• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Access to the General Curriculum: A Curriculum and Instruction Perspective for Educators

Posted on: Tuesday, 22 November 2005, 03:02 CST

By Abell, Michael M; Bauder, Debra K; Simmons, Thomas J

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act places more emphasis than ever on providing students with new ways to fully access the general curriculum. This places a great deal of importance on the areas of curriculum and instruction. It also recognizes the need for special and general education staff to work together to offer high-quality support and instruction. The role of the digital curriculum and accompanying technology is beginning to bring new perspectives to how students can be engaged and have more control over their own learning.

The worlds of special and general education continue to draw closer in support of higher order learning for all students. The evolution of state accountability measures, in conjunction with the national standards movement and the need for all students to achieve at higher levels, draws one's thinking to how educators can work together to achieve these goals. In the past, special educators were left to toil alone in resource rooms with those students labeled "needy" or "disabled." Little attention was given to the connection between their work in the special education program and that of their peers moving rapidly through the general curriculum in the general education classroom. Thus, students needing remediation or special education were quickly left behind and at a distinct disadvantage when they returned to the general education classroom. As mainstreaming grew in popularity, the physical integration of special education students into general education improved, though little change was seen in how instruction was delivered. Students were still presented the same curriculum, and teachers still taught the same way. What had changed was the special education teacher working in the corner of the classroom to modify or explain the content being covered in class. This has slowly started to change with the advent of various federal and state legislation targeting improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA '97) established a member of new provisions designed to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Several of these provisions attempted to align federal special education policy with educational reform policies in other federal legislation (e.g., Title 1) as well as state policies. For instance, the law now requires that students with disabilities participate in state and local assessments or an alternate assessment and that states report on both participation in the assessment as well as the performance of students with disabilities on the assessments. These new assessments and accountability provisions signal a clear presumption that students with disabilities should have access to the general curriculum and to the same opportunity to learn challenging and important content that is offered all students. (McLaughlin, 1999)

Wehmeyer, Lattin, and Agran (2001) advocated that students with mental disabilities can benefit from inclusion in high-stakes testing and by being held to higher expectations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA '97) placed a greater imperative on general and special educators working together to serve all students, including those with disabilities in the general education program. One way this can be done is by providing equal access to knowledge through adjusted or altered curriculum and instruction. Although many educators may see this as a larger paperwork mandate, McLaughlin (1999) stated that administrators and teachers should not lose the deeper policy and practice implications of IDEA '97-that the new assessment and curriculum requirements were grounded in broader educational policies focused on educational equity for all students.

Rose and Meyer (2002) discussed a new approach to instruction that emphasized the methods or teaching that are most compatible with the mind, and the importance of flexible materials and curricula to allow individualization to work for all students. This concept, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), looks at a new and more systematic approach to how educators, both general and special, can work together to make a significant difference in the educational lives of all students. The Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) is one of the organizations at the forefront of UDL research and policy. CAST works closely with teachers (Howard, 2004) to conduct research on the impact of UDL and supported teaching strategies.

These factors warrant further exploration. In particular, they challenge us to consider curriculum and instruction and their implications within a UDL perspective.

The Meaning of "Curriculum"

The idea of fitting an individual education plan into the larger general curriculum poses many challenges to special education teachers. Most general and special education teachers support this concept but pose a number of questions. First, teachers do not understand the meaning of "curriculum." Some interpret this to mean the collection of "lesson plans" or "instructional units" or textbooks and materials that a general classroom teacher uses in his or her classroom (McLaughlin, 1999)

One might define a universal curriculum as more flexible and in digital format. In particular, the learning material or curriculum is not limited to text but, rather, is significantly more inclusive. A universal curriculum combines rigorous content and supplemental educational experiences, such as authentic learning, with online resources, software programs, digital content, and video resources (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Continuum of digital content.

By aligning, not mandating, a definition of "curriculum" with state-approved curriculum standards, a benchmark can be set that establishes high standards and provides a focal point from which textbook publishers, school districts, and building-level educators may identify, construct, and utilize a curriculum. Harden (2001) noted that some teachers have taken a broad view of curriculum to include not only the course work but also the experiences encountered by the students. Roger (1996) stated, "Curriculum is much wider than a list of subjects to be studied, it is not only what you say but how you say it. Curriculum is all the planned experiences to which a learner may be exposed in order to achieve their [sic] learning goals" (p. 176). These experiences, built on a core curriculum, add the critical transfer of knowledge to both general and special education students in the general education classroom setting. This allows the teacher and the student to embrace everything that is happening contextually and environmentally.

Given the deep roots throughout the United States of the textbook adoption process and the growing popularity of supplemental instructional resources that are accessible on the Internet, one might expect to see publishers offering more flexible and engaging instructional material. The state of Kentucky passed Senate Bill 243 (Casbier, 2002) in 2002, opening the way for textbook publishers to offer textbooks in both print and digital formats for students with disabilities. This furthers a working meaning of curriculum to include core subject area material in digital formats. This is also supplemented by instructional resources that can be used by general and special education students to meet their unique learning needs through a flexible and modifiable modality (digital curricula/text; see Table 1).

Table 1. Free Digital Book (eText) Web sites

Instructional Planning and Change

Special and general education teachers need to work with a deeper understanding of the general curriculum in mind, especially on the part of the special educator. Special education teachers can no longer afford to work solely on remediating skill deficits while important instructional content is lost or passed over. Through more in-depth professional development by special education teachers to learn the larger general curriculum (McLaughlin, 1999), a balance between remediation and instruction can begin to form. At present, most special education teachers are skilled in remediation and strategies instruction. With more comprehensive planning between special and general educators and an increased understanding of the general curriculum by special educators, a richer instructional collaboration may unfold, providing a deeper and more equitable access to knowledge.

March and Peters (2002) noted important factors influencing the effectiveness of schools' overall effect on student outcomes as it relates to curriculum and instruction:

* Greater attention to problem solving and challenging activities in class and less time spent on memory-level work and busywork

* A focus by the entire staff on the most important parts of the curriculum

* Improved alignment of expected outcomes, teaching strategies, and assessments

* Better connections between subject areas through curriculum mapping

* Greater variety of instructional methods (e.g., guided discussion, action research) and learning constructs (e.g., levels of questions, visual organizers)

* More authentic performance assessments

* High-quality materials with more variety as a result of cooperativework

General and special educators working together closely to meet these challenges will drive more opportunities to access the general curriculum by all students. To deliver continuous instructional improvement, one should also consider deliberately shifting teachers between general and special education. The Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act (2003) proposes that teacher preparation programs train both general and special education teachers to serve students with disabilities. By moving teachers between general and special education teaching positions within a school, a cross-pollination of skills will occur in both programs. This would allow general education teachers to experience and master remedial skills and strategies while working with a new student population that could benefit from a solid core curriculum expert. American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2002) noted the importance of general and special education teachers' having a shared understanding of academic standards and strategies for solving learning problems. This would lead to a more blended knowledge base of general and special education fields, utilizing the best of both. It would also provide special education teachers with an opportunity to rejuvenate and fully learn the cogeneral education curriculum they would be teaching. These rotations could occur on a 12-, 24-, or 36-month basis, contingent upon staffing and instructional needs. This might also ease the growing challenges (Council for Exceptional Children, n.d.; Fore, Martin, & Bender, 2002) and turnover rate found in special education by providing these educators with a sabbatical or clinical experience of sorts before they return to share their new general curriculum expertise with their special education peers and students.

Technological and Instructional Principles

Access to the general curriculum challenges one to consider how opportunities to learn must be structured to maximize student outcomes at all times. The principles found within the Universal Design (architectural) movement affect the instructional and technological issues teachers face. These principles include the following (North Carolina State University, 1997):

Equitable Use

* Provide the same means of use for all users: identical whenever possible.

* Avoid segregating or stigmatizing users.

* Make provisions for privacy, security, and safety available to all.

* Make design appealing to all users.

Flexibility in Use

* Provide choice in method of use.

* Provide adaptability to user's pace.

Simple and Intuitive

* Eliminate unnecessary complexity.

* Accommodate a wide range of literacy and language skills.

* Arrange information in order of importance.

* Provide prompting and feedback during and after task completion.

Perceptible Information

* Use different mode (pictorial, verbal, tactile) for redundant presentation of essential information.

* Provide compatibility with techniques or devices used by people with disabilities.

Tolerance for Error

* Arrange elements to minimize hazards and errors (e.g., most used elements, most accessible).

* Provide warnings of hazards and errors.

Size and Space for Approach and Use

* Provide clear line of sight for all important information for seated or standing user.

* Accommodate variations in hand and grip size.

* Provide adequate space for use of assistive devices or personal assistants.

Providing "cognitive access" at multiple points throughout the curriculum is also vital. UDL principles encourage such curriculum design, allowing students of varying ability levels to access, engage, and learn from the material at their appropriate cognitive level. The flexibility found within UDL principles allows for such access when curriculum is developed in digital formats. Orkwis and McLane (1998) advocated providing cognitive supports for content and instructional activities by

1. summarizing big ideas

2. providing scaffolding (supports that are diminished or removed as students gain competence) for learning and generalization

3. building fluency through practice

4. providing assessments for background knowledge

5. including explicit strategies to make clear the goals and methods of instruction

These UDL principles give food for thought instructionally as well as technologically. By providing advanced yet functional technology, educators could channel content through online access points such as the Internet or portable learning devices available to each student (e.g., a Personal Digital Assistant [PDA], like the Palm Pilot; Bauer & Ulrich, 2002). PDAs offer a host of student and teacher benefits when implemented with a digital curriculum, such as

* portable note taking

* self-recording of grades and student progress monitoring

* beaming of lecture notes directly to students from teacher

* beaming of long-term assignments

* reading of digital books available for free download on the Internet

* automatic reminders for medication with built-in alarms

* parent-teacher communication tool

* built-in scientific calculator

* facilitated student collaboration and peer support

Abell, Bauder, Simmons, and Sharon (2003) advocated the use of PDAs to include students with disabilities in the general curriculum. By providing these portable yet affordable devices, students are provided extended use across all classes compared to limited use of computers in select classes, which is currently the norm. Data-input devices like PDAs (e.g., the Alphasmart "Dana") affect learning in ways not yet explored or even considered. The power of technology coupled with sound curriculum and instruction can allow students to share their brilliance through such technology (Goldberg & O'Neil, n.d.).

The rapid advances in portable computing, computer networks, Internet, wireless communication, and a host of other technologies will continue to force educators to blend curriculum and instruction with instructional technology that can improve student learning through equal and improved access to knowledge. This is evident by the rapid adoption and integration of the Internet into public schools (Cattagni & Farris, 2001). The Internet has become a vital learning tool within the curriculum, just as access to the general curriculum has become an important issue in efforts to increase student performance.

Conclusion

Planning for the future with the knowledge gained from a deeper understanding of what access to the general curriculum entails is challenging. This information affects the profession by challenging it to move further into the future while providing educators with research-proven methods to improve curriculum and instruction. The challenging aspects that must be addressed give pause to many of the historical aspects of our present-day educational system. These include the ways special education teachers work together to deliver instruction, the real meaning of curriculum, the role of educational publishers, technology in the classroom, and the challenge to special educators to blend a more content-based focus with a remedial emphasis. We must not neglect the importance of sound curriculum and instruction that allows all students to learn while giving teachers tools to balance remediation with instruction. Last, we must strive to engage all students through the use of flexible digital curriculums and appropriate technologies aligned with UDL principles without losing sight of our goal-developing young minds into successful, well-balanced adults.

REFERENCES

Abell, M., Bauder, D., Simmons, T., & Sharon, D. (2003). Using personal digital assistants (PDA) to connect students with special needs to the general curriculum. Closing the Gap, 22(1), 20-24.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). (2002). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from http://www.aactc.org/Membership _Governance/specoaleducation.pdf

Bauer, A., & Ulrich, M. (2002). I've got a palm in my pocket Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 18-22.

Casebier, L. (2002). Senate Bill 243: Kentucky revised statutes. Retrieved August 1,2002, from http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/ 02rs/ sb243.htm

Cattagni, A., & Farris, E. (2001). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms: 1994-2000. (Publication No. NCES 2001071). Retrieved June 6, 2003, from National Center for Education Statistics Reports Online: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo .asp?pubid=2001071

Council for Exceptional Children, (n.d.). CEC's initiative on special education teaching conditions. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from http://www .cec.sped.org/spodight/cond/bf_overview.html

Fore, C., Martin, C., & Bender, W. (2002). Teacher burnout in special education: The causes and the recommended solutions. High School Journal, 86(1), 36-45.

Goldberg, L. G., & O'Neil, L. M. (n.d.). Computer technology can empower students with learning disabilities. Retrieved July 7, 2002, from http: //udl.cast.org/udl/ ComputerTechnologyCanEmpowerStudentswith LearningDisabilities960.cfm

Harden, R. M. (2001). The learning environment and the curriculum. Medical Teacher, 25(4), 335-336.

Howard, K. L. (2004). Universal design for learning: Meeting the needs of all students. Learning and Leading With Technology, 31(5), 26-29.

Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act. (2003). Bill Summitry. Retrieved April 6, 2004, from http:// edworkforce .house.gov/issues/108th/education/idea/bill.summary.htm

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. 1401 (26)

March, J. K., & Peters, K. H. (2002). Curriculum development and instructional design in the effective schools process. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(5), 379-381.

McLaughlin, M. L. (1999). Access to the general education curriculum: Paperwork and procedure or redefining "special education." Journal of Special Education leadership, 12(1), 56-64.

North Carolina State University, The Ce\nter for Universal Design. (1997). The principles of universal design. Retrieved May 6, 2003, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/ princ_overview .htm

Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief. Reston, VA: ERIC/OSEP Special Project. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED423654)

Roger, A. (1996). Teaching adtdts. Buckingham/Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Michael M. Abell, EdS, is a research associate at the University of Louisville, College of Education and Human Development. His current interests include issues surrounding access to the general curriculum, universal design, psychoeducational assessment, and technology integration benefiting students with disabilities. Debra K. Bauder, EdD, is an associate professor in special education at the University of Louisville. Her current interests include assistive technology, educational technology, autism, and learning disabilities. Thomas J. Summons, PhD, is an associate professor in the special education program at the University of Louisville. His current interests include distance education, universal design, transition issues, and moderate to severe disabilities. Address: Michael M. Abell, University of Louisville, College of Education and Human Development, Louisville, KY 40292.

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Nov 2005

Source: Intervention in School and Clinic

More News in this Category