ACCESS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WITH
SIGNIFICANT COGNITIVE DISABILTIES
Sarah L. Ballard
Asian Studies, B.A., CSUS, 1998
Special Major: Mandarin Chinese, B.A., CSUS, 2000
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
EDUCATION
(Special Education)
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2010
© 2010
Sarah Ballard
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
ACCESS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WITH
SIGNIFICANT COGNITIVE DISABILTIES
A Project
by
Sarah L. Ballard
Approved by:
_________________________, Committee Chair
Kathy Gee, Ph.D.
_________________
Date
iii
Student: Sarah Ballard
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Bruce A. Ostertag, Ph.D.
Date: _________________
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, School Psychology and Deaf Studies
iv
Abstract
of
ACCESS TO THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM FOR STUDENTS WITH
SIGNIFICANT COGNITIVE DISABILTIES
by
Sarah L. Ballard
Federal education laws require that all students with disabilities have access to the
general education curriculum and be included in statewide-standardized assessments and
accountability measures. Years have past since these mandates have first gone into effect
yet educators continue to struggle with the concept of access to the general education
curriculum and how it applies to students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities. There is a major need to link policy with practices in schools and classrooms
in order to realize the goal of measurable academic achievement for this unique
population of learners. This project addresses this need at the secondary level by utilizing
an evidenced based classification schema of student symbolic communication levels to
develop a framework for general education access and progress monitoring for students
with significant cognitive disabilities.
Approved by:
________________________, Committee Chair
Kathy Gee, Ph.D.
v
DEDICATION
This project is dedicated to a close friend and mentor who has supported me throughout
its development. It is also dedicated to my students and my two children in support of
their talents, abilities and educational rights.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge the science teachers and speech and language pathologists
who offered their time and expertise as consultants in the development of this project.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication ................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgment ....................................................................................................... vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION ………...…………………………………………………….. 1
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 1
Background of the Problem .............................................................................. 2
Statement of the Research Problem ................................................................ 11
Purpose of Research ....................................................................................... 11
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................... 12
Definition of Terms......................................................................................... 13
Assumptions.................................................................................................... 16
Justification ..................................................................................................... 16
Limitations ...................................................................................................... 17
Organization of the Remainder of the Project ................................................ 17
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...................................................................... 19
Inclusion .......................................................................................................... 19
Aligning IEPs .................................................................................................. 22
Self-Determination .......................................................................................... 26
Universal Design for Learning........................................................................ 29
Response to Intervention................................................................................. 33
Symbolic Communication Levels ................................................................... 36
Summary ......................................................................................................... 39
3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 40
Introduction ..................................................................................................... 40
Project Organization ....................................................................................... 40
viii
Consultation with Key Professionals .............................................................. 41
Alignment Criteria ......................................................................................... 42
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................ 44
4. PROJECT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................. 45
Survey Results ................................................................................................ 45
Discussion ...................................................................................................... 47
Recommendations ........................................................................................... 49
Appendix A. AAL Framework ................................................................................. 51
Appendix B. AAL Teacher Survey Questionnaire ................................................... 91
References ................................................................................................................. 96
ix
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose of the Study
Ensuring that students with disabilities have access to and make progress in the
general education curriculum is a mandatory responsibility in education today. Its
significance is underscored by the confluence of two major federal educational laws: the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and the No Child Left Behind
Act (NCLB, 2002). Historically, special education students have received a different
curriculum than their same age peers, and received limited to no exposure to grade
appropriate general education content (King-Sears, 2008; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).
This is especially true for students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities
(Spooner & Browder, 2006). The National Center on Education Outcomes (2007) reports
that students with significant disabilities have been precluded from instruction in
academic standards until recently and as a result educators may not have the necessary
experience or training to teach the general education curriculum to this population of
learners.
In contrast, IDEA and NCLB require that students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities receive challenging instruction in core academics from highly
qualified teachers. These laws also require that all students be included in state and local
assessments and accountability measures. IDEA and NCLB have caused a dramatic shift
in the curricular philosophy and framework for students with significant cognitive
disabilities (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Flowers, Algozzine & Karvonen, 2003;
2
Roach, 2006; Towles-Reeves, Kearns, Kleinert & Kleinert, 2009). Considerable
agreement exists that this population of students can benefit from raised expectations and
inclusion in school wide accountability systems, however, educators continue to struggle
with what constitutes access to the general education curriculum and how it applies to
students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities (Agran, Alper & Wehmeyer,
2002; Ahearn, 2005; Hardman & Dawson, 2008). Educators need effective strategies and
frameworks to link policy with practice for this population (Browder, Wakeman &
Flowers, 2006).
Background of the Problem
Legal Background
In A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (1983), the National
Commission on Excellence in Education released findings from an 18 month long study
that revealed alarming evidence of growing mediocrity in America’s educational system.
The inferior educational performance of America’s students compared to foreign
counterparts upset and startled the country and ultimately triggered increased federal
involvement in education. The report also called for numerous reform measures and
recommended that states adopt rigorous and measurable standards for academic
achievement. The publication of A Nation at Risk marked the beginning of the standards
based educational reform movement in America (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela &
Baker, 2006; Yell & Dragslow, 2009).
In the second reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA), the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA) of 1994, the law shifted from
3
a primary focus of improving educational opportunities for minority and economically
disadvantaged children in America to standards based reform. IASA offered federal
support to states for developing rigorous academic standards and assessments that aligned
to those standards. In addition, IASA held schools accountable to test results while
increasing aide to high poverty schools under its Title 1 provision (Yell & Dragslow,
2009).
The most recent reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
of 2001, is arguably the most ambitious education reform law to date. The major goal of
NCLB is to close the achievement gap between all school age children by holding
schools accountable to 100% student proficiency in reading and mathematics by the year
2013-2014. NCLB is inclusive of students with disabilities, including students who have
the most significant cognitive disabilities. At the signing of the NCLB Act, George Bush
the President of the United States, stated:
America's schools educate over 6 million children with disabilities. In the past,
those students were too often just shuffled through the system with little
expectation that they could make significant progress or succeed like their fellow
classmates. Children with disabilities deserve high hopes, high expectations, and
extra help. All students in America can learn. (2003, p.1).
Individuals with disabilities have a long history of educational marginalism and
exclusion in America. Before 1975, over one million children with disabilities were
excluded from public school systems throughout the country (U.S Department of
Education, 2007). This circumstance was especially true for students who have the most
4
significant cognitive disabilities and comprise less than 1% of the total student
population. For example, in 1967 more than 200,000 individuals with severe disabilities
lived in institutions with no access to education and only minimal basic necessities (U.S
Department of Education, 2007). Many were perceived as incapable of learning- a
perception that invariably correlated to the severity of the individual’s disability
(Downing, 2005).
The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975 marked a
departure from this bleak history by requiring states to provide individuals with
disabilities a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Many schools encountered
the challenge of educating individuals with severe disabilities for the first time without
existing curricular frameworks or researched based methodologies (Browder, et. al.,
2004).
History of Curricular Philosophies for Students with Significant Disabilities and the
Evolution of IDEA
The passage of EAHCA, Public Law 94-142, did not immediately affect dominant
social constructs of disability, normalcy and capacity in education. The abilities of
persons with disabilities continued to be evaluated and scrutinized within a deficit based
paradigm termed the medical or biomedical model. In a medical model, disability is
comparable to a disease or sickness and is regarded as a problem inherent within the
individual that necessitates treatment and rehabilitation (Mitra, 2006; Skrtic 1995; Skrtic,
Sailor& Gee, 1996). The medical model informed initial practices in special education
5
and resulted in highly restrictive settings such as developmental centers without any
meaningful context or framework for education (Brown, et al., 1977).
In this void, educators recognized a need for a relevant curricular philosophy and
began to use mental age as a referent point in planning for the education of individuals
with disabilities (Roach, 2006). This approach was markedly influenced by a Piagetian
theoretical framework and resulted in an adapted pre-school curriculum for students K-12
(Browder, et al., 2003). For example, a 17 year old may be subjected to an early
childhood curriculum appropriate for a 3 year old. In these early models social inclusion
and adult outcomes were not addressed. Most children continued to receive educational
services in highly restrictive settings (Browder, et al., 2004).
In the 1970s, Lou Brown and colleagues challenged and replaced these early
approaches with the revolutionary concept of criterion of ultimate functioning (Browder,
Spooner, Ahlgirm-Delzell, Flowers, Algozzine & Karvonen, 2003; Brown, Nietupski, &
Hamre-Nietupski, S., 1976). Brown argued that individuals with significant disabilities
require access to natural contexts for learning that are personally relevant and functional
in order to become productive adults in an inclusive society. This curricular philosophy is
termed the functional model. To date the functional model stands as a foundational
approach to the education of students with disabilities. Its emphasis on natural contexts
for learning, equity in education, and post school outcomes within inclusive societies,
paved the way subsequent curricular philosophies.
By the 1990’s the functional learning approach to the education of individuals
with disabilities expanded under the development of an inclusion model. In a review of
6
curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1996, Nietupski and colleagues
found a 231% increase in annual publications on social skills and inclusion (1997).
Proponents of inclusion argued that functional skills especially social communication and
friendship were best fostered in same age natural educational contexts (Browder,
Spooner, Ahlgirm-Delzell, Flowers, Algozzine & Karvonen, 2003). Early inclusion
models focused on language and communication development, social skills and
friendships (Davern & Schnorr, 1991). Largely fueled by a discourse on social equity,
early inclusion models were based on the premise that inclusion is a civil right (Hunt &
Goetz, 1997).
In 1990, EAHCA was reauthorized and renamed the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA). IDEA provided a legal justification for educating students in their
neighborhood schools and general education classrooms when appropriate. Increasingly
proponents for including students with significant disabilities in grade level general
education classes recognized that students also benefit from improved access to the
general education curriculum (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgirm-Delzell, Flowers, Algozzine
& Karvonen, 2003).
In the backdrop, the standards based educational reform was beginning to take
effect in America under IASA and the subsequent 2001 Reauthorization of No Child Left
Behind (NCLB). The scope and influence of these laws converged with trends in the
special education field and subsequent 1997 and 2004 reauthorizations of IDEA. As a
result, IDEA and NCLB have converged, mandating a dramatic shift in the education of
children with significant disabilities. These two pieces of legislation are now working to
7
improve academic achievement outcomes for students that have been historically
underserved and marginalized (U.S. Department of Education, 1996).
Barriers to Translating Policy into Practice
Teacher/Administrator Attitudes
Dominant socio-cultural beliefs on disability have resulted in a history of low
expectations for students with severe disabilities (Charlton, 1998; Smith, 2006;
Wehmeyer, Lattin, et al., 2001). Despite new and progressive laws, attitudes have been
slow to change. In a study by Agran, Alper and Wehmeyer (2002) 93% of 60 teachers
surveyed reported that access to the general education curriculum is not appropriate for
students with significant disabilities. 63% of teachers indicated that access to the general
education curriculum is more important for students who have mild disabilities. Other
teacher surveys have yielded similar findings. Towles-Reeves and colleagues collected
data on teacher perceptions and found that many respondents believed students with
significant disabilities cannot learn academics (2006). In addition, the survey study
measured teacher perceptions of the influences of alternative assessment systems (AA)
on classroom instruction and IEP development. The majority of 304 teacher respondents
indicated that AA had a low degree of influence on the development of IEP goals (2006).
There are fewer studies that look at the perspectives of administrators. TowlesReeves, Kleinert and Anderman found that 43% of principals surveyed indicated that AA
had no positive influence on instruction (2008). In addition, principals who had been in
the field for longer periods were more likely to respond that learning grade level
academic content was not important for students with significant disabilities. In a survey
8
of 32 states, directors of special education reported lack of teacher buy-in and low
expectations on behalf of educators and administrators for students with severe
disabilities as major challenges for states in supporting access to the general education
curriculum (Ahearn, 2005).
Lack of Teacher Preparation and Research Based Strategies
Given the highly specialized focus of teacher preparation programs in severe
disabilities, special educators may not have the content expertise to teach the general
education curriculum (Dymond & Orelove, 2001; Spooner, Dymond, Smith & Kennedy,
2006). In addition, most teacher preparation programs do not adequately prepare either
special or general educators to teach academics to students who have severe disabilities
(Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, & Spooner, 2005; Spooner, Dymond, Smith &
Kennedy, 2006). Special educators also report that resistance from general educators is
one of the biggest barriers to general education access (Agran, Alper & Wehmeyer,
2002). In addition, special education teachers may be experiencing pressure to improve
their students scores on alternative assessments without knowing how to provide
instruction or how to make the curriculum accessible (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003;
Browder, Karvonen, Davis, Fallin & Courtade-Little, 2005).
There is also limited research available to inform educators on how to teach grade
level content beyond functional outcomes such as sight words and money (Browder,
Flowers & Wakeman, 2008; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovair, 2007). In a metaanalysis covering 20 years of curriculum trends for students who have significant
disabilities, Nietupski and colleagues (1997) found that less than 10% of the studies were
9
academic in nature. Browder, Flowers and Wakeman (2008) extended the work of
Nietupski an additional ten years with similar findings. Although there is evidence that
students with significant disabilities can learn academics, teachers will need ongoing
guidance from research in how to instruct and assess students in English, Math and
Science in the years ahead. (Browder, Davis & Karvonen, 2005; Flowers, AhlgrimDelzell, Browder, & Spooner, 2005).
Ambiguity and Trepidation
Agran, Alper and Wehmeyer (2002) found that over half of the teacher
respondents in their survey indicated that their district had no clear plan to ensure that
students with significant disabilities have access to the general education curriculum. In a
survey of state directors of special education conducted by Project Forum, only 4 out of
32 states surveyed responded that they have a definition of access to the curriculum. The
survey findings indicated that states lack a shared understanding of what access to the
general education curriculum means for students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities (Ahearn, 2005). There is no definition of the term access in IDEA or NCLB
(Ahearn, 2006). Since states and districts do not have clear policies regarding access or
even definitions of its meaning, it has subsequently been interpreted to mean different
things (Agran, Alper & Wehmeyer, 2002; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovair,
2007).
The focus on academics for students with severe disabilities has also raised
concern that it will overshadow instruction in functional life skills which are important to
improved adult outcomes (Spooner & Browder, 2006). This is especially true at the
10
secondary level. The Council of Exception Children (CEC) warns against an overreliance
on teaching academics to secondary level students without careful consideration of how it
applies to functional skill acquisition as students near adulthood (2007). In addition, some
experts in severe disabilities worry that educators may perceive student performance on
AA based on AAS as the primary focus and that the Individualized Education Program
(IEP) will be transformed into a series of individual accommodations and modifications
to the core curriculum (Lowrey, Drasgow, Renzaglia & Chezan, 2007).
In a study on parent perceptions of AA for students with severe disabilities, Roach
(2006) found that parents were more satisfied with their child’s involvement in grade
level standards based academics and assessment at the elementary level. Parents of
secondary students reported a lesser degree of satisfaction. These results are congruent
with the findings of Kasari, Freeman, Bauminger, and Alkin (2004). Decreased
satisfaction with access to the general education curriculum and setting at the secondary
level indicates that there needs to be a greater focus on reconciling the educational
priorities of students with severe disabilities with access mandates.
Additional Challenges
Ensuring access is a major challenge for educators. The general education
curriculum assumes cognitive and communication skills that students with severe
disabilities do not have (Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee, 2007;
Jiminez, Graf & Rose, 2007). This population of learners also requires higher levels of
direct and systematic instruction in order to learn than their non-disabled or mildly
disabled counterparts (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris & Wakeman, 2008).
11
Often educators find teaching academics to students with severe disabilities confusing
and even incomprehensible (Browder et al., 2007). The potential for students with severe
disabilities to learn academic content is further confounded by the fact that they have not
previously received instruction in grade level academics (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman,
Trela, & Baker, 2006; Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee, 2007).
However, experts in severe disabilities have found evidence that students with significant
disabilities are capable of learning grade level core curriculum when individualized
instructional strategies and supports are in place (Browder 2007; Downing, 2006 &
Spooner, et. al., 2006; Fisher& Frey, 2001). Both special and general educators will need
to collaborate to ensure that students with severe disabilities are accessing the curriculum
in appropriate yet challenging ways (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, & Baker,
2006; McLaughlin, Nolet, Rhim & Henderson, 1999).
Statement of the Research Problem
There has been insufficient progress towards realizing the goals of IDEA and
NCLB for students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities (Giangreco,
2006). There are multiple barriers stopping policy from turning into practice. Educators
need effective and practical approaches to providing students with severe disabilities
access to the general education curriculum in ways that do not conflict with the
importance of functional skill acquisition, inclusion and instruction in self-determination.
Purpose of Research
The purpose of this research project is to provide teachers a conceptual
framework for access to the general education curriculum that is appropriate for
12
individual students who have the most significant cognitive disabilities based on their
respective symbolic level of communication.
Theoretical Framework
Educational Equity and Access
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines disability as a complex
interaction between the self and society (2010). Disability gives rise to specific
impairments that affect the individual’s lived experience but the activity of life and
participation therein is relative to the opportunities afforded by society. Social models of
disability have similar implications, such as the capability approach. The capability
approach was originally developed by A.K. Sens as a framework for understanding the
dynamic between the individual and society in relationship to personal well being,
poverty and inequity (Mitra, 2006). The capability approach has a useful application for
disability rights as well as educational equity and access in education.
Disability rights in education are rooted in the broader civil rights movements of
the 1950’s and 1960’s. The oppression of individuals who have disabilities is well
documented. From euthanasia to involuntary sterilization, some of the worst
transgressions against humanity have happened to people who have disabilities. Only in
recent decades has this history of oppression translated into a shared consciousness,
identity and voice of empowerment (Charlton, 1998; Shapiro, 1993). The effects of the
disability rights movement on education cannot be understated. Education has long been
recognized as a basic human right and an agent of equality in society.
13
Definition of Terms
Academic Content Standard
Academic content standards are the basis of what all students are expected to
learn (Ahearn, 2006). California Department of Education (2010) defines academic
content standards as “… designed to encourage the highest achievement of every student,
by defining the knowledge, concepts, and skills that students should acquire at each grade
level.”
Alternative Achievement Standards (AAS)
States are permitted to use alternative achievement standards to measure the
academic performance of students who have the most significant disabilities. The U.S.
Department of Education defines an alternative achievement standard (AAS) as different
in “complexity” compared to the target grade-level achievement standard. AAS must be
aligned to content standards, promote access to the general education curriculum and
demonstrate professional integrity for the highest standard of achievement possible (U.S.
Department of Education, 2003).
Academic Achievement Standard
Academic achievement standards set the minimum degree of proficiency for the
level of understanding and mastery that all students must achieve in each content area
(Ahearn, 2006).
Alternative Assessments (AA)
The term alternative assessment is defined in the Non-regulatory Guidelines for
NCLB: Alternate Achievement Standards for Students With The Most Significant
14
Cognitive Disabilities (2005) as “…an assessment designed for the small number of
students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular grade-level State
assessments, even with appropriate accommodations” (p. 15).
Academic Performance Indicator (API)
Academic performance indicator (API) measures academic growth in schools and
is required by the California Public Schools Accountability Act (PSSA, 1999). API
indicates the performance of schools, sub groups within a school and local education
agencies (LEA) on standardized state assessments. Scores range from 200 to 1000 with a
target goal of at or above 800. Sub-group scores are used to measure progress towards
closing the achievement gap between historically privileged and under-privileged
students. Schools are ranked against 100 different schools with similar demographics
(California Department of Education, 2010). States use API to meet part of the federal
requirements for annual yearly progress (AYP).
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
The California Department of Education defines annual yearly progress (AYP), in
accordance with the regulations of NCLB, as the minimal level of improvement that
schools must reach each year (Yell & Drasgow, 2009). AYP includes proficiency levels
for students who take alternative assessments based on alternative achievement standards.
Progress Monitoring
Progress monitoring has been referred to in the past as Curriculum-Based
Measurement and/or Curriculum-Based Assessment. It is a scientifically based way of
measuring a student’s academic progress and effectiveness of instruction in regular
15
intervals, usually within two week or one month intervals. The National Center on
Progress Monitoring states that when progress monitoring is used correctly learning
expectations are raised and students move more quickly towards attaining academic
achievement standards (U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, 2010).
Significant Cognitive Disabilities
In the Non-Regulatory Guidance for NCLB: Alternative Achievement Standards
for Students With the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities (2005), the U.S.
Department of Education states that the term “students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities” is intended for students who are eligible under the IDEA for special
education and “whose cognitive impairments may prevent them from attaining grade
level achievement standards, even with the very best instruction” (p.23). NCLB
regulations do not specifically define the term significant cognitive disabilities. It is the
states responsibility to determine which students have the most significant cognitive
disabilities. However, no more than 1% of students determined to have significant
cognitive disabilities may qualify to take alternative assessments (Yell & Drasgow,
2009). This is different from the estimated 2% of students who do not have significant
disabilities but whose disabilities preclude them from achieving grade-level proficiency
on an assessment with or without accommodations. This population of students qualifies
to take modified assessments instead of alternative assessments.
The term significant cognitive disabilities is sometimes used interchangeably with
the term severe disabilities. Individuals with severe disabilities are diverse and may have
very different conditions and experiences but generally need substantial supports to
16
achieve an equitable quality of life compared to non-disabled persons (Alper, 2003;
Giangreco, 2006).
Standards Based Reform
Standards based reform is defined by Browder, Wakeman and Flowers (2008) as
a movement that establishes core academic standards for all learners and makes schools
accountable for the learning and achievement of students through statewide assessment.
Assumptions
The implementation of this project does not involve Human Subjects therefore
there is no possible risk to Human Subjects involved.
Justification
The outcome of this project is a framework for access to and progress monitoring
in the general education curriculum for secondary students in California who have the
most significant cognitive disabilities and qualify under IDEA and NCLB to take
alternative assessments based on alternative achievement standards. This framework is
termed Academic Achievement for All Learners or AAL (pronounced all). The need for
guidelines and frameworks around access to the general education curriculum for this
population is considerable (Browder, Wakeman & Flowers, 2008; Browder, Wakeman,
Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee, 2007; Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder & Spooner,
2005). AAL approaches this need by using a symbolic communication classification
system to plan for general education access to and progress monitoring in grades 9-12
alternative achievement standards. This project specifically focus on Science.
17
Limitations
Classifying students into the following symbolic communication levels: 1)
awareness/pre-symbolic, 2) early symbolic and 3) symbolic, to plan for general education
access has some limitations. For example, in a survey study conducted by Browder,
Flowers and Wakeman (2008), 3 out of 189 students did not fit any of these categories.
Based on their findings, this classification approach may have the unintended effect of
excluding some students. Browder and colleagues (2007) also caution that a student’s
symbolic communication level may appear lower than the student’s actual abilities due to
lack of prior instruction. In addition, the classification model developed by Browder and
colleagues does not address possible differences between receptive understanding and
expressive communication for a particular learner. Students with severe disabilities often
receptively understand more symbolic input than they are able to expressively
communicate (Beukelman & Mirenda, 2005; Siegel & Wetherby, 2006).
Organization of the Remainder of the Project
The rest of the project is organized in the following manner. Chapter 2 will provide a
review of the current literature on general education access for students who have significant
cognitive disabilities. This chapter will focus on the following evidenced based practices:
inclusion, aligning IEPs, self-determination, Universal Design for Learning, Response to
Intervention and utilizing symbolic communication levels. Chapter 3 will provide a
description of the process used to develop the Academic Achievement for All Learners
(AAL) framework. The final chapter, Chapter 4, will provide a description of the project,
18
evaluation, discussion and implications for future practice and research. A copy of the
framework is included in the appendix.
19
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Inclusion, alignment of IEPs, self-determination, Universal Design for Learning,
Response to Intervention and consideration of symbolic levels of communication are all
evidence based approaches to providing access to the general education curriculum for
students who have significant disabilities (Browder, et al. 2003; Spooner, Dymond, Smith
& Kennedy, 2006). This project will discretely focus on utilizing symbolic levels of
communication as a framework for developing appropriate performance indicators that
both guide and measure how students with significant cognitive disabilities will access
and progress in science curriculum at the secondary level. This approach is not a stand
alone model and will need to be applied in conjunction with other researched based best
practices.
Inclusion
IDEA requires high expectations for students with disabilities by:
…ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular
classroom, to the maximum extent possible, in order to meet developmental goals
and, to the maximum extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been
established for all children; and be prepared to lead productive and independent
adult lives, to the maximum extent possible…. Section 1400(c)(5).
The 2004 reauthorization more specifically states that access to the general education
needs to occur within the regular classroom. This has been interpreted to mean that IDEA
20
favors a presumption of inclusion (Jiminez, Graf & Rose, 2007; Turnbull, Huerta &
Stowe, 2009). In addition, unclear definitions of what access means has also caused some
researchers and educators to equate inclusion in regular classrooms with access to the
core curriculum (King-Sears, 2008; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovair, 2007).
Inclusion however has not always guaranteed a focus on instruction in grade level
standards (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade-Little & Snell, 2006). Dymond and
Orelove (2001) argue that in some cases inclusion became the curriculum and students
worked on participation skills that were disconnected from their IEPs and the mainstream
curricula. In addition, the IEPs of students included in regular classes did not contain
links to the grade level curriculum. Giangreco, Dennis, Edelman and Cloninger analyzed
the IEPs of 46 students educated in inclusive settings and found weak or zero indicators
of alignment with the core curricula (1994). Furthermore, IEP goals were not
incorporated into classroom instruction in the general education setting and general
education teachers were typically unaware of the contents of the IEPs.
The standards based reform movement helped to change the focus of inclusion
from physical placement and social belonging to a focus on what is taught and what is
needed to ensure adequate progress in the general education curriculum (Soukup,
Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovair, 2007). Within this new paradigm, inclusion is widely
regarded as an evidenced based way to plan for and provide access to the general
education curriculum (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade-Little & Snell, 2006;
Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee, 2007; Gee, 2004; Wehmeyer,
21
Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003). Legislation also supports this premise (Jiminez,
Graf & Rose, 2007; King-Sears, 2008).
In a study by Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran (2003) students included
in the general education classroom were found to be working on a standard’s based task
90% of the time, versus 50% of the time in a segregated special education classroom or
Special Day Class (SDC). Findings of this study indicate that students had improved
access to the general education curriculum when included in regular classrooms.
However, results also indicated that students were more apt to work on IEP goals in SDC
settings. Fisher and Frey (2001) also found that students were less likely to receive
instruction based on their IEP goals when included in general education classrooms.
In 2007, Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird replicated the study by et al.
with similar findings. Soukup and colleagues found that students who were included in
regular classrooms spent 98% of instructional time on standards, and 83% of the time
was spent on grade level standards. In contrast, students in low inclusion settings worked
on standards only 46% of the time and 0% percentage of time on grade level standards. In
addition, students included in general education were found to work on IEP goals only
10% of the time compared to 58% of the time in the SDC. The correlation between time
spent on IEP goals and time spent on grade level standards in the SDC or low inclusion
settings also indicates that the IEP goals were poorly aligned to the general education
curriculum (Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007).
Although inclusion is widely recognized as best practice in planning for access to
the general education curriculum, it is not a prerequisite, nor does it automatically ensure
22
access (Spooner & Browder, 2006). This is particularly true when IEPs do not contain
clear plans for how and what individual students need to learn in order to progress in the
general education curriculum. In addition, there are many students for whom IEP teams
have decided that the regular classroom is not their least restrictive environment (LRE).
The National Center for Education Statistics reported that on average 44% of students
who have severe disabilities (i.e., autism, cognitive and or multiple disabilities) spend
more than 60% of their time outside of the regular classroom (2006). Regardless of their
educational setting, students are entitled to rigorous instruction in grade level alternative
achievement standards (Spooner & Browder, 2006). Aligning IEPs to academic standards
is one important way to guarantee that students have access regardless of placement.
Aligning IEPs
The IEP is the primary tool used in planning for appropriate specialized education
services. The IEP document is tantamount to the team process which develops,
implements, and monitors the IEP (McLaughlin & Warren, 1995). Although the IEP was
intended to be an effective way to improve educational outcomes for students with
disabilities, studies indicated that prior to the 1997 IDEA, the IEP was regarded by
educators and families as in cumbersome, paperwork laden process that was largely
unimportant to daily instruction (Giangreco, Dennis, Edelman & Cloninger, 1994;
Karger, 2009). Giangreco, Dennis Eldelman and Cloninger analyzed the characteristics of
46 IEPs for students K-12 and found that IEPS were too long (20-30 pages) and goals
were too broad and disconnected from the general education context (1994). In addition,
23
they reported that educators were often unaware of the contents of the IEP and sometimes
did not even have a complete copy in the classroom.
In response to the problems identified in educational research and the influences
of standards based reform, subsequent reauthorizations of IDEA enacted new
requirements to improve upon the efficacy of the IEP. IDEA now requires that the IEP
contain annual goals, program modifications and supports to enable the child with a
disability to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum while
guaranteeing a reduction in paperwork (1997, 2004). Educators, however, struggle with
reconciling traditional models of functional skill programming with an additive curricular
focus on academics (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005; Parrish & Stodden, 2009). This has
sometimes resulted in trivial IEP access goals that do not promote relevant instruction or
progress in the general education curriculum (Ford, Davern & Schnorr, 2001). Research
on the topic overwhelmingly identifies teacher training as a barrier to general education
access (Agran, Alper & Wehmeyer, 2002; Ahearn, 2005; Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell,
Courtade-Little & Snell 2006; Browder, Spooner, Trela, & Baker, 2006; Browder,
Wakeman, & Flowers, 2006; Copeland & Cosbey, 2008-2009; Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell,
Browser & Spooner, 2005; McLaughlin, 2009). In response to the need for professional
development, several didactic resources have been made available to educators.
McLaughlin developed a flowchart that explains the steps for developing
standards based goals as follows: 1) Use present level of performance, 2) Choose a gradelevel standard, 3) Unpack the standard, 4) Analyze the sub-skills, 5) Develop an IDEA-
24
compliant goal, 6) Write the short-term objectives/benchmarks and 7) Monitor the goal
(2009, p.2). McLaughlin explains each step and offers vignettes as supporting examples.
Nolet and McLauglin outline a similar process in a flowchart on the IEP decision making
process (2005).
Courtade-Little and Browder have published an easy to read guideline on aligning
IEPs for students with moderate and severe disabilities (2005). The book is a practical
reader designed for special and general educators that is based on the following three
premises: 1. IEPs aligned with state standards can prepare students for state assessments,
2. For students to show progress in academic content, they need academic instruction and
3. Well aligned IEPs can promote meaningful academic instruction (pp. 8-9). The authors
also effectively illustrate how the IEP team considers both functional and general
education curriculum to balance transition planning with preparation for state alternative
assessments. Courtade-Little and Browder go more in depth that other resources on
aligning IEPs and provide multiple real life contextual examples.
Overall, there are a limited number of publications to date available to guide
educators in planning for general education access for students who have significant
disabilities. There are even fewer studies available. The recent study by Karvonen and
Huynh is one exception. Karvonen and Huynh (2007) examined the relationship between
IEPs and alternative assessment test cores by analyzing 292 IEPs using the content
Analysis Rubric (ICAR). They found that the average IEP had 19 objectives and 11 were
non-academic in nature. While 97% IEPS contained some type of an academic objective,
6% contained no English Language Arts objectives and 20% contained no math
25
objectives. In addition, 48% of IEPs had no objectives related to reading comprehension
and 36% had no objectives related to numeracy. In analyzing the relationship between
IEP characteristics and alternative assessments, Karvonen and Huynh (2007) found that
alignment between English Language Arts IEP objectives correlated to improved test
scores. This was less clear in the area of Math which the authors explain may have been
caused by variances in the structure of the Math content standards compared to the
English Language Arts content standards.
The National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC) argues that a
legally sound IEP cannot by itself guarantee access; however, it is a required and
essential part of planning for the profound and complex academic learning needs of
students who have severe disabilities (2004). While educators are learning to design
compliant IEPs, they are still grappling with the essential elements in educational
programming that can guarantee access. Research on access to the general education
curriculum for students with severe disabilities has shown varied and sometimes
conflicting interpretations regarding what is the appropriate context and content for
learning (Ryndak, Moore, Orlando & Delano, 2008-2009). In some cases, context has
been strictly interpreted to mean the regular education classroom (King-Sears, 2008). In
other cases, content (what is taught) has been narrowly interpreted within a competitive
paradigm of academic versus functional instructional programs at the expense of FAPE
(Bouck, 2009).
In recent years, the body of research on access to the general education
curriculum has evolved. There exists a shared understanding that raising academic
26
expectations for this population of learners is both important and plausible (Browder et
al., 2006). This is best achieved when IEPs are carefully designed to align with the
general education curriculum and balanced with the continued importance of a functional
curriculum (Browder et al., 2006; Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005). In addition, experts
agree that aligning IEPs can promote access to the general education curriculum in both
inclusive and non-inclusive settings (Browder et al., 2006; Karvonen & Huynh, 2007).
Self-Determination
Wehmeyer (2005) defines self-determination as “volitional actions that enable
one to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to maintain or improve one’s
quality of life” (p. 117). The importance and rationale for addressing self-determination is
essential to the civil rights and educational priorities of individuals who have severe
disabilities (Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones & Mason, 2004). Self-determination has had
a major influence on instruction (i.e. teaching choice making, self-monitoring and self
assessment) and service planning (i.e. person centered planning) for individuals with
severe disabilities (Browder, et al., 2003). Wehmeyer argues that self-determination also
allows for students to enter into the general education curriculum and establish an
effective basis for academic instruction (Wehmeyer, 2006).
Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones and Mason maintain that there are at least two
ways that self-determination promotes access to the general education curriculum (2004).
First, state standards generally include an emphasis on self-determination skills such as
goal-setting, problem-solving and decision-making (Wehmeyer, et al., 2004). Secondly,
27
meta-cognition and active problem-solving are important self-directed learning strategies
for learning academic content.
One empirically validated self-determination model for accessing the general
curriculum is the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI; Agran,
Blancahard & Wehmeyer, 2000; Agran, Cavin & Palmer, 2006; Agran, Cavin,
Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2010; Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004; Wehmeyer,
Palmer, Agran, Mithuag & Palmer, 2000). The model entails a three-phase instructional
approach, wherein each phase presents an instructional problem to be solved by the
student. Specifically, students need to indentify the following: 1) What is my goal? 2)
What is my plan? and 3) What have I learned? Using this model, students learn a set of
self-regulated problem-solving strategies that allow them to identify problems, potential
solutions and barriers to finding a solution as well as possible consequences associated
with each solution.
There is a large body of research that substantiates the efficacy of SDLMI for
both functional and academic skill acquisition. Agran, Blanchard & Wehmeyer (2000)
used the model to successfully teach 17 out of 19 students transition skills related to
hygiene, transportation, job skills and money management. The model also yielded
successful outcomes for four middle school students who had autism or were otherwise
classified as severely disabled (Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeryer, & Hughes, 2002). Each
student answered the question “What is my goal?” and “What can I do to make this
happens?” Students developed goals around appropriate touching and classroom
participation. Across 8 days of instruction and two weeks of maintenance data collection,
28
each student met or exceeded their goal by up to 20% mastery. Mcglashing et al. (2004)
used the model to effectively teach transition students who had pervasive support needs
community based work skills (McGlashing, Agran, Sitlington, Cavin, & Wehmeyer,
2004). SDLMI is an evidenced-based approach to teaching functional skills and
promoting positive adult outcomes. In addition, it has been found to successfully promote
learning and progress in the general education curriculum.
Agran et al. (2006) conducted a study of three middle school and junior high
students who had moderate-to-severe disabilities across science and geography
classrooms using the SDLMI (Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2006). Students
worked on goals related to practicing the scientific inquiry method, understanding
different types of maps and learning about the organ systems of the body. All three
students were given instruction in self-determination strategies to promote learning in
each target behavior. After an average of 14 sessions, all 3 students achieved criterion
level with a mean performance of 70%. The findings suggested that self-directed learning
strategies such as goal setting, self-monitoring and self-instruction are effective in
promoting access and progress in the general education curriculum. Lee, Wehmeyer,
Gipson and Agran (2008) studied 42 students with cognitive disabilities and found a
positive correlation between SDLMI and the rate students achieved self-set goals based
on the general education curriculum.
In the most recent study on SDLMI, both general education access and functional
skill acquisition were treated (Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2010). Agran et al.
found that students met their target behaviors for public speaking and requesting help in
29
general education classes as well as preparing snacks after school using the SDLMI
approach. Across training sessions, performance increased significantly and, during the
maintenance timeframe of the study, each student maintained goal proficiency at or
above 84%. Original baselines ranged from 0% to 33%.
There is also evidence that applying self-determination strategies to promote
student involvement in the IEP process can improve academic outcomes for students. In
the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS, 2010), Brak and
Lechtenberger evaluated the effects of student participation in the IEP process on
academic achievement across time for 3,912 elementary students with disabilities. The
investigators found that participants demonstrated up to a 30% increase in academic
achievement across a four-year time span.
Self-determination is an empirically based method for general education access
that also promotes learning strategies that are important to functional skill acquisition and
improved adult outcomes (Barnard-Brak & Lechtenberger, 2010). Self-determination also
aligns to the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) especially as it applies to
strategic learning.
Universal Design for Learning
Supporters of UDL argue that curriculum deficits not student deficits are to blame
for low academic achievement (Wehmeyer, 2003). Approaching standards-based reform
from this viewpoint shifts the focus from remediation to a primary focus on curriculum
development and instruction to make learning and academic achievement possible for the
30
full range of student diversity from the start. Wehmeyer (2003) articulates it in the
following way:
Only when the focus shifts from the student as the ‘problem’ to considerations of
the interaction between the student’s functional limitations and the environment in
which he or she lives, learns or works can we remove the barriers raised by labels
and low expectations.
The basic premise of UDL is that in order for students to learn the general education
curriculum they must have access to it. UDL originated from three key events: the
development of the disability civil rights movement, the advent of the American’s
Disability Act (ADA), the impact of ADA on the built environment and its eventual
extension into education (CEC, 2005). Architect and director of the Center for Universal
Design at North Carolina State University Ronal Mace developed the concept of
Universal Design which plans for barrier free physical environments from the start
thereby making it more usable for everyone (Rose, Meyer, & Hitchcock, 2006). For
example, curb cuts benefit parents using strollers, people using wheelchairs, runners, etc.
UDL extends the principles of Universal Design from the physical environment to the
learning environment.
Researchers at the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST, 2010) define
Universal Design for Learning (UDL):
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a framework for designing curricula that
enable all individuals to gain knowledge, skills, and enthusiasm for learning. UDL
31
provides rich supports for learning and reduces barriers to the curriculum while
maintaining high achievement standards for all.
UDL is also substantiated in brain research. It looks at how the three neural networks –
recognition, strategic and affective – work in relation to learning and individual
differences (Rose & Meyer, 2002). Research on the learning brain forms the basis for the
three essential qualities of UDL curriculum – multiple means of representation,
expression and engagement.
Multiple means of representation
In order for academic content to be made accessible to a broad range of learners,
it needs to be available in multiple and flexible formats. Research on the recognition
neural network shows that identifying and interpreting patterns of taste, touch, smell,
sound and light are complex cognitive functions (Rose & Meyer, 2002).Varied
representation of patterns however have an improved likelihood of reaching more
learners. Therefore, universally designed materials come in a variety of formats to
improve access and promote recognition. For example, a traditional textbook is
accessible only to those who have vision, can read that language or can read with fluency
and comprehension at that level. Digital books, however, allow for text-to-speech,
magnification, digital magnification, electronic brail, sign language interpretation,
differentiated levels, language translation, web links to background content or word
definitions, and other alternative formats (Wehmeyer, 2006).
Multiple means of expression
32
Students also need varied and flexible opportunities to demonstrate what they
know. The strategic neural network involves complex capacities important to identifying
goals, formulating a plan and self-monitoring. Individual learners vary significantly in
how they acquire and demonstrate understanding therefore they need opportunities to
practice with supports, receive ongoing feedback as well as have flexible opportunities to
show their skills, such as utilizing video, artwork, music, drama, photography, etc. in
their work samples (Rose & Meyer, 2002; Wehmeyer, 2006).
Multiple means of engagement
Enhancing student motivation to participate and engage in the curriculum is
essential to learning. Providing multiple means of engagement entails a consideration of
student preferences and interests. It involves incorporating these priorities into instruction
thus, promoting positive emotions that fuel active learning and engagement. Researchers
at CAST have found that the use of digital presentations that incorporate graphics and
multi-media components such as video and audio enhance student engagement (CAST,
2010; Doyle & Giangreco, 2009; Wehmeyer, Lance & Bashinski, 2002). Dymond and
Renzaglia (2004) found that by applying the principles of UDL to an inclusive high
school science classroom, students with severe disabilities increased participation and
engagement and thereby learning and progress in the curriculum.
UDL is important to the discussion on access to the core curriculum because it
resolves the time consuming problem of having to retrofit the general curriculum to
ensure access, participation and progress therein (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose & Jackson,
2002). Flexible curriculum allows educators to promote the integrity of established
33
instructional methodologies such as differentiated instruction, cooperative learning,
thematic teaching units, community based instruction, Multiple Intelligences and activitycentered learning in order to promote multiple pathways to learning (CEC, 2005;
Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose & Jackson, 2002). In addition, UDL has a strong focus on
technology as a means of creating flexibility in curriculum and promoting learning.
Although most of the literature on UDL is descriptive or didactic in nature, there
is a promising study by Spooner and colleagues on the effects of teacher training and
UDL lesson plan development (Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell & Browder,
2007). The study used a three-factor analysis of variance based on the three principles of
UDL – multiple means of representation, expression and engagement – and found that,
following a one-hour simple introduction to UDL, both general and special education
teachers were able to develop UDL lesson plans which involved students with severe
cognitive disabilities. In addition, they found that even without the use of expensive
technology, teachers were able to create lesson plans that involved students on all levels
from the start. Encouraging findings, such as this, bring into question current dual
systems of teacher preparation programs that may be counterproductive to general and
special education collaboration and the endeavor to meet the needs of all learners via
barrier free UDL classrooms (Skrtic, Sailor & Gee, 1996).
Response to Intervention
IDEA 2004 incorporates several new provisions that allow local education
agencies to better serve at risk students in support of NCLB. Schools are no longer
required to use a discrepancy model for eligibility, but can instead use a process to find
34
out if the child will respond to scientific research-based intervention as part of the
evaluation procedure. IDEA also permits up to 15% of special education funds to be
spent on early intervention for at risk students (2004). These changes in special education
law have given growth to a tiered system of school-wide supports called Response to
Intervention (RtI). RTI is arguably a potentially effective model that can unify general
and special education and maximize educational benefit for all (Copeland & Cosbey,
2008-2009; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Sailor, 2009, Sailor et al., 2006).
The National Center on Response to Intervention (2010) offers the following
explanation of RTI:
Response to intervention integrates assessment and intervention within a multilevel prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce
behavioral problems. With RtI, schools use data to identify students at risk for
poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based
interventions and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending
on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or
other disabilities (p. 2).
The RTI multi-level prevention system consists of 3 tiers. Schools provide one or more
intervention at each level.
Tier 1 is primary prevention consisting of effective general education instruction
which meet the needs of most students, i.e. approximately 80%. Tier 1 instruction
incorporates evidenced based instructional strategies such as UDL (Copeland & Cosbey,
2008-2009). Tier 2 is secondary prevention and may involve curricular augmentation
35
strategies such as self-determination. Approximately 15% of the student population will
require tier 2 supports. Tier 3 is tertiary prevention and involves the highest level of
individualized supports required for the most involved students, usually 1-5% of the total
student population (Copeland & Cosbey, 2008-2009).
One RtI based approach to school-wide reform that implicitly includes students
with severe disabilities is the School Wide Application Model (SAM). Developed by
Wayne Sailor and Blair Rogers, SAM assumes that every child is a general education
student to be educated in the core curriculum in the regular classroom by general
educators who assume ownership of all students. In this model, specialized interventions
and supports are delivered in the general education setting to maximize the largest
number of students who will benefit (Sailor, 2009). Sailor and Rogers argue that SAM is
different from inclusion (2005). Inclusion is described by these researchers as a failed
approach that has incited backlash from special educators and across a 15 year period
never managed to solicit general education buy in. In contrast, SAM melds individual
existing school cultures with the basic framework of RtI in order to structure school
reform in ways that will promote and sustain improved student outcomes. As part of this
process, SAM integrates school wide positive behavior supports (SWPBS) at each
tertiary level (Sailor et al., 2006; Sailor & Rogers, 2005).
SAM is currently being implemented in the Ravenswood City School District in
East Palo Alto, California. The ethnic make-up of the student population in Ravenswood
is predominantly Hispanic (70%) then African American (20%), Pacific Islander (9%)
and other 1%. SAM was proven to positively impact academic achievement in the
36
district. This was especially true for its English Learner population who made substantial
gains in the California English Language Achievement Test (CELDT). Across the
district, significant gains were also made in CST scores and the guiding principles of
SAM. The Ravenswood District has successfully worked towards educating all students
within the regular classroom and general education classroom while simultaneously
delivering tiered supports and interventions to realize improved academic outcomes
(Sailor, 2009; Sailor & Blair, 2005).
Symbolic Communication Levels
The ability to recognize and understand various relationships between symbols
and their referents is the basis of learning and communication (Beukelman & Mirenda,
2005). Several researchers have argued that consideration of symbolic communication
levels is useful in planning for access to the general education curriculum (Browder,
Flowers & Wakeman, 2008; Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela & Baker, 2006;
Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman, Pugalee & Karvonen, 2007; Downing, 2006).
Individuals who have severe disabilities are notably heterogeneous in their
abilities to understand symbols (Flowers, Wakeman, Browder & Karvonen, 2009). In a
study on the learning characteristic of students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities, Kearns, Towles-Reeves, Kleinert & Kleinert (2006) surveyed teachers who
instructed a total of 1,321 students. Kearns et al. found that 71% of this student
population uses symbolic language to communicate expressively, 17% use intentional
communication but not at a symbolic level, 8% have no clear ability to communicate
37
expressively and approximately 2% have no clear response to sensory stimuli. These
results are consistent with the findings of Almond and Bechard (2005).
Browder et al. (2008) suggests four levels of symbolic communication
classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities: 1) awareness, 2) presymbolic, 3) early symbolic (concrete) and 4) symbolic (abstract). In a sampling of 96 K12 moderate-severe teachers, Browder et al. (2008) determined that 54.8% of their
students fit the symbolic classification; 18.8%, early symbolic; 21.5%, pre-symbolic; and
4.8, awareness. Out of a total of 189 student ratings, 3 students could not be reliably
classified into any one of the four categories.
The four levels of symbolic communication are defined by Browder et al. (2008)
as follows:
Awareness – Communication is ambiguous, showing no clear cause or effect.
Pre-symbolic – Communication involves purposeful gestures, affect, eye gaze
and sound.
Early Symbolic (Concrete) – Communication incorporates pictures, objects, or
other symbols to express basic wants and needs.
Symbolic (Abstract) – Communication consists of signs, pictures and some
written words.
Communication is a reciprocal process between two individuals that is both
receptive and expressive. Receptive communication is the message that the individual
receives and comprehends and expressive communication is the message that the
individual produces and sends. Communication can be non-symbolic (i.e. vocal, affect,
38
tactual, body movement, gestural, physiological and visual) and symbolic (i.e. verbal,
sign, photos and pictures, representational objects, graphic system and written language).
Although symbolic communication is more explicit, non-symbolic is also a valid and
powerful form communication (Siegel & Wetherby, 2006).
Because of the reciprocal nature of communication, learners who have severe
disabilities receive input from communication partners that includes both non-symbolic
and symbolic information. In contrast, they have no ability or a comparatively limited
ability to use symbols expressively. As a result, there may be a significant difference
between what individuals with severe disabilities receptively understand compared to
what they are able to expressively communicate (Siegel & Wetherby, 2006). Some
students with severe disabilities may never acquire symbol use. As a result, educators
need to be able to interpret their patterns of non-symbolic communication to look for
reliable responses.
Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee (2007) caution however that
the current symbolic level of a student may be attributed to a historical lack of
instruction. Teachers will need to teach the development of symbol communication
within the context of the general education content (Towles-Reeves, Kearns, Kleinert, &
Kleinert, 2009). As students become more fluent in symbols use, their ability to learn
abstract academic content will improve (Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman &
Pugalee, 2007). For some students with the most pervasive cognitive differences, growth
may be horizontal versus vertical (Browder, Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman & Pugalee,
2007). For example, their basic skill levels may not change significantly but the content
39
for learning will naturally evolve as they move through grade levels. Teacher training is a
key variable. Educators will need guidance on symbolic levels in order to plan for
curricular access (Towles-Reeves, Kearns, Kleinert & Kleintert, 2008).
Summary
Ensuring access to the general education curriculum for students who have severe
disabilities is a major challenge and responsibility in education today. However, there are
a number of evidence-based practices that educators can draw on when planning for
curricular access. Research finding are hopeful and suggest that the integration of
multiple approaches in models such as RtI may yield positive outcomes for all students,
including those with the most significant support needs. Consideration of student’s
symbolic communication levels is an important starting point in planning for instruction
in grade level alternative standards.
40
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter provides information on the methods used to develop the framework for
this project. The following will be discussed: a) organization of the framework, b)
consultation with key professionals, c) alignment criterions and d) data collection.
Project Organization
As previously discussed, educators need guidelines and models to plan for general
education access for students who have significant disabilities. This population of
learners is markedly heterogeneous with respect to cognitive and language abilities.
In response to this need, the author developed a general education access framework that
utilizes performance indicators based on the following four symbolic communication
levels: awareness, pre-symbolic, early symbolic and symbolic to show how students with
significant disabilities can learn and progress in grade level standards.
An important consideration in the organization of this framework was how the
framework might guide instruction, student learning and incorporate progress monitoring
in preparation for the California Standards Test (CST). Students who have the most
significant disabilities in California take the California Alternative Performance
Assessment (CAPA). Therefore, the CAPA Blueprints were used to outline scope and
sequence for the science standards selected by the State of California as the focus of
assessment. The author chose to use the same formatting as the CAPA Blueprints because
41
of its central focus on the grade-level standards. The framework developed for this
project focuses on high school science therefore the CAPA Blueprint for Science Level V
was selected as the basis of the framework.
Under each science standard in the CAPA Blueprint, performance indicators for
the four symbolic levels were inserted in the following order: 1) awareness, 2) presymbolic, 3) early-symbolic and 4) symbolic. Under each symbolic communication level,
space was allowed for the development of an individualized performance indicator if
needed. The reason for this is that students with severe disabilities are extremely
heterogeneous and the framework needed to incorporate flexibility in order to be
responsive to the needs of its intended population.
Another important feature in the organization of the framework is a progressmonitoring tool, which is to the right of each performance indicator. The progressmonitoring tool allows an educator to intermittently assess a student’s progress towards a
standard by indicating if they are at a frustration, instructional or an independent level for
various performance indicators. The progress-monitoring tool can also help educators
determine if a student has made any growth in their receptive and expressive
communication skills across time.
Consultation with Key Professionals
Consultation with key professionals in related fields was a major part of the
development of this project. The author consulted extensively with three high school
science teachers who have between five and thirty-five years of experience teaching all
major science domains. The general education teachers gave input and correction as
42
experts in the curricular content. In addition, a speech- language pathologist (SLP) was
consulted. The SLP has five years experiences serving students with mild-moderate and
moderate-severe disabilities at the secondary level. The SLP’s input helped to ensure
the performance indicators accurately reflected cognitive and language ability for a given
symbolic communication level.
Overall, the author spent six hours consulting with general education high school
science teachers and ten hours consulting with the SLP. The number of consultation
hours were not pre-determined but were instead based on project need. Post-project
development the author and consulting SLP discussed possible reasons why more
consultation time was needed with speech and language than general education. Both the
author and therapist agreed that this was attributed to the difficulties associated with
developing performance indicators at the awareness level. At this level, it was
challenging to develop performance indicators that maintained fidelity with the gradelevel standard, but were cognitively accessible and allowed the learner to expressively
demonstrate their understanding. It was determined that for this population of learners,
communication partners will need to be very knowledgeable and adept at interpreting the
individual communicative responses of students categorized in this group.
Alignment Criteria
Performance indicators measure progress towards alternative achievement
standards (AAS) for students who have severe disabilities (Browder et al., 2004). An
alignment method is a procedure that describes a clear relationship and link to grade level
AAS (Flowers, Wakeman & Browder, 2009). The Links for Academic Learning (LAL) is
43
one example of an alignment method. Developed by Flowers, Wakeman, and Browder
(2009), LAL is primarily used to measure the degree of alignment between alternate
assessment (AA), which are based on AAS. There are eight alignment criteria in LAL:
Criterion 1 – The content is academic.
Criterion 2 – The content references the appropriate grade level.
Criterion 3 – The achievement focus is consistent with the grade-level standards.
Criterion 4 – The content may differ in range and depth of knowledge but
reflects high expectations for achievement.
Criterion 5 – There is differentiation in content across grade levels.
Criterion 6 – The expected achievement is grade-referenced academic content.
Criterion 7 – The possible barriers to demonstrating performance are minimized.
Criterion 8 – The content promotes learning in the general curriculum.
Although the LAL was developed to determine if AA aligns to AAS, it is an
evidenced-based alignment method that can also be used to evaluate the degree of
alignment between performance indicators and AAS. The eight criteria of LAL were,
therefore, a major point of consideration in the development of this project. The LAL was
used in this project to develop performance indicators and evaluate their degree of
fidelity with the grade-level standards. Performance indicators found to be inconsistent
with LAL were discarded and redeveloped. It was not possible to evaluate the framework
developed for this project against Criterion 5. Only high school science was addressed
therefore it is not possible to compare it to other grade levels to measure differentiation
across grade levels.
44
The Science CAPA Blueprints and Focus Standards (2006) were used to order
and sequence the project. In addition, the Science Framework for California Public
Schools: Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve (2002) was a major resource. The
framework was used in tandem with the LAL in the development of performance
indicators.
Data Collection Procedures
The project also included survey data collected from teachers and therapists. The
data was collected without the use of any names. However, participants were asked to
identify themselves as one of the following: a) general education teacher, b) special
education teacher or 3) speech-language pathologist. Data was collected from general
education science teachers from a high school with the fourth largest student population
in Solano County, located in Northern California. In addition, survey data was collected
from high school moderate-to-severe education specialists and SLPs throughout Solano
County.
The final project and survey was distributed to six high school general education
science teachers, eleven high school moderate-to-severe special educators and 5 SLPs.
The survey questionnaire asked the teacher or therapist to rate usability and potential
application of the project using a rating scale along with qualitative feedback. (See
Appendix B: Survey Questionnaire.)
45
Chapter 4
PROJECT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Survey Results
The framework has not been field-tested. However, a survey was handed out to
gather qualitative feedback on perceived potential benefit of the Academic Achievement for
All Learners (AAL) framework developed for this project. The survey was distributed to six
general education high school science teachers, eleven special educators who serve high
school students with significant disabilities and five speech-language pathologists (SLPs)
who have experience serving high school students with moderate-severe disabilities.
There was an approximate overall 50% return rate for each category of respondents.
Based on a scale of 0-5, 0 = no experience with students who have severe disabilities
and 5 = extensive experience with students who have severe disabilities, respondents
indicated that they had the following levels of experience: a) general educators: 0-1, b)
special education: 2-5 and c) SLPs: 5. Survey respondents also indicated that they have
taught for the following number of years: a) general educators: 4-35 years, b) special
educators: 2-15 years and c) SLPs: 5-30 years. Surprisingly, both the general education
teachers and SLPs on average were in stronger agreement than special educators that students
with severe disabilities are capable of learning general education academics based on grade
level standards with modifications appropriate for their respective cognitive and language
abilities.
46
All respondents however were in general agreement that the performance indicators
in AAL were adequately aligned to grade-level standards. Based on a scale of 0-5 (0 = no
link and 5 = strongly linked), respondents rated each level as follows:
Awareness- a) general educators: 4, b) special educators: 4.3 and c) SLPs: 4.2
Pre-symbolic- a) general educators: 4.3, b) special educators: 4.3 and c) SLPs: 4.7
Early symbolic- a) general educators: 4.3, b) special educators: 4.7 and c) SLPs: 5
Symbolic- a) general educators: 4.7, b) special educators: 4.7 and c) SLPs: 5
In addition, respondents provided anecdotal comments on the perceived potential
benefit of the framework. For example, one general educator reported, “students would be
well supported in general education with this system.” Several special educators commented
that the framework was beneficial because it provided educators clear examples on how
students with severe disabilities can achieve academic standards. One special educator
however reported that academic learning was not appropriate for this population and as a
result, the framework was neither useful nor relevant. In contrast, one SLP stated that the
framework promoted “a sense of dignity and social participation” by holding students with
severe disabilities accountable to the standards in accessible ways.
Overall, the survey results provide some preliminary and encouraging data on the
perceived potential benefit of the AAL framework to support general education access for
students with severe disabilities. It is also encouraging that general educators, special
educators and SLPs generally gave similar positive ratings. These preliminary findings
however are limited to a small sample size of general educators, special educators and SLPs.
In addition, none of these professionals has had the opportunity to field test the framework.
47
Discussion
The framework in this project was developed using the Links for
Academic Learning (LAL) alignment method (Flowers, Wakeman & Browder, 2009).
There are eight criteria in LAL used to check for alignment to grade level standards. This
section will give an overview on the author’s reflection on the degree of alignment between
performance indicators and the standards indicated in the California Alternative Performance
Assessment (CAPA) Blueprints for grade level science standards
Criterion one requires that the content is academic. Performance indicators at the
pre-symbolic, early symbolic and symbolic levels consistently reflected an academic
focus, whereas performance indicators at the awareness level sometimes indicate a more
functional outcome, i.e. identify a green plant or discriminate between movement and
stillness. Given the profound cognitive and communication differences at this level it was
necessary to carefully consider learning outcomes that were achievable yet challenging.
Although these learning objectives were developed by analyzing the related standard, if
taken out of context the performance indicators at the awareness level may not appear
linked to the standard nor entirely academic. However, in the context of a grade-level
universally designed science lessons, performance indicators at the awareness level can
potentially guide how students participate while giving some meaningful ways to
measure how they are accessing the curriculum and this exposure may possibly lead to
the acquisition of higher level academic understanding.
Criterion two requires that the content references the student’s assigned grade
level and criterion three requires that the focus of achievement maintains fidelity with the
48
content of the original grade-level standards. The framework developed in this project
discretely focuses on the high school science standards identified in the CAPA
Blueprints. In developing the performance indicators high school science teachers gave
input and guidance in formulating learning objectives that were both tied to the standard
and maintained fidelity with its content. Although indicators at the awareness level reflect
a very basic level of the standard there is a connection especially when compared to other
frameworks such as the Special Education Administrators of County Offices (SEACO)
Curriculum Guide for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities (2005). For
example, in the Academic Achievement for All Learners (AAL) framework developed
for this project performance indicators are clearly mapped to the grade level standard. In
contrast, the SEACO framework organizes performance indicators under broad SEACO
standards that are not grade level referenced.
Criterion four requires that the content differs from grade level in range, balance,
and depth of knowledge but matches high expectations for students with significant
cognitive disabilities. Performance indicators in the AAL framework clearly differed
from the from the grade level standard with regards to range, balance and depth of
knowledge for each symbolic communication level, but also presented challenging
benchmarks for each given level.
Criterion five requires that there is some differentiation in content across grade
levels. It is not possible to measure the degree of alignment to grade level standards for
the AAL framework based on this specific criterion as currently only one grade level and
subject has been developed. However, in the future as the author continues to develop
49
this framework this will be an important area of consideration especially at the awareness
level.
Criterions six, seven and eight require that the student’s expected achievement is
grade referenced academic content, that potential barriers to demonstrating performance
are minimized and that the instruction program promotes learning in the general
curriculum. In the author’s opinion the AAL framework meets these criterions because it
is clearly based on grade level standards and allows for flexibility in how students can
indicate their understanding of academic content and demonstrate progress in the general
education standards.
Recommendations
As previously discussed, students with severe disabilities may receptively
understand more than they can expressively communicate. In addition, every child has
the right to learn the general education curriculum and whenever possible this needs to
occur in the general education classroom. The AAL framework was intended to be
implemented within the context of universally designed lesson plans preferably within
the regular education classroom using an inclusion or RtI model along with strategies to
promote self-determination. Within this learning context, students who have significant
disabilities will have the opportunity to be challenged with respect to their potential
cognitive and receptive communication abilities. The AAL framework will provide
educators a way of measuring progress towards standards according to a student’s
particular level of expressive symbolic communication.
50
APPENDICES
51
APPENDIX A
AAL Framework
52
Academic Achievement for All Learners (AAL) Framework:
High School Science
Introduction
The Academic Achievement for All Learners (AAL) framework is intended for
use by general and special educators who serve students who have significant cognitive
disabilities. This framework focuses on high school science.
Purpose
The purpose of the AAL framework is two-fold. Primarily, it is intended to
provide educators with specific examples for how students who have severe disabilities
can access grade-level general education science standards and demonstrate measurable
progress in the general education science curriculum. Secondly, the framework was
intended to be used as a progress monitoring tool to measure progress towards and
achievement of the science standards addressed in the California Alternative Performance
Assessment (CAPA).
Organization
The organization of the AAL framework is based on the CAPA Science Level V
Blueprint. As a result, the scope and sequence for the standards matches the CAPA
Blueprint. Under each standard there are four different levels for different cognitive and
communication abilities termed: levels of symbolic communication. The four different
levels are: awareness, pre-symbolic, early symbolic and symbolic. These levels are
defined as follows:
Awareness – Communication is ambiguous, showing no clear cause or effect.
53
Pre-symbolic – Communication involves purposeful gestures, affect, eye gaze
and sound.
Early Symbolic (Concrete) – Communication incorporates pictures, objects, or
other symbols to express basic wants and needs.
Symbolic (Abstract) – Communication consists of signs, pictures and some
written words.
Educators can determine the student’s appropriate symbolic communication level based
on the present levels of performance for communication in the student’s individualized
educational program (IEP) and by utilizing the progress monitoring tool incorporated into
the framework. It is important to note however that students with severe disabilities often
understand more receptively than they are able to expressively communicate. In addition,
some students may be successfully challenged to increase use of symbolic
communication whereas other students will stay static however every student should be
held to high expectations for academic achievement and challenged to excel at their
respective instructional level.
Components
Performance Indicators
The AAL framework is made up of performance indicators organized by
symbolic communication levels for each standard. The performance indicators are
intended as examples for how students with significant cognitive disabilities can access a
particular academic standard and demonstrate progress and achievement of that standard
at a level that is cognitively and communicatively accessible.
54
Progress Monitoring
Another important feature of the framework is a progress-monitoring tool, which
is to the right of each performance indicator. The progress-monitoring tool allows an
educator to intermittently assess a student’s progress towards a standard by indicating if
they are at a frustration, instructional or an independent level for various performance
indicators. The progress-monitoring tool can also help educators determine if a student
has made any growth in their receptive and expressive communication skills across time.
Individualization
The AAL framework was designed to be a flexible tool. Given the markedly
heterogeneous nature of learners who have significant cognitive disabilities flexibility is
necessary. Therefore, the framework allows for and encourages the development of
individualized performance indicators for specific learners. This is especially true
students who may have vision and hearing impairments in addition to significant
cognitive disabilities. For example, educators may want to consider developing
performance indicators that involve tactile representations and student responses based on
tactile communication systems. For additional information on this population of learners,
educators may want to consider the following resources: The Center for Applied Special
Technologies (www.cast.org), the American Foundation for the Blind (www.afb.org) and
the National Association of the Deaf (www.nad.org).
Recommended Use
Every child has the right to learn the general education curriculum and whenever
possible this needs to occur in the general education classroom. Students with severe
55
disabilities may receptively understand more than they can expressively communicate.
The AAL framework was intended to be implemented within the context of universally
designed lesson plans preferably within the regular education classroom using an
inclusion or RtI model along with strategies to promote self-determination. Within this
learning context, students who have significant disabilities will have the opportunity to be
challenged with respect to their potential cognitive and receptive communication
abilities. The AAL framework can also provide educators a meaningful way of measuring
progress towards standards in preparation for California Standardized Testing.
56
Domain:
Science
Grades: 9-12
Strand: Biology
Sub Strand:
Cell Biology
Standard Set 1
The fundamental life processes of plants and animals depend on a variety of
chemical reactions that occur in specialized areas of the organism’s cells. As
a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 1f
Students know usable energy is captured from sunlight by chloroplasts and is
stored through the synthesis of sugar from carbon dioxide.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that plants capture sunlight and convert it to energy.
► Know that plants use energy to make food.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Receptively identify a green plant by
using eye gaze or tactile response
with required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Receptively identify plant, water and
sunlight by using eye gaze, pointing
or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Receptively identify what is good for
plants from a field of two using eye
gaze, pointing or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC. For example,
when given a choice between a)
giving a plant water and placing it on
a windowsill or b) not giving a plant
water and putting it in a zip lock bag
in a dark box.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify the basic needs of plants by
associating plant roots with water and
plant leaves with sunlight using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
57
vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify sunlight as a source of
energy by describing its
characteristics: light and heat, using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Compare and contrast the basic
needs of people and plants, using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Identify how plants capture sunlight
and intake carbon dioxide and water
using models, pictures, symbols, sign
language and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Explain how plants make useable
energy (plant food) from sunlight
using models, pictures, symbols, sign
language and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Use photos, symbols and or words to
complete a diagram of the
photosynthesis process.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub Strand:
Ecology
Standard Set 6
Stability in an ecosystem is a balance between competing effects. As a basis
for understanding this concept:
Standard 6b
Students know how to analyze changes in an ecosystem resulting from
changes in climate, human activity, introduction of nonnative species, or
changes in population size.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that changes in ecosystems may be due to climate changes, impact of
human activity, and changes in population size.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
58
Awareness
 Receptively identify a basic living
organism and its habitat (i.e. fish in
water, plant in dirt, etc.) using eye
gaze or tactile response with required
prompting levels.

Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Receptively identify a familiar
ecosystem that has significantly
changed when paired with the same
ecosystem pre-change (i.e. a healthy
forest and a forest bulldozed, a
healthy lake and a lake overrun by
algae, etc.) using eye gaze, pointing
or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify changes in a familiar
ecosystem resulting from climate (i.e.
pair green grassland with wet rainy
season and brown grassland with hot,
dry summer season) using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Explain that ecosystems are changed
by human activity by comparing
which has more or less wild plants
and animals: a) a natural reserve or
b) a city and why (i.e. people not
building on land versus people
building on land) using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify a good population size of a
familiar species for a local ecosystem
(i.e. 5 birds in a backyard) versus a
bad population size (i.e. 500 birds in
a backyard) using models, pictures,
59
sign language, symbols and/or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 When given photos of local
ecosystems changed by weather, the
student will be able to pair the
corresponding pattern of climate
responsible for that change using
models, pictures, symbols, sign
language and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Describe possible consequences for
a local ecosystem when an invasive
species is introduced (i.e. GlassyWinged Sharpshooter kills grapevines
which is bad for California’s
agriculture business) using models,
pictures, symbols, sign language and
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Analyze what changes can occur in
an ecosystem when there is a
significant increase in the population
of a given species (i.e. deer) using
models, pictures, symbols, sign
language and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Explain how ecosystems are changed
by human activity (i.e. how building
roads and cities changes habitats)
and population size (i.e. its impact on
available resources), using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols and
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 6e
Students know a vital part of an ecosystem is the stability of its producers and
decomposers.
Assessment Focus:
► Know the role of producers and decomposers in an ecosystem.
60
Performance Indicators
Awareness
 Given a field of two will receptively
identify a producer, e.g. plant and
decomposer, e.g. worm using eye
gaze and/or tactile response with
required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Identify who makes their food from
sunlight when given a field of two that
includes one producer and one
decomposer, using models, pictures,
sign language, symbols and/or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify who eats dead plants and
dead animals when given a field of
two that includes one decomposer
and one obvious distracter, using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify the following reasons why
producers are needed in an
ecosystem: 1) Plants can make their
own food from sunlight and 2) Plants
are food for animals, using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify the following reasons why
decomposers are needed in an
ecosystem: 1) Bacteria, fungus and
worms eat dead plants and dead
animals and 2) Bacteria, fungus and
worms change dead plants and
animals into good dirt for plants,
using models, pictures, sign
language, symbols and/or purposeful
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Response
61
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Explain the relationship between
producers and decomposers and
their roles in ecosystems, using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Identify the effects of having few
producers versus many producers in
an ecosystem (i.e. biodiversity), using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Describe possible consequences for
an ecosystem if there was a shortage
of decomposers, using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols and
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 6f
Students know at each link in a food web some energy is stored in newly made
structures but much energy is dissipated into the environment as heat. This
dissipation may be represented in an energy pyramid.
Assessment Focus:
► Know levels of the energy pyramid (e.g., producers, consumers).
► Know the role of an organism in a simple food web.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two will receptively
identify energy as heat using eye
gaze and/or tactile response with
required prompting levels.
 Given a field of two will receptively
identify each of the following: 1)
producer (e.g. green plant), 2)
consumer (i.e. deer) and 3)
decomposer (e.g. worm), using eye
gaze and/or tactile response with
62
required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Sequence models or photos of
sunlight, 1 producer, 1 consumer and
1 decomposer to create a food web,
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Be able to identify who eats
whom/what in a food web, using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify food as energy by
discriminating between food and
non/food and energy and non/energy
items (i.e. when asked if a green
plant is food, will respond yes; when
asked if a green plant is energy, will
respond yes) using tactile response,
eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Sequence models or photos of
sunlight, 1 producer, 1 consumer and
1 decomposer to create a food web
for two different ecosystems using
tactile response, sign language, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Discriminate between a correct and
obviously incorrect representation of
an energy pyramid and be able to
support their answer with a minimum
of two facts using models, pictures,
sign language, symbols and/or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
63

Sequence models or photos of
sunlight, 1 producer, 2 consumers
and 1 decomposer to create a food
web for three different ecosystems
using tactile response, sign language,
symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Show that energy travels through a
food web in the form of food and that
most of the energy is lost in the form
of heat by labeling a diagram and
responding to the question: “Where
did the energy go?”, using, sign
language, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub Strand:
Evolution
Standard Set 8
Evolution is the result of genetic changes that occur in constantly changing
environments. As a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 8e.
Students know how to analyze fossil evidence with regard to biological
diversity, episodic speciation, and mass extinction.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that fossil evidence can be analyzed with regard to species change over
time and mass extinction.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two items –
specifically a fossil and a distracter –
student will correctly discriminate the
fossil from a field of two, using eye
gaze and/or tactile response with
required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Discriminate between a fossil and a
rock with no fossil evidence using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
64

Identify living things and proof of
living things and know that fossils are
evidence of living things by matching
related fossils (i.e. snail fossil) to
related photos of living organisms
(i.e. snail) or proof of living organisms
(i.e. empty snail shell) using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 When given 4 fossils (i.e. 3 fish and 1
insect), the student will indicate which
fossil is not related using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 When given a set of different fossils,
student will categorize by animal
group (i.e. fish, insects, birds), using
models, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify and discriminate between
different fossils from the following two
categories: 1) living species today
and 2) extinct species, using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Analyze biodiversity in fossil evidence
for a specific species in an ecosystem
by identifying differences in fossils
(i.e. insects or fish), using, sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Analyze examples of a specific
animal fossil from different time
periods and be able to identify which
fossil is the oldest (i.e. giraffes),
65

Identify what is mass extinction by
discriminating between an extinct
animal versus an extinct species (i.e.
dodo bird fossil versus a group of
different dinosaur fossils), using, sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub Strand:
Physiology (Homeostasis)
Standard Set 9
As a result of the coordinated structures and functions of organ systems, the
internal environment of the human body remains relatively stable
(homeostatic) despite changes in the outside environment. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
Standard 9a
Students know how the complementary activity of major body systems provide cells
with oxygen and nutrients and removes toxic waste products such as carbon dioxide.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that the circulatory system moves nutrients and oxygen in blood through the
body.
► Know that the excretory system removes waste from the body.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two items –
specifically blood or an example of
waste and a distracter – student will
correctly discriminate the correct
answer using eye gaze and/or tactile
response with required prompting
levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Demonstrate awareness of their own
breathing and heart beating and
describe it as good for the body
based on the following: 1) Breathing
moves air through the body and 2)
Heart beating moves blood through
the body, using demonstration,
pictures, sign language, symbols
66
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Describe two ways the body keeps
itself clean (i.e. breath out and go to
bathroom), using demonstration,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Discriminate between nutrients (i.e.
oxygen and food) and waste (i.e.
carbon dioxide and feces/urine) and
be able to identify which one is good
and which one is bad for the body,
using models, pictures, sign
language, symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Demonstrate understanding that body
systems work together by identifying
vital organs and their functions in a
simple diagram (i.e. lungs intake air,
heart pumps blood, and lungs expel
used air), using models, pictures, sign
language, symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Identify parts of the circulatory system
and their functions by labeling and
explaining a simplified diagram (i.e.
heart pumps and moves blood and
veins carry blood to the body), using
sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 Identify parts of the excretory system
and their functions by labeling and
explaining a simplified diagram (i.e.
lungs breathing out used air, bladder
collecting urine and skin sweating),
using sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
67

Explain how body systems work
together by answering the following
yes and no questions correctly: 1) My
heart is beating and I am breathing,
2) I am only breathing; my heart is not
beating, 3) My heart is beating, but I
am not breathing and 4) My inside
body parts work together, using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 9b
Students know how the nervous system mediates communication between
different parts of the body and the body’s interactions with the environment.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that sensory organs (e.g., by allowing for touch, taste, smell, hearing,)
provide information about the environment (e.g. temperature, light, and sound).
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 In a field of two, given a distracter,
will identify a sensory organ using
eye gaze and/or tactile response with
required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Identify basic sensory organs (i.e.
eyes, ears, nose, mouth and skin),
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Describe what information up to three
sensory organs provide about the
environment (i.e. eyes = seeing, ears
= sound, and nose = smell), using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Describe what information specific
sensory organs provide about the
68
environment, using models, pictures,
sign language, symbols and/or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Describe what information specific
sensory organs provide about the
environment, using sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Analyze how their own body
responds to external stimuli (i.e.
reflexes) using sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub Strand:
Physiology (Infection and Immunity)
Standard Set 10
Organisms have a variety of mechanisms to combat disease. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
Standard 10a
Students know the role of the skin in providing nonspecific defenses against
infection.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that the skin protects the body from infections.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Student can receptively identify skin
through eye gaze and/or tactile
response with required prompting
levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Identify a cut or break down in skin,
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Be able to indicate that a cut or break
down in skin is bad for the body,
69
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify what is good for the body
from the following: 1) Intact skin
blocking the entry of germs versus 2)
Cut skin allowing the entry of germs,
using models, pictures, sign
language, symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Describe how germs can make the
body sick if they can get in (i.e.
through a cut), using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Know that in tact skin block germs
from entering the body and be able to
compare the function of skin to a
familiar shield (i.e. armor), using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Know that the skin tells the body
when it is hurt via the sensation of
pain, using sign language, photos,
symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 10c
Students know how vaccination protects an individual from infectious disease.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that vaccination protects an individual from infectious disease.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Student can receptively identify a
photo of a doctor from a field of two,
using eye gaze and/or tactile
70
response with required prompting
levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Indicate awareness that doctors and
the shots they give are good for the
body because they do the following:
1) Stop sickness and 2) Protect the
body from sickness, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Explain that a vaccine shields the
body from specific germs by making a
correct selection from the following
visual field of two: 1) A red square
vaccine shielding against red square
germs or 2) A red square vaccine
shielding against many different kinds
of colored and shaped germ
representations, using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Demonstrate understanding that a
vaccine prepares the body to protect
itself from a specific germ by
developing a defense, using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Domain:
Grades: 9-12
Strand: Physics
Sub Strand:
Science
Motion and Forces
71
Standard Set 1
Newton’s laws predict the motion of most objects. As a basis for
understanding this concept:
Standard 1c
Students know how to apply the law F=ma to solve one-dimensional motion
problems that involve constant forces (Newton’s second law).
Assessment Focus:
► Know that the greater the mass of an object, the more force is needed to achieve
the same rate of change in motion.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Demonstrate recognition of
movement, using eye gaze and/or
tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Given a field of two, will discriminate
heavy from light, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Indicate understanding that pushing a
light object will move it, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Demonstrate understanding that in
order to move a heavy object, you
need to push harder, using tactile
response, pictures, sign language,
symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Indicate understanding of
acceleration by using a hard push to
make an object move fast when cued,
using a tactile response or by
selecting the correct computer
simulation using a switch, eye gaze
or purposeful vocalization.
72

Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 When given two moving objects with
the same mass, one moving fast and
one moving slow, the student will
correctly identify a hard push with the
fast moving object and a soft/slow
push with the slow moving object,
using sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 When presented with two carts, one
that is very heavy and one that is very
light, the student will correctly identify
which cart needs more or less force
to move it, using demonstration, sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 1e
Students know the relationship between the universal law of gravitation and
the effect of gravity on an object at the surface of Earth.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that gravity is a force that acts on an object on Earth.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Student will demonstrate force of
gravity by pushing or dropping an
object independently or through hand
over hand prompting with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Student will identify gravity by
accurately predicating what will
happen when an object is held at a
height and then let go of (i.e. drop to
grown versus stay in the air or float
up), using tactile response, eye gaze
73
or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify where is gravity (i.e. Earth
versus space), using models,
pictures, sign language, symbols
and/or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Compare the gravity of the earth and
moon and state why (i.e. Earth bigger
= gravity greater versus moon smaller
= gravity less than) by correctly
associating a person walking on the
earth versus a man bouncing on the
surface of the moon, using
demonstration, sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Be able to describe where common
objects are heavier (i.e. on Earth or
the moon), using models, sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Domain:
Science
Grades: 9-12
Strand: Chemistry
Sub Strand:
Atomic and Molecular Structure
Standard Set 1
The periodic table displays the elements in increasing atomic number and
shows how periodicity and chemical properties of the elements relates to
atomic structure. As a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 1b
Students know how to use the periodic table to identify metals, semimetals,
non-metals, and halogens.
Assessment Focus:
74
► Know that elements on the periodic table are classified as metals, non-metals, and
inert gases.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two, will discriminate
metals as “shiny” using eye gaze
and/or tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Be able to identify the basic
characteristics of metals (i.e. shiny
and silver) using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Categorize metals and non-metals,
by grouping metals together as shiny
and silver and grouping everything
else as non-metals, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify a gas (i.e. helium) from a field
of two with an obvious distracter as
an element that can be contained
within a balloon, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Receptively identify the periodic table
of elements, using tactile response,
eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Indicate awareness that metals, nonmetals and gases are a part of the
periodic table of elements when they
are represented by objects or photos,
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
75
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Identify the general and basic
characteristics of metals (i.e. shiny,
silver, solid, and get hot when they
touch a heat source, such as a stove
burner), using models, sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Identify the general and basic
characteristics of non-metals (i.e. not
shiny, break easily and do not get hot
when they touch a heat source),
using models, sign language, photos,
symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Identify two inert gases and common
uses (i.e. helium in balloons and neon
in lights), using models, sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Be able to recognize metals, nonmetals, and inert gases when they
are represented by objects on a
modified periodic table of elements,
using sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
Sub strand:
Acids and Bases
Standard Set 5
Acid, bases, and salts are three classes of compounds that form ions in water
solution. As a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 5d
Students know how to use the pH scale and to characterize acid and base solutions.
Assessment Focus:
► Know that the pH scale is used to identify acid and base solutions.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a choice between a low pH
drink, i.e. pure lemon juice and a
basic pH drink, i.e. water, the student
will choose the more neutral and
76
drinkable pH liquid with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Discriminate between acid, neutral
and basic by categorizing food based
on sour, sweet and bitter, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Using a simplified and adapted pH
scale (i.e. red bottom with lemon
photo, middle white with water photo
and top blue half with toothpaste
photo), be able to identify low/red pH
and what is a high/blue pH, using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Use blue or red litmus paper to test
solutions (i.e. lemon juice, tomato
juice, toothpaste and soap) and use a
simplified pH scale to identify each
solution as an acid or base, using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Order photos of acidic and basic
solutions on a simplified pH scale,
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Using a red cabbage pH indicator
solution or paper test strip and a pH
scale, students will identify specific
pH levels for the following: lemon
juice, tomato juice, water, toothpaste,
and hand soap, using sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
77
words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub strand:
Solutions
Standard Set 6
Solutions are homogeneous mixtures of two or more substances. As a basis
for understanding this concept:
Standard 6c
Students know temperature, pressure, and surface area affect the dissolving
process.
Assessment Focus:
► Know how stirring, temperature, and surface area of a substance can affect the
dissolving process.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a choice between an undissolved drink and a dissolved drink
(i.e. cocoa powder floating in cold
water versus a warm mixed cocoa
drink) student with select the
dissolved drink, using eye gaze
and/or tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Discriminate between a dissolved
sugar solution and an un-dissolved
sugar solution from a field of two (i.e.
correctly respond to the cue: “show
me melted sugar”), using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Be able to identify which dissolves
fast or slow from the following: a)
sugar grains dropped into hot water
or b) sugar grains dropped into cold
water, using tactile response, eye
78
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Be able to identify which dissolves
fast or slow from the following: a)
sugar grains stirred into warm water
or b) sugar grains dropped into warm
water, using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Be able to identify which dissolves
fast or slow from the following: a)
sugar cubes dropped into warm water
or b) sugar grains dropped into warm
water, using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Explain how a) stirring, b)
temperature, and c) surface area
affect the dissolving process (i.e.
when given two solutions where a
and b are the same but c is different
be able to identify which dissolves
faster, repeat for b and c are the
same but a is different and a and c
are the same but b is different), using
sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Domain:
Science
Grades: 9-12
Strand: Earth Science
Sub Strand:
Dynamic Earth Processes
Standard Set 3
Plate tectonics operating over geologic time has changed the patterns of land,
sea, and mountains on Earth’s surface. As the basis for understanding this
concept:
Standard 3d
79
Students know why and how earthquakes occur and the scales used to
measure their intensity and magnitude.
Assessment Focus:
► Know the general characteristics of an earthquake.
► Know that earthquakes can be the result of sudden motions along breaks in the
crust called faults.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Discriminate between movement and
stillness, using eye gaze and/or
tactile response.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 When given a 3-D model, be able to
identify the top layer of the Earth
(Earth’s crust) and cracks (faults),
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify where a fault is found (i.e. in
the atmosphere/air or in the earth’s
crust/dirt), using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify “earthquake” from a field of
two (i.e. video or demonstration of an
earthquake [moving] versus same
setting with no earthquake activity
[not moving]), using tactile response,
eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Associate photos of faults in the
earth’s crust as a causal factor of
earthquake activity (i.e. movement of
earth or water), using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Identify a Richter scale as a tool for
measuring earthquakes as small or
80
big from a field of two (i.e. Richter
scale versus a thermometer), using
tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Describe the general characteristics
of an earthquake (i.e. ground shaking
and lasts for very short time period),
using sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 Identify major fault lines on a
California map and know that they
can cause earthquakes, using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Use a graphic Richter scale and
explain differences in earth quake
intensity (i.e. 2.0 hanging lights swing
versus 8.0 buildings and roads
crack), using sign language, photos,
symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 3e
Students know there are two kinds of volcanoes: one kind with violent
eruptions producing steep slopes and the other kind with voluminous lava
flows producing gentle slopes.
Assessment Focus:
► Know the general characteristics of a volcano.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two, will receptively
identify a volcano using eye gaze
and/or tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
81

Identify models and/or photos of
volcano, rocks and lava, using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Using models and photos
discriminate between oozing versus
erupting (i.e. show me slow, show me
fast), using tactile response, eye gaze
or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Categorize models and/or photos of
the two types of volcanoes based on
their major differences (i.e. steep
versus slopping and erupting versus
oozing), using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Compare and contrast shield and
composite volcanoes, using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Create a model or diagram for each
of the two kinds of volcanoes that
accurately depict their respective
general characteristics, using 3-D
materials, sign language, photos,
symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub strand:
Energy in the Earth System
Standard Set 6
Climate is the long-term average of a region’s weather and depends on many
factors. As a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 6a
Students know weather (in the short run) and climate (in the long run) involve
the transfer of energy into and out of the atmosphere.
82
Assessment Focus:
► Know the general characteristics of weather.
► Know the general characteristics of climate.
Frustration
Performance Indicators
Awareness
 Receptively identify one common
weather feature of a current climate
condition (i.e. rainy during raining
season), using eye gaze and/or
tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Receptively identify common weather
photos or tactile representations for
the following: sunny, cloudy, rainy,
hot and cold, using tactile response,
eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Discriminate between winter and
summer seasonal photos and objects
and be able to identify which months
are cold versus which months are
hot, using tactile responses, eye gaze
or purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Discriminate between today’s
weather versus regional climate (i.e.
select calendar day of the week with
pictorial representation of weather
versus several calendar months
grouped with pictorial representation
of climate), using tactile response,
eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Explain how the sun rising and setting
affects temperature across the day
and identify sunlight as heat/energy,
using models, pictures, sign
Instructional
Independent
No
Response
83
language, symbols and/or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Define weather by identifying multiple
examples of weather and by
demonstrating understanding that
weather is short term and can change
daily or hourly (i.e. develop a daily
weather log), using sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Demonstrate understanding that
climate is a pattern of weather over
time (i.e. develop a seasonal chart
depicting general weather patterns),
using sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 Explain how solar energy/sunlight
coming into earth affects weather and
climate (i.e. pair diagrams and photos
of more sunlight/energy with hot
desert and less sunlight/energy in
with cold tundra), using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
Standard 6b
Students know the effects on climate of latitude, elevation, topography, and
proximity of large bodies of water and cold or warm ocean currents.
Assessment Focus:
► Know the climate of specific biomes.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Receptively identify one common
weather feature of a current climate
condition for the biome in which they
live, using eye gaze and/or tactile
response with required prompting
levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
84
Pre-symbolic
 Receptively identify the current
seasonal weather pattern for the
biome in which they live from an
obvious distracter (i.e. sunny versus
snow), using tactile response, eye
gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify models and/or photos of the
following biomes: tundra, desert and
forest and be able to describe their
respective climates, using pictures,
sign language, symbols and/or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Identify models and/or photos of the
following biomes: tundra, desert,
forest, grasslands and rainforests and
be able to describe their respective
climates, using sign language,
photos, symbols and/or verbal/written
words/AAC.
 Explain how oceans effect the climate
of specific biomes (i.e. proximity to
ocean and temperature of the ocean
water and winds) using sign
language, photos, symbols and/or
verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Sub strand:
California Geology
Standard Set 9
The geology of California underlies the state’s wealth of natural resources as
well as its natural hazards. As a basis for understanding this concept:
Standard 9b
Students know the principal natural hazards in different California regions and
the geologic basis of those hazards.
85
Assessment Focus:
► Know different kinds of natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides).
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Given a field of two, will receptively
identify a volcano and landslide using
eye gaze and/or tactile response with
required prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Identify hazards on a simplified map
of current hazards in California (i.e.
point to icons or miniature photos of
earthquakes, volcanoes and
landslides in California), using tactile
response, eye gaze or purposeful
vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identify models and or photos of the
following hazards: earthquakes,
volcanoes, tsunamis, floods, wildfires
and landslides and be able to indicate
where they may be found in California
on a simple icon/photo based map,
using tactile response, eye gaze or
purposeful vocalizations/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Explain how climate and human
activity can cause hazards in
California for two hazards (i.e. rain
and construction can cause
landslides and hot weather and
fireworks can cause wildfires), using
sign language, photos, symbols
and/or verbal/written words/AAC.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
86
Sub strand:
Investigation and Experimentation
Standard Set 1
Scientific progress is made by asking meaningful questions and conducting
careful investigations. As a basis for understanding this concept and
addressing the content in the other four strands, students should develop their
own questions and perform investigations. Students will:
Standard 1a
Select and use appropriate tools and technology (such as computer-linked
probes, spreadsheets, and graphing calculators) to perform tests, collect data,
analyze relationships, and display data.
Assessment Focus:
► Select and use appropriate tools and technology (e.g., calculators, balances,
magnifying lens, binoculars) to perform tests.
► Collect, display, and analyze data.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 Use a single switch computer
interface to operate multi-media
related to content.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Select and use the appropriate tool
for the science activity with
assistance.
 Take data with assistance.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Select and use the appropriate tool
for the science activity with
assistance as needed.
 Take and analyze data with
assistance as needed.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Independently select and use the
appropriate tool for the science
activity.
 Independently take and analyze data.
87

Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 1c
Identify possible reasons for inconsistent results, such as sources of error or
uncontrolled conditions.
Assessment Focus:
► Identify possible sources of error in an experiment.
Frustration
Instructional
Independent
No
Performance Indicators
Response
Awareness
 When given a field of two responses,
and required prompting levels,
student will identify an obvious error
in an experiment (i.e. forgot to heat
solution).
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 When given a field of two responses,
and minimal teacher prompting,
student will identify an obvious error
in an experiment (i.e. forgot to heat
solution).
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Identity a failed experiment and a
possible reason why with assistance
as needed.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Independently identify a failed
experiment and a possible reason
why.
 Recognize if an error in an
experiment could have been
prevented.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 1f
Distinguish between hypothesis and theory as scientific terms.
88
Assessment Focus:
► Form a simple hypothesis based on observations.
Frustration
Performance Indicators
Awareness
 Present an understandable solution
to an observed event with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Given required verbal, visual, and/or
gestural prompting, student will
identify a probable hypothetical
outcome.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Form a simple hypothesis based on
observations with assistance as
needed.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Independently form a simple
hypothesis based on observations.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Standard 1h
Read and interpret topographic and geologic maps.
Assessment Focus:
► Interpret scale models, maps, and diagrams.
Frustration
Performance Indicators
Awareness
 Given a field of two, will receptively
identify a map using eye gaze and/or
tactile response with required
prompting levels.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Pre-symbolic
 Match colors and photos to find
Instructional
Independent
No
Response
Instructional
Independent
No
Response
89
where something belongs on a map
or scale indicator.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Early Symbolic
 Interpret scale models, maps and
diagrams with assistance as needed.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
Symbolic
 Independently interpret scale models,
maps, and diagrams.
 Insert individualized performance
indicator as needed.
*Please note that the abbreviation AAC refers to Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, such as a speech generating device.
90
References
Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). Facilitating participation
in assessments and the general curriculum: Level of symbolic communication
classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 137-151.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F. H., Wakeman, S., Trela, K. & Baker, J. N. (2006).
Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31 (4), 309-321.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., &
Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to
grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An
explication of the concept. Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2-16.
California Department of Education (2006). California alternate performance
assessment, science blueprint, level V: Grades 9-12. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved June 19, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/
capablueprints.asp
California Department of Education (2004). Science framework for California
public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: Author.
Retrieved June 19, 2010, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/sc/cf/documents/
scienceframework.pdf
Kleiner, H.L., Browder, D. M. & Towles-Reeves, E.A. (2009). Models of cognition
for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 301-326.
91
APPENDIX B
AAL Teacher Survey Questionnaire
92
AAL Teacher Survey Introduction
The information gathered from this survey will be used to anonymously evaluate
the potential effectiveness of the academic Achievement for All Learners (AAL)
framework. The AAL framework was developed in light of current educational research
on general education access for students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities and make up less than 1 % of the total student population.
AAL maps access to grade-level standards through functional performance
indicators based on symbolic communication levels. The four levels and definitions are
the following:
Awareness – Communication is ambiguous and difficult to interpret.
Pre-symbolic – Communication involves purposeful gestures, affect, eye gaze
and sound.
Early Symbolic (Concrete) – Communication incorporates pictures, objects, or
other symbols to express basic wants and needs.
Symbolic (Abstract) – Communication consists of signs, pictures and some
written words.
The AAL framework also integrates a progress-monitoring tool for data
collection. (The example provided focuses on high school sciences science standards.)
93
AAL Teacher Survey
1.
2.
I am a: ___________________________________________________________.
a)
General Education Teacher
b)
Special Education Teacher
c)
Speech-Language Pathologist
I have experience teaching students who have the most significant cognitive
disabilities.
0
1
2
3
4
No Experience
3.
5
Extensive Experience
I have been teaching for the following number of years:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ,21, 22, 23, 24,
25+
4.
30+
Other:______
Do you agree with the following statement?
“Students with significant cognitive disabilities can access and participate in the
general education curriculum, given accommodations that address their cognitive
and language skills.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
94
Disagree
5.
Strongly Agree
The performance indicators in AAL are clearly linked to the corresponding
academic standard for each of the following symbolic communication levels:
Awareness:
0
1
2
3
4
No Link
5
Strongly Linked
Pre-Symbolic:
0
1
2
3
4
No Link
5
Strongly Linked
Early Symbolic (Concrete):
0
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Symbolic (Abstract):
0
No Link
6.
Strongly Linked
In your opinion, what is the potential benefit for the framework, AAL, to ensure
progress in the general education curriculum for students with the most significant
disabilities, based on the following symbolic communication levels (provide
written feedback where applicable)?
Awareness:
95
Pre-Symbolic:
Early Symbolic (Concrete):
Symbolic (Abstract):
Additional comments:
96
REFERENCES
Agran, M., Alper, S. & Wehmeyer, W. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for
students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 123-133.
Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Huges, C. (2002). Increasing the problemsolving skills of students with severe disabilities participating in general
education. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 279-288.
Agran, M., Blancahard, C., & Wehmeyer, M. (2000). Promoting transition goals and selfdetermination through student self-directed learning: The self-determined learning
model of instruction. Education and Training in mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 35(4) 354-364.
Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M. & Palmer, S. (2006). Participation of students with
moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: The effects of the selfdetermined learning model of instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 230-241.
Ahearn, E. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum. Retrieved December 26,
2009 from Project Forum, National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, http://www.nasdse.org/portals/0/Documents/Download%20
Publications/DFR-0526.pdf
97
Ahearn, E. (2006). Standards-based IEPs: Implementation in selected states. Retrieved
December 26, 2009 from Project Forum, National Association of State Directors
of Special Education, http://www.projectforum.org/docs/StandardsBasedIEPsImplementationinSelectedStates.pdf
Almond, P., & Bechard, S. (2005). In-depth look at students who take alternate
assessments: What do we know now? Retrieved December 28, 2009 from:
http://www.measuredprogress.org/Resources/SpecialEd.html
Alper, S. (2003). Students with moderate and severe disabilities: Definitions and
descriptive characteristics. In Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (Eds.). (1996).
Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive
settings (pp. 1-12). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Barnard-Brak, L., Lechtenberger, d. (2010). Student IEP participation and academic
achievement across time. Remedial and Special Education. 31(5), 343-349.
Beukelman, D.R. & Mirenda, P. (2005) Augmentative alternative communication:
Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs (3rd ed.).
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M. (2006). General
curriculum access. In M. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.). Instruction of students with
severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 489-525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
98
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Pugalee, D.K., & Jiminez, B. (2006). Enhancing
numeracy. In D.M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and
science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 171-196).
Baltimore: Brooks
Browder, D. M. & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with
severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left
Behind”. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163.
Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., & Wakeman, S. Y. (2008). Facilitating participation in
assessments and the general curriculum: Level of symbolic communication
classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Assessment in
Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 137-151.
Browder, D. M., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., &
Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with
academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211223.
Browder, D. M. & Spooner, F. H. (2006). Teaching language arts, math & science to
students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes
Publishing Co.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F. H., Ahlgrim-Detzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. L.
(2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant
cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 407-432.
99
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F. H., Wakeman, S., Trela, K. & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning
instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 309-321.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y. & Flowers, C. (2006). Assessment of progress in the
general curriculum for students with disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 45 (3),
249-259.
Browder, D., Wallace, T., Snell, M., & Kleinert, H. (2005). The use of progress
monitoring with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Washington, DC:
American Institutes of Research, National Center on Student Progress
Monitoring.
Browder, D. M. & Xin, Y. (1998). A review and meta-analysis of sight word instruction
with students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32 (3), 130-153.
Brown, F., & Snell, M. (2006). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate
functioning. In M.A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey don’t forget about me! Education’s
investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp.2-1). Reston
VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
California Department of Education (2006). California Alternative Performance
Assessment (CAPA) Science Blueprint. Downloaded October 25, 2010 from:
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/capablueprints.asp
100
California Department of Education (2010). Content Standards. Downloaded November
9, 2010 from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/index.asp
California Department of Education (2002). Science Framework for California Public
Schools Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve. Downloaded October 25, 2010
from: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/documents/scienceframework.pdf
Center for Applied Special Technology, (2010). UDL research evidence. Retrieved
October 17, 2010, from http://www.udlcenter.org/research/researchevidence
Charlton, J.I. (1998). Nothing about us without us. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Clayton, J., Burdge, M., Denham, A., Kleinert, H. L., Kearns, J. (2006). A four-step
process for accessing the general curriculum for students with significant
cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(50), 20-7.
Copeland, S.R. & Cosbey, J. (2008-2009). Making progress in the general curriculum
Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities. 33-4(4-1), 214-227.
Council for Exception Children. (2005). Universal Design for Learning: A guide for
teachers and education Professionals. Arlington, VA: Prentice Hall.
Council for Exceptional Children (2005). Universal Design for Learning: A guide for
teachers and education professionals. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.
101
Council for Exception Children (2007). Supporting students with significant disabilities
to access the general education curriculum. Arlington, VA: Division on
Developmental Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, Retrieved October
20, 2008 from:
http:/eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3
a/ef/58.pdf
Davern, L. & Schnorr, R. (1991). Public schools welcome students with disabilities as
full members. Children Today, 20(2), 21-26.
Downing, J. (2006). Building literacy for students at the presymbolic and early symbolic
levels. In D.M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and
science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 171-196).
Baltimore: Brooks
Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes an effective curriculum for
students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9(3), 109-122.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C.L. & Slagor, M.T. (2007). Defining access to
the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive
disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 32(1), 115.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act. Public Law 94-142. (1975).
Feldman, R. S., Saletsky, R. D., Sullivan, J., & Theiss, A. (1983). Student locus of
control and response to expectations about self and teacher. Journal of Education
Psychology, 75, 27-32.
102
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: critical ingredients for
student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22(3), 148-57.
Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. Browser, D. & Spooner, D. (2005). Teacher’s
perceptions of alternate assessments. Research & Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81-92.
Flowers, C., Wakeman, S. & Browder D. M. (2009). Links for Academic Learning
(LAL): A conceptual model for investigating alignment of alternate assessments
based on alternative achievement standards. Educational Measurement, 28(1), 2537.
Ford, A., Davern, L. & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities:
Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special
Education, 22(4), 214-222.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a
new education placements and services [Part of a special issue: Changing
conceptions of special education]. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301-23
Gartin, B.C. & Murdick, N.L. (2005). IDEA 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special
Education, 26 (6), 327-331.
Gee, K. (2004). Developing curriculum and instruction. In, F. Orelove, D. Sobsey, & R.
Silberman (Eds.). Educattng Children with Multiple Disabilities. (4th Ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
103
Giangreco, M.F., Dennis, R., Edelman, S., & Cloninger, C. (1994). Dressing your IEPs
for the general education climate: Analysis of IEP goals and objectives for
students with multiple disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(3), 288296.
Giangreco, M.F. (2006). Foundational concepts and practices for educating students with
severe disabilities. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with
severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 111-169). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Hardman, M.L. & Dawson S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum
and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing
School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.
Hitchcock, C. & Stahl, S. (2003). Assistive technology, Universal Design, Universal
Design for Learning: Improved learning opportunities. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 18(4), 45-52.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to
the general curriculum: Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 35(2), 8-17.
Hunt, P. & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and
outcomes for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,
31, 3-35.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et
seq. (amended 2004); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 et seq. (2003).
104
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, P.L. N0. 108-446, 118
Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.).
Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008-2009). The dynamic relationship
between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education
as a research-based practice. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilitites, 33-4(4-1), 17-195.
Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. (2008). Teaching an algebraic
equation to high school students with moderate developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43(20), 266-274.
Jimenez, T.C., Graf, V. L. & Rose, E. (2007) Gaining access to general education: The
promise of Universal Design for Learning. Issues in Teacher Education, 16(2),
41-54.
Kampher, S.H., Horvath, L.S., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearn, J.F. (2001). Teachers’
perceptions of one state’s Alternate Assessment: Implications for practice and
preparation. The Council for Exceptional Children, 67(3), 361-374.
Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states’
alternate assessments performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 165-181.
Kasari, C., Freeman, S.F.N., Bauminger, N., & Alkin, M.C. (2004). Parental perspectives
on inclusion Effects of autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 29, 297-305.
105
Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. (2006). Learning
characteristics inventory (LCI) report. Lexington: University of Kentucky,
National Alternate Assessment Center. Retrieved December 29, 2009 from:
http://www.naacpartners.org/products/researchReports/20080.pdf
King-Sears, M. E. (2008). Facts and fallacies: Differentiation and the general education
curriculum for students with special educational needs. Support for Learning,
23(2), 55-62.
Kleinert, H.L., Browder, D.M., & Towles-Reeves, E.A, (2009). Models of cognition for
students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment.
Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 301-326.
Lance, G. D., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Universal design checklist. Lawrence, KS:
Beach Center on Disability, University of Kansas.
Lee, S., Wehmeyer, M.L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H. , & Little, T. D. (2008). Selfdetermination and access to the general education curriculum. The Journal of
Special Education. 42(2) 91-107.
McGlashing, J., Agran, M., Sitlington, P., Cavin, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (2004).
Enhancing the job performance of youth with moderate to severe cognitive
disabilities using the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Research
and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28(4), 194-204.
McLaughlin, M.J., Nolet, V., Rhim, L.M. & Henderson, K. (1999) Integrating standards:
Including all students. 31(3), 66-71.
106
McLaughlin, M.J. (2009). Keys to creating standards-based IEPs. The Special Edge,
23(1), 1-16.
McLaughlin, M. J., & Warren, S. H. (1995). Individual education programs: Issues and
options for change (Final Report for the Office of Special Education Programs0.
Alexandria, VA National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED385 038).
Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies. 16(4), 236-247.
Meo, G. (2008). Curriculum planning for all learners: Applying Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) to a high school reading comprehension program. Preventing
School Failure, 52(2), 21-30.
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (2004). Access to the General
Curriculum for Students with Disabilities: The role of the IEP. Downloaded
December 2009 from:
http://www.cast.org/system/galleries/download/ncac/RoleIEP.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics (2006). Fast Facts. Downloaded December 2009
from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=59
National Center on Educational Outcomes (2007). Aligning alternate assessments to
grade level content standards: Issues and considerations for alternates based on
alternate achievement standards. NCEO Policy Directions. 19, 1-6.
107
National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRI) (2010). Essential components of
RTI – A closer look at Response to Intervention. Retrieved October 21, 2010
from:
http://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/rtiessentialcomponents_042710.pd
f
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2007). Responsiveness to
intervention in the SLD determination process. Retrieved October 21, 2010 from:
http://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/rtiinsldprocess2007.pdf
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of
curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected
journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36-55.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: Including
students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Palmer, S. G., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K. & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to
the general curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Council for
Exceptional Children, 70(4), 427-439.
Putnam, M. (2005). Conceptualizing disability: Developing a framework for political
disability identity. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 16(3), 188-198.
108
Roach, A. T. (2006). Influences on parent perceptions of an alternate assessment for
students with severe cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 31(3), 267-274.
Roach, A. T. & Elliott, S. N. (2006). The influence of access to general education
curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant
cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181194.
Rose, D.H., Meyer, A. & Hitchcock, C. (2006) The universally designed classroom
Accessible curriculum and digital technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Education Press.
Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (Eds.). (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate
and severe disabilities in inclusive setting. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Ryndak, D. L., Moore, M. A. & Orlando, A. (2008-2009). Access to the general
curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for
students with extensive support needs. Research & Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 33-4(4-1), 199-213.
Sailor, W. (2008-2009). Access to the general curriculum: Systems change or tinker some
more? Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33-4(4-1),
249-257.
Sailor, W. (2009). Making RtI work: How smart schools are reforming education through
school-wide Response-to-Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
109
Sailor, W. & Rogers, B. (2005). Rethinking inclusion: School wide applications. Phi
Delta Kappan. 86(7), 503-509.
Sailor, W., Zuna, N., Choi, J., Thomas, J., McCart, A., & Blair, R. (2006). Anchoring
school wide positive behavior support in structural school reform. Research and
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(1), 18-30.
Special Education Administrators of County Offices (SEACO) (2005). Curriculum guide
for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Carson, CA: Lakeshore.
Shapiro, J.P. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities forging a new civil rights
movement. New York: Times Books.
Siegel, E. & Wetherby, A. (2006). Nonsymbolic communication. In M. E. Snell & F.
Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 405446). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Skrtic, T.M. (1995). Disability and democracy: Reconstruction (special) education for
post modernity. New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, A. (2006). Commentary on access, participation, and progress in the general
education curriculum in the least restrictive environment for students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31(4), 331-337.
Smith, T. (2005). IDEA 2004: Another round in the reauthorization process. Remedial
and Special Education, 26(6), 314-319.
110
Snell, M. E., & Brown, G. (2006). Designing and implementing instructional programs.
In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities
(5th ed., pp. 111-169). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovair, J. A. (2007). Classroom
variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 74(1), 101-120.
Spooner, F. & Browder, D. M. (2006). Why teach the general curriculum. In D. M.
Browder & F. Spooner. Teaching language arts, math & science to students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. (2007).
Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development.
Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108-116.
Towels-Reeves, E., Garrett, B., Burdette, P. J. & Burdge, B. (2006). Validation of largescale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instruction: What are the
consequences? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31(3), 45-57.
Towles-Reeves, E. & Kleinert, H. (2009). Alternate assessments based on alternative
achievement standards: Principals perceptions. Research & Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 33(3), 122-133.
Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H. & Kleinert, J. (2009). An analysis of the
learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on
alternative achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 42(4), 241254.
111
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 10, 2009, from http://www.ed.
gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk.html
U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Raising the achievement of students with
disabilities. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from:
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/ideafactsheet.html
U.S. Department of Education. 2003, December. Title 1-Improving the academic
adhievement of the disadvantaged: Final rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 236, 68698.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Education week analysis of data from the Office
of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. 2005. Alternate achievement standards for students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-Regulatory Guidance.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 25, 2009 from:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 25 years of progress in educating students with
disabilities through IDEA.. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved August 7, 2010
from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf
U.S. Department of Education (2008). Adequate yearly progress (FAQS). Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved October 7, 2008 from:
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability
112
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general
curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 38(3), 271282.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B. & Mason, C. (2004). Self-determination
and student involvement in standards-based reform. Council for Exceptional
Children, 70(4), 413-425.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D.L., Lapp-Rinker, G. and Agran, M. (2003). Access to the
general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An
observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. G. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive
disabilities three years after high school: The impact of self-determination.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131-144.
Wehmyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithuag, D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting
causal agency: The self-determined learning model of instruction. Exceptional
Children, 66(4), 439-453.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005). Self-determination and individuals with severe disabilities:
Reexamining meaning and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 113-120.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education
curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities. 31(4), 322-326.
113
World Health Organization (2010). Disabilities. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from:
http://www.who.int/topics/disabilities/en/
Yell, M. & Drasgow, E. (2009). No Child Left Behind: A guide for professionals. Boston,
MA: Pearson.