the assessments to improve student learning by changing instructional practice (McLaughlin, 1998; Thurlow, 2000).

Intensive instruction involves (a) actively engaging students in their learning by requiring high rates of appropriate response to the material presented, (b) carefully matching instruction to student ability and skill level, (c) providing instructional cues and prompts to support learning and then ceasing to use them when appropriate, and (d) providing detailed feedback that is directly focused on the task that the student is expected to complete (McLaughlin, Fuchs, & Hardman, 1999). Intensive instruction can significantly improve academic achievement and the development of life skills for students with disabilities across ability levels (Bill-ingsley, Liberty, & White, 1994; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 2000; O’Connor, 2000; Torgesen, 1996).

For intensive instruction to be effective, students will need additional time and resources and access to teachers who effectively use evidence-based practice consistent with individual need and ability. It is unfortunate that providing more time and resources may be incompatible with the standards-based approach in many schools. NCLB promises that every student will receive the instruction necessary to succeed. However, students must not only learn specified content but also do so within a limited time frame- that is, make adequate yearly progress at designated grade spans (Grades 3-5, 6-9, 10-12) at a rate and proficiency level consistent with same-age peers (i.e., on-level learning). In the final analysis, providing sufficient time and resources (a component of intensive instruction essential for learn-ing) will be a critical factor in whether schools succeed in improving the performance of students with disabilities.

In addition to individualized and intensive instruction, students with disabilities may need more structured and teacher-directed approaches to learning than do peers without disabilities (Carnine, 2000; Peterson & Hittie, 2003). Students with disabilities may also need to learn skills that are not components of the academic content that state standards designate (e.g., functional or independent living, social skills). As the National Research Council (1997) suggested, students with disabilities “need extensive, structured, and explicit instruction to develop the process and understanding that other children learn more easily and naturally” (p. 126).

Although it is a widely accepted practice within special education, explicit skills-based instruction runs counter to the philosophy of constructivism, which has strongly influenced the standards movement. In the constructivist approach, the child is an active and self-regulated learner, and the teacher is a guide in the construction of knowledge. The approach does not segment the curriculum into a hierarchy of discrete skills, and educators do not view success in students’ learning discrete basic skills as a prerequisite for more advanced learning.

The perceived incompatibility between the explicit teaching of skills and the constructivist philosophy raises important questions about the success of students with disabilities in a standards system. First, the available research suggests that students with disabilities are not active, self-regulated learners. Will the teacher as a guide reduce student performance? Second, research indicates clearly that teaching discrete tasks and applying skills in generalized contexts is not only effective but also necessary for students with disabilities. How will these students keep up in a system that expects self-directed learning but does not allow the time or resources to teach it? Last, the research strongly indicates that many students with disabilities benefit from hierarchical instruction (i.e., learning the skill and then applying it). Will these students fail to meet proficiency requirements in a constructivist curriculum (National Research Council, 1997)? Discussion

Researchers and educators can argue that allowing students with disabilities to participate in the general education curriculum would enable them to experience a wider variety of subjects at a deeper level. Participation in the curriculum would provide to these students exposure to higher order thinking skills such as problem solving, enable them to develop collaborative skills, and engender a sense of responsibility and self-esteem (McLaughlin & Tilstone, 2000; Rosenberg, Sindelar, & Hardman, 2004). A system of universal standards would also promote more collaboration among special and general educators, require development of more challenging learner goals, and raise expectations for students with disabilities.

For more than 20 years, federal and state governments have not held educators accountable for the academic achievement of students with disabilities through the IEP process. The IEP was widely audited as paper compliance rather than an accountability tool (Sebba, Thurlow, & Goertz, 2000). Including students in a standards- driven system within the general education curriculum requires educators to use the IEP as a blueprint for achievement, altering goals as necessary to ensure progress in the general curriculum.

Another argument for including students with disabilities in system-wide accountability pertains to equal opportunity in relation to peers without disabilities. If students with disabilities are to have an equal chance of achieving desired postschool outcomes, they must have access as appropriate to the same curriculum as do peers without disabilities. Expectations for students with disabilities have been lowered, resulting in poor academic achievement. Supporters believe that the inclusion of students with disabilities in all aspects of reform could be a potent vehicle for change.

The view that establishing universal content standards for students with disabilities is inconsistent with the concept of individualization and not in the best interests of students with disabilities or their peers without disabilities counters the preceding rationale for including students with disabilities in the general education curriculum. Some educators and policymakers fear that if all students are expected to reach the same standard, then that expectation will lower the bar to accommodate those with less ability. Conversely, if the bar is not lowered, then students with disabilities will routinely fail to meet the standard.

Some educators have been ambivalent about the concept of universal standards for all. McLaughlin et al. (1999) reported that some teachers felt powerless because they believed it is not possible for all students to reach the required standards. These teachers suggested that the focus of including all students in system assessments should be on demonstrating progress (as in a growth model) rather than on absolute criteria. In addition, teachers indicated a lack of clarity regarding which standards would need to be individualized and whether such individualization should apply to what students learned (i.e., the content) or only to performance.

The impact on high school graduation rates is another important issue for students with disabilities who are included within the accountability system. Failure to graduate has serious repercussions in today’s society, and students who continually fail to reach required standards will not receive a high school diploma in a high- stakes testing system. An ostensible reason for ensuring student access to the general curriculum is the need to improve graduation rates. Ironically, it is possible that the requirement to achieve high standards may further decrease the graduation rate of students with disabilities (Geenan & Ysseldyke, 1997)

Also, some special educators have voiced the concern that inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide testing may damage the students’ self-esteem if they do not perform as expected. McLaughlin et al. (1999) reported that some teachers admitted that they would help their students to do well at the expense of providing a valid picture of the student’s performance. These special educators expressed the view that valuable instruction time would be spent in teaching content in academic areas at the expense of time spent on the acquisition of critical functional life skills. Others felt that they were being asked to choose between two values: inclusion and standards-based reform. These teachers have pointed out that facilitation of students with disabilities’ mastery of academic skills forces their removal from the general education class, thus compromising the inclusion of the students with their same-aged peers.

Kauffman (1999) argued that it is unrealistic and potentially damaging to expect all students to cope with universal standards. Although there is no denying the need to improve results in both general and special education, students with disabilities will never catch up with their peers without disabilities. It is also possible that if general education is able to improve results for students without disabilities, then those with disabilities will be even further behind.

Although few people would disagree with the intent of NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) to improve the educational performance of students with disabilities, the means to achieve this goal remains controversial. Little research has directly supported the assumption in IDEA (2004) that access to the general curriculum and inclusion in statewide and district testing systems will improve student results. Thus, there is an urgent need for research into the efficacy of educational reforms as public policy continues to outpace practice by several years (Rouse, Shriner, & Danielson, 2000). As the line between general education and special education becomes increasingly blurry, we must redefine and renegotiate the roles of all educators. What is unknown is whether special education can retain its individual identity and rights-based rationale and still fully participate in a reformed system that purports to afford all children an education that is both equitable and excellent.

The direction of the next decade of federal education reform is unclear. For the promise of the standards-based movement to become reality for students with disabilities, the questions in this article and elsewhere in the reform literature will have to be addressed. Will schools embrace the principles of effective special education instruction (individualization, intensive instruction, and the teaching of explicit skills) to meet the needs of students with disabilities in the general education curriculum? Are system administrators willing to provide needed time, training, and resources for multilevel instruction, universal design, and the use of assistive technology in the nation’s classrooms? In addition to emphasizing academic content, will state standards eventually reflect the diverse needs of students with disabilities, including instruction in social skills and independent living? Finally, will general and special educators receive the preparation necessary to work together to meet the needs of every student?

For further information on topics in this article and suggestions on how to translate policy changes into classroom practice, see the Appendix.

REFERENCES

Billingsley, F. F., Liberty, K. A., & White, O. R. (1994). The technology of instruction. In E. C. Cipani & F. Spooner (Eds.), Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities (pp. 81-116). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (And what it would take to make education more like medi- cine). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. [section]1400 et seq. (1975).

Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605-619.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. [section]6301 et seq. (1965).

Gandal, M. (2007). Multiple choices: How will states fill in the blanks in their testing systems? No Child Left Behind: What will it take? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Geenan, K., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Educational standards and students with disabilities. Educational Forum, 61, 220-229.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. [section]5801 et seq. (1994).

Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. [section]6301 et seq. (1994).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 20 U.S.C. [section]1400 et seq. (1997).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. [section]1400 et seq. (2004).

Ingels, S. J. (1996). Sample exclusion in NELS: 88: Characteristics of base year ineligible students; changes in eligibility status after four years (NCES Technical Report 96-723). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today’s special education and its messages for tomorrow. Journal of Special Education, 32, 244- 254.

McGrew, K. S., Vanderwood, M., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). Why we can’t say much about the status of students with disabilities during educational reform (Synthesis Report 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

McLaughlin, M. (1998). Special education in an era of school reform: An overview. Washington, DC: Federal Resource Center for Special Education.

McLaughlin, M. J., Fuchs, L., & Hardman, M. (1999). Individual rights to education and students with disabilities: Some lessons from U.S. policy. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), Inclusive education: World yearbook of education 1999 (pp. 24-35). London: Kogan Page. McLaughlin, M. J., & Tilstone, M. (2000). Standards and curriculum. The core of educational reform. In M. Rouse & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 38-65). London: Routledge.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Nevin, A. (1998). Curricular and instructional adaptations for including students with severe disabilities in cooperative groups. In J. Putnam (Ed.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion (2nd ed.; pp. 49-65). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S.C. [section]6301 et seq. (2001).

O’Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 43-54.

Peterson, J. M., & Hittie, M. M. (2003). Inclusive teaching: Creating effective schools for all learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Hardman, M. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266-278.

Rouse, M., Shriner, J. G., & Danielson, L. (2000). National assessment and special education in the United States and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 66-97). New York: Routledge.

Sebba, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Goertz, M. (2000). Educational accountability and students with disabilities in the United States and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 98-125). New York: Routledge.

Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(3), 1-15.

Torgesen, J. K. (1996, January). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: John F. Kennedy Center Distinguished Lecture Series. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at-risk in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Michael L. Hardman is professor and chair in the department of special education at the University of Utah. His research interests are education policy, general and special education teacher preparation, and effective practices in inclusive education. Shirley Dawson is a doctoral candidate at the University of Utah. Her research interests are teacher preparation and national and international special education policies. Copyright (c) 2008 Heldref Publications

APPENDIX

Readers’ Roadmap

For information on how to translate policy changes into classroom practice, readers may consult the following Web sites.

The Promise That All Students Can and Will Achieve More

Underlying the No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 2004 is the assumption that all students will achieve more if they have access to a rigorous curriculum.

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/site/c.huLWJeMRKpH/b.938015/k.40DA/ Commission_on_ No_Child_Left_Behind.htm

Standards-Based Education

States are required to establish curriculum standards and base instruction on those standards.

http://cep-dc.org/ index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=497&parentID=481

Research-Based Instruction

States are required to use instructional practices that are evidence based.

http://research.nichcy.org/search.asp

http://search.learningpt.org/query.html?qt=quick+key

Copyright Heldref Publications Winter 2008

(c) 2008 Preventing School Failure. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.