KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EXC 7780 TESOL
Department Special Education
Degree Title (if applicable) MAT in Inclusive Education TESOL
Proposed Effective Date June 2006
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X
X
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and description), a new course with a
new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course proposed as part of a new
program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required for each existing course incorporated into the
program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Faculty Member
_____
Date
Department Curriculum Committee
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate Studies
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Approved
Date
Not Approved
President
1
Date
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
116
Course Prefix and Number
EXC 7780
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
This course focuses upon development of collaborative and consultation skills for working with
parents, general education teachers, special education teachers, support personnel, community
resource personnel and others to facilitate delivery of appropriate services for all students in
inclusive classroom communities.
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ____EDUC _7780________________
Course Title _________________
________
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course is designed for to assist teachers in orchestrating culturally responsive classrooms, particularly
for students with disabilities and those who are culturally and linguistically diverse. The course focuses on
development of collaborative, communication and consultative skills necessary for working with families,
classroom teachers, related services practitioners, community resource personnel and others to facilitate
delivery of appropriate services for diverse learners.
III.
Justification
The Department of Special Education at Kennesaw State University has historically offered a program in
Collaborative Practices, with endorsement in ESOL. The proposed changes in this course are necessary to
bring the existing endorsement program into alignment with national TESOL standards. Many of the
research-based practices for students with disabilities are also efficacious for students who are culturally
and linguistically diverse. This effort will pave the way for classroom teachers in Georgia to educate all
students within the Georgia Performance Standards, including those who have disabilities and those who
are culturally and linguistically diverse.
The purpose of this course is to assist P-12 special education and ESOL teachers providing students with
disabilities and those who are culturally and linguistically diverse with access to the state-approved
curriculum and P-12 classrooms. To facilitate student success in this environment, candidates must be able
to co-teach and collaborate with general educators in developing and implementing multi-level and
differentiated instruction and assessment practices. Candidates must also be able to communicate
successfully with families of cultures other than their own.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor:
Text:
Prerequisites:
Objectives:
-
2
Instructional Method
Method of Evaluation
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of the Registrar once the
course has been approved by the Office of the President. The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
Special Education/TESOL
EDUC 7780
Collaborative Practices
3
June, 2006
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
3
VII Attach Syllabus
I.
EDUC 7780 Collaborative Practices
Department of Special Education
Kennesaw State University
II.
INSTRUCTORS:
Name: SPED
Location:
Office:
Phone:
e-mail
Name: ESOL
Location:
Office:
Phone
e-mail
III.
Class Sessions: Day & Time:
Location:
IV.
Texts (required): Sands, D. J., Kozleski, E. B., French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive Education For The 21 st
Century.
Martin, Judith & Nakayama, Thomas. (2003) Intercultural Communication in
Context. New York: McGraw Hill.
Personal DISCernment Inventory. (2000) Team Resources, Inc.
V.
Catalog Description: This course is designed for to assist teachers in orchestrating culturally responsive
classrooms, particularly for students with disabilities and those who are culturally and linguistically
diverse. The course focuses on development of collaborative, communication and consultative skills
necessary for working with families, classroom teachers, related services practitioners, community resource
personnel and others to facilitate delivery of appropriate services for diverse students.
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: The purpose of this course is to assist P-12 special education and ESOL teachers
providing students with disabilities and those who are culturally and linguistically diverse with access
to the state-approved curriculum and P-12 classrooms. To facilitate student success in this
environment, candidates must be able to co-teach and collaborate with general educators in developing
and implementing multi-level and differentiated instruction and assessment practices. Candidates must
also be able to communicate successfully with families of cultures other than their own.
4
VII.
Conceptual Framework Summary & Related Standards & Requirements
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning.
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers who
demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU teacher education
community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring guidance from professionals
inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the understanding that teacher expertise
develops along a continuum which includes the stages of preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal;
further, as candidates develop a strong research-based knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop
their professional expertise in recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved in
a variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.
Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional
conferences, actively serving on or chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school board
meetings, leading or presenting professional development activities at the school or district level, and
participating in education-related community events. As you continue your educational experiences, you
are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.
Knowledge Base. Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996)
believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher
education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom
teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from
being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in
their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of
continued development.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students who are English language learners continues to develop
rapidly. Current directions include SIOP, differentiated instruction, and content-area learning strategy instruction.
The field draws on research literature from foreign language, cultural responsiveness, psychology and ESOL. The
emphasis in this class will be on developing skills in application of research-based best practices, documenting
impact on student learning, and reflective practice.
Technology Standards
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the master teacher
preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student
learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates
will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially
microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia
facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials,
create WWW resources, and develop an electronic learning portfolio.
Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational technology in classrooms for
students in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet software to develop graphs,
charts, and tables, word processing to write papers, and e-mail to communicate with the instructors and
their peers.
Diversity Standards
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of
differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within
multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
5
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region,
giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An emphasis on
cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as
disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic
program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required. Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus
of Kennesaw State University that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
Professional Portfolio Requirements
As you know…”..a required element in each portfolio for the Graduate Program is the portfolio narrative.
The purpose of the portfolio narrative is to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies
on the CPI with regard to what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio. In your portfolio,
you need to include a narrative, which includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you
reflect on each of the proficiencies and how you make the case that the evidence you have selected in your
portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio Narrative Rubric as a guide. The narrative
should be comprehensive, documenting research-based best practices. In this class you will do projects
that have been specifically designed to assist you in portfolio development. For example, you will
videotape you and a co-teaching engaging in one of the five most common approaches to co-teaching in a
general education classroom. A videotaped lesson, along with critical analysis, is a required element for
graduation from the Bagwell College of Education. Therefore, attend carefully to the assignments in this
course and how they will assist you in meeting future college requirements.
Extensions. Candidates should keep ongoing documentation of ways in which they extended their learning
and skills from this and other courses. For this course, this could include identifying students who gain
access to more inclusive educational environments, actual changes implemented in the school as a result of
the Building Plan, changes in student behavior or learning that results from co-teaching, interactions with
parents, committees formed or served on related to inclusive education, peer mediated strategies
implemented in your class or other classrooms, workshops on co-teaching conducted at the school, the
establishment of additional co-teaching teams at your school and etc.
Impact on Student Learning Analysis
It is our assumption that you are already assessing the influence of your instruction on your students’
learning and that you are considering what factors, such as student diversity, might affect your students’
achievement. For this assignment, you will select a lesson, activity, unit, or skill that you plan to teach this
semester and analyze its impact on your students’ learning. Then, you will reflect on the impact on your
students’ learning on that particular lesson, activity, unit, or skill using the “Impact on Student Learning
Analysis” Rubric as a guide. You will want to consider how the differences that every student brings to the
classroom setting may have influenced learning (see definition of “every student” at the top of attached
“Impact on Student Learning” rubric). Unless your program area tells you differently, the length of the
reflection is up to you, but it should be concise. (See Directions for “Impact on Student Learning Analysis”
that accompanies the Rubric for greater detail.) In this class, you will learn to conduct, “Collaborative
Analysis of Student Work”, which is obviously a group process. The College rubric described above will
be one of several ways that we will measure the success of the lesson and the impact on student learning.
Please note that this assignment may also be included in your final portfolio.
6
Graduate Field Experience Requirements
While completing your graduate program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved in
a variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of teaching and learning.
Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to, attending and presenting at professional
conferences, actively serving on or chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school board
meetings, leading or presenting professional development activities at the school or district level, and
participating in education-related community events. As you continue your educational experiences, you
are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing.
VIII.
Goals and Objectives for EDUC 7780
The KSU teacher preparation faculty is strongly committed to the concept of teacher preparation as a
developmental and collaborative process. Research for the past 25 years has described this process in
increasingly complex terms. Universities and schools must work together to successfully prepare teachers
who are capable of developing successful learners in today’s schools and who choose to continue their
professional development. Candidates in this course are expected to perform at the Advanced or Teacher
Leader level of performance. For the purposes of this syllabus, course goals and objectives are first
delineated according to development of candidate knowledge, skills & dispositions and then crossreferenced to the national professional standards of the Council for Exceptional Children and Teachers of
Speakers of Other Languages. Candidates completing these course requirements must demonstrate mastery
of the TESOL standards as they develop and critique the video taping of their instruction.
As a result of Knowledge, candidates will be able to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Understand and apply knowledge of sociocultural and political variables to facilitate the process of
learning English. TESOL Cross Reference 1.b.8&9
Understand and apply knowledge about the cultural values and beliefs as well as the effects of racism,
stereotyping and discrimination in the context of teaching and learning of ESOL students and students
with disabilities. TESOL Cross Reference 2.a.1& 3; 2.b.4
Describe the benefits of teaching ESOL students and students with disabilities in general education
classrooms and curriculum. TESOL 1.a.6&10
Describe and define collaborative and consultative roles of ESOL and SPED who assure that ESOL
students and students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum, classrooms,
and all other aspects of school life. TESOL 3.a.2
Describe and define general developmental, academic, social, career, and functional characteristics of
individuals with disabilities as they relate to the level of support needed to be successful in general
education classrooms and all other aspects of school life.
TESOL 1.b.1&3
As a result of Skills, candidates will be able to:
6.
Create environments that promote standards-based language learning in supportive, accepting
classrooms and schools. TESOL Cross-reference 1.b.4,3.a.2
7. Create a plan for professional development for teachers in your school to become more proficient in
including ESOL students and students with disabilities in their classrooms. TESOL Cross-reference
5.c.1
8. Develop and implement a model of co-teaching and classroom-based related services for students that
define the roles and responsibilities of each staff member, team/problem-solving strategies, and
methods of conflict resolution. TESOL Cross-reference: 5c2-5.c.4.
9. Understand and apply knowledge about home/school communication to enhance teaching ESOL
students and students with disabilities and their families. CEC Cross Reference: GC10K1 – GC1054;
TESOL Cross Reference 2.a.3
10. Use pyramid planning to develop co-taught lessons. CEC Cross-Reference GC10K1 – GC1054
TESOL 1.b.1,6,&9
7
11. Assist students, in collaboration with parents and other professionals, in planning for various school
transitions including preschool to school, class to class, school to school, school to work, etc. GC10K1
– GC1054 TESOL 2.a.3, 3.a.2
12. Develop and use an assistive technology plan for individuals who lack typical communication and
performance abilities. TESOL Cross-reference 3.c.4&5
13. Evaluate, select, develop, and adapt/modify general education curriculum materials and technology.
TESOL 3.b.1, 3.b.7&8
14. Integrate student initiated, peer mediated, and/or social development experiences into ongoing, ageappropriate instruction. TESOL 1.b.7&9
15. Assist paraprofessionals in instructing students in a variety of ways and contexts. Create positive
learning environments for all students, including those with moderate/severe disabilities. TESOL 5.c.4
As a result of professional dispositions candidates will be able to:
16. Demonstrate communication, problem solving, and conflict resolution skills when assisting other
professionals, families, or students with disabilities. CEC Cross Reference: GC9K1-GC9S2. TESOL
5.b.1
17. Demonstrate skills in leadership, advocacy, and training to improve services. CEC Cross Reference:
GC9K1-GC9S2.TESOL 5.b.2&3, 5.c.4
18. Participate in the activities of professional organizations relevant to individuals with disabilities.
GC9K1-GC9S2.TESOL 5.c1
19. Articulate the teacher’s ethical responsibility to non-identified students. CEC Cross Reference:
GC9K1-GC9S2.TESOL 5.b.3
20. Convey understanding of the interrelationships between language an culture. CEC Cross Reference:
GC9K1-GC9S2; TESOL 2.a.4.
IX.
EDUC 7780 Tiered Assignments:
Contract with instructor to:
 Facilitate a MAPS session, with Ideal Day
 Schedule students & staff for co-teaching in building
 Develop school-wide plan based upon assessment or
 Other approved by faculty
Few
Most candidates
will learn & do...



Conduct mini-lesson, using assistive technology
Hold 2 team meetings, determining roles & responsibilities
Pass proficiency examinations of basic vocabulary and
constructs related to SIOP and inclusion


All candidates will learn
and do…….



Reflect on your personal style using DISC
Read, participate in discussion & complete
homework
Demonstrate skill at 1-2 approaches to
co-teaching
Demonstrate ability to implement CASL
Coach paraprofessional.
What ALL/MOST will learn and do….
1.
Implement Co-Teaching. To successfully complete this course, candidates who are primarily
responsible for students with disabilities and those who are English Language Learners will be
required to co-plan, co-teach and co-assess with a general education teacher. All lessons must be
planned for a heterogeneous group of students, with a full range of ability and disability or full range
of ability and students who are English Language Learners. There are no exceptions.
8
Candidates will work with their co-teacher to identify a differentiated lesson (vis-à-vis 7765!) and
write a one-page lesson plan that also depicts the corresponding co-teaching approach(es). Once your
instructor approves the plan, the candidate teaches and videotapes the instruction. Co-teachers will
then watch their video and reflect on the quality of the instruction, the differentiation, and student
engagement/achievement as well as how well the co-teaching approach(es) supported the instruction.
Following the co-assessment and reflection, the candidate will bring the lesson, co-assessment, and
video to class for feedback from the CASL group. (150 Points)
2.
Collaborative Analysis of Student Learning. Teams of candidates will meet weekly, in class, to
analyze student work samples, videotapes and/or assessment of co-teaching and to recommend how the
instruction can be improved to increase student achievement. This will be done each week until
everyone in the class gets feedback. Teams will keep log of their work. (90 points)
3.
Class Participation: Homework assignments will be given throughout the course and will be graded
by the instructors. Homework can only be submitted on the due date. Late submissions will count as a
zero. Professors will regularly assess individual contributions to class discussions using discussion
grid format. In many classes, candidates will work in groups to complete specific activities. These inclass assignments will also be graded. The instructor anticipates that candidates will attend class
regularly (see policy on tardiness and absenteeism), be respectful of the instructor and peers by not
talking or working on non-class materials while the instructor or peers are talking, participate actively
in group application activities, and be respectful of the instructor and peers by not making sarcastic or
other denigrating comments to or about them (50 points).
4.
Proficiency Exams: Candidates will pass basic proficiency examinations on the basic constructs and
vocabulary related to collaboration, co-teaching, SIOP, cultural responsiveness and inclusion. (100
Points)
5.
Assistive Technology: Develop an assistive technology resource list for various forms of high
technology and create one form of low tech, two students. One who is an English Language Learner
and one with a disability. (50)
6.
School-Based Team Meetings: Candidates must document a minimum of two team meetings at which
time the team determined the following: a.) Finding time to plan, b.) roles and responsibilities of all
team members, c.) planning of co-taught differentiated lesson, d.) collaborative assessment of coteaching. (50)
7.
Coaching Your ‘Paraprofessional’ Assistant. Candidate will determine the appropriate roles and
responsibilities of the paraprofessional, as well as the paraprofessionals daily scheduling. Candidates
will establish a development plan for their paraprofessional that outlines training needs as well as
supervisory practices. (50 points)
8.
Collaborative Log: Last semester you completed the Personal Discernment Inventory and determine
how his or her style impacts on collaboration with administrators, colleagues, parents and students. This
assessment and reflection will be conducted over four weeks during the semester by documenting events
in daily practice that are particularly representative of collaborative strengths and needs. (50 points.)
What a FEW will learn & do….
To obtain an “A” in this class, candidates must contract with the professor for an additional 100 points on a special
project, relevant to their daily practice. Suggestions are:
1.
Building Plan: Candidate will survey his or her school using one of the building assessments provided in
class and develop a systematic plan to increase collaboration and co-teaching. This plan may address such
topics staff development, school wide behavior, collaboration with paraprofessionals, related services
personnel, and/or parents issues. Building Plan will be evaluated on a rubric.
9
2.
MAPS Facilitation: Candidate will facilitate a MAP and Ideal Day to include a student with a significant
disability or one who is an English Language Learner in general education. Completed MAP and Ideal
Day schedule will be submitted to the instructor.
3.
Development of School-Wide Schedule for Students and Staff. Candidate will use state guidelines to
create schedule for entire school.
X.
Class Attendance Policy
Candidates are expected to attend all class sessions and be active participants in the learning process. The
knowledge and skills taught in this class can best be learned by reading the assignments and coming to
class to listen to the instructor, ask questions, and interact with peers during group activities. If, after
reviewing the syllabus, class assignments, and reading, candidates believe they already know the
information in this course, they must speak to the instructor who will arrange for a competency test and
then alternative assignments to extend the candidate’s current understanding co-teaching, collaboration,
multi-level curriculum, and building assessment and whole school change. Class activities will include
discussion and group collaborative activities requiring the participation of all candidates. Candidates have
many experiences and skills, which they can share to facilitate everyone's learning. Evaluation will include
attendance, communication and collaboration skills demonstrated during class. If candidates miss more
than two classes without written permission of the instructor, their grade will be lowered one letter grade.
Disruptive Behavior: The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that
disrupts the learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning
of others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. (See
Campus Policies and Procedures p. 146 of the 2001- 2002 KSU Graduate Catalog).
Human Dignity: The University has formulated a policy on human rights that is intended to provide a
learning environment, which recognizes individual worth. That policy is found on p. 152 in the 2001-2002
KSU Graduate Catalog. It is expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the
policy is there for your consideration. he activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the
letter of that policy.
XI.
Evaluation and Grading
Class Requirements, Assignments, and Grading
Course
Objectives
CPI Outcomes &
Proficiencies
Class Activities
Points
Paraprofessional Project
50
2,3,4,6,11,13,14,
15,19
Assistive Technology Project
50
4,8,10,11,14,19
Team Meetings:
 Roles & Responsibilities
 Finding Time
25
25
3,6,9,11,14,15,19
SME: 1.1-1.4
FL: 2.1-2.6
CP: 3.1,3.2,3.3
Co-Teaching
 Plan
 Video Tape
 Assessment & Reflection
50
50
50
4,5,7,9,10,
12, 13,17,19,20
SME: 1.1-1.4
FL: 2.1-2.7
CP: 3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
10
SME: 1.3
FL: 2.1-2.6
CP: 3.1,3.2, 3.3
SME: 1.1-1.4
FL: 2.1-2.6
CP: 3.2
Proficiency Examinations
100
1,2,3,4
SME: 1.1-1.4
CASL
 Log
 Feedback from group
Collaboration Log
40
50
4,5,7,9,10,
12, 13,17,19,20
SME: 1.1-1.4
FL: 2.1-2.7
CP: 3.1-3.4
50 pts
6,7,8,9,14,16,17,
18
Assess how your communication style
impacts upon your ability to work with
your instructors, principal, colleagues,
parents and students. Reflect upon
ways to use this information to improve
your practices.
FL: 2.1-2.7
CP: 3.1-3.4
Contracted Projects
 Building Plan
 MAPS & Ideal Day
60
1,5,6,7,8,10,14,
15,17
SME: 1.2, 1.3, 1.4
FL: 2.1, 2.4-2.6
CP: 3.1, 3.3
Class Participation: Includes in-class
assignments, readings and reflections, all
homework.
50
2,3,5,9,10,
11,12,13,15,16,1
9,20
SME: 1.1-1.4
FL: 2.1-2.6
CP: 3.1-3.5
* NCATE Standards: All course objectives meet NCATE Standards I & IV in that they are all aligned with
KSD’s and all address Diversity.
Grades will be assigned as follows:
90-100% = A
80-89% = B
70-79% = C
Below 69% = D
XII.
Academic Integrity
Every KSU candidate is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in
the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's
policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to
University materials, misrepresentation/ falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal,
retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and
misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the
established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a
faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a candidate to
the Code of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
The candidate is reminded to consult pp 142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate Catalog for the University's
policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt
with in accordance with the University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, candidates in the graduate
program in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for Educator.
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for Exceptional Children's (CEC)
Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
11
XIII. Course Outline
The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of topics. Any topic may be covered in greater or lesser
detail depending on the needs of the class. Topics may overlap in dates. Additional topics may be added as requested
by the candidates. However, any changes in due dates or written products that are part of a “grade” will be changed
only after class discussion and written notification by the professor. Candidates will be expected to initial that they
have read the written notification by the instructor. [SKJ = Sands, Kozleski, French]
Date &
Due Dates
Topic
8/23/05


Introductory Activity: MAPS
Syllabus
8/30/05

Educational Reform as a
Context for Inclusion and SIOP
Creating culturally-responsive
classrooms and schools

In-Class Activity
- Building surveys
9/6/05
Assessment of cultural identity
9/13/05
Analysis of personal
Personal DISCernment
communication and leadership style
Inventory
- Developing Successful Team
Structures
- Reflections and discussions
- Coaching paraprofessionals and
- Class activity & assignment
other teaching assistants
- New Co-Teacher Game
Topic
In-Class Activity
9/20/05
Date &
Due Dates
Homework
Assignments
- Chapters
- Articles as assigned
- Conduct assessment of
your school
- Chapter
- Development Plan
Homework
Assignments
9/27/05
Parapro
Project
Due!
Co-Teaching to Support
Differentiated Instruction
- Discussion of Chpt. 9-10
- Video: Power of Two
- Assessments of co-teaching
-
10/4/05
Planning for including students with
significant disabilities:
- Academics
-
- Chapters
-
10/11/05
Team
Meetings Due!
Collaborating with speech
pathologists in delivering quality
services to students with disabilities
and those who are English
Language Learners
10/18/05
Preparation for Proficiency Exam
Determine appropriate coteaching approach for
differentiated lessons.
MAPS, Ideal Day
Faculty approve lesson plans
Bring copies of student
work from co-taught
lesson along with
summary of teacher
reflections.
TBA
-
Chapters
Paraprofessional
Project
Classwide Peer
Tutoring
12
Study for Proficiency
Exam
Watch major feature film
10/25/05
Perceptions portrayed in the media
-
Video Presentation
Scheduling students & staff
-
Faculty approve lesson
plans
Class assignments
TBA
Presenter:
11/1/05
Co-teaching
Video &
Assessment
Due
Collaborative Analysis of Student
Work
11/8/05
Overview of Universal Design for
Learning & Assistive Technology
Dr. Leigh Funk
Class assignments TBA
- Using the 3 brain
network to analyze
learner differences
- CASL
Using UDL to differentiate
instruction (lesson plan revision to
include UDL principles)
Class assignments TBA
- Lesson Plan
Revisions
- CASL
11/15/05
11/22/05
CASL
Class assignments TBA
Dr. Leigh Funk
The Politics of Help
Dr. Toni Strieker
11/29/05
Assistive
Technology
Due
Presentations of Special Projects
12/6/05
CASL Log
Due!
Presentations of Special Projects
about people with
disabilities.
- Chapters
- Log on Collaborative
Practices
- Identify students with
significant disabilities
to include
- Bring copies of student
work from co-taught
lesson along with
summary of teacher
processing & reflection.
- Read “Assistive Tech”
Bring copies of student
work from co-taught
lesson along with
summary of teacher
processing & reflection.
- Read “Differentiated
Instruction and
Implications for UDL”
- Bring copies of student
work from co-taught
lesson along with
summary of teacher
processing & reflection.
- Read: “The Politics of
Help”
- Video Activity: “Story of a
Stranger”
- CASL
Special Project
Presentation
Special Project
13
XIV.
References/Bibliography
Augmentative Communication , Assistive Technology & Classroom-Based Therapy
Baumgart, D., Johnson, J., & Helmstetter, E. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication
systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brooks.
Mirenda, P. (1985). Designing pictorial communication systems for physically able-bodied students with
severe handicaps. Augmentative and alternative communication, 1, 58-64.
Tranchak, T. L., and C. Sawyer (1995). Augmentative communication in Assistive Technology: A
resource for school, work and community, eds. M.F. Flippo, K.J. Inge and J.M. Barcus. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Reichle, J., & Karlan, G. (1989). The selection of an augmentative system of communication intervention:
A critique of decision rules. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10 (3), 146-156.
Giangreco, M. ,York, J., & Rainforth, B. (1989) Providing related services to learners with handicaps in
educational settings; Pursuing the least restrictive option. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 1 (2), 55-63.
Rainforth, B. & York, J. (1987). Integrating related services into community instruction. Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12 (3), 188-198.
Siegel-Causey, E. Guess, D. (1989). Enhancing nonsymbolic communication interactions among learners
with severe communication disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Collaboration, Consultation & Teamwork
DeBoer, A. (1995). Working together: The art of consulting and communicating. Longmont, CO: Sopris
West.
Emory, M. J. (1991). Building team pride: Teachers and paraeducators working together. Columbia:
University of Missouri.
Friend, M. & Cook, L. (1990). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1(1), 69-86.
Lyon, S. & Lyon, G. (1980). Team functioning and staff development: A role release approach to
providing integrated educational services to students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of the Association
for the Severely Handicapped, 5(3), 250-263.
Pickett, A., Faison, K. & Formanke, J. (1993). A core curriculum and training program to prepare
paraeducators to work in rural special education settings. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 13(4) 3-9.
Raywid, M. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1) 30-35.
Vaughn,. S., Schumm, J. & Arguelles, M. (1997). The ABCDEs of co-teaching in Teaching Exceptional
Children. 30 (2), 4-10.
Creating Inclusive Schools
Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solnar, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald,
L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989). The home school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the
school of their brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 14 (1), 1-7.
Cross, G., & Villa, R. (1992). The Winooski school system: An evolutionary perspective of a school
restructuring for diversity. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring
14
and effective education: An administrators guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 219-237). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Ford, A. (1994). Assessing Our Practices. Wisconsin Inclusion Project.
Kaskinen-Chapman, A. (1992). Saline Area Schools and inclusive community concepts. In R. Villa, J.
Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators
guide to creating heterogeneous schools (pp. 169-185). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
LeRoy, B., England, J., Kent, C., Osbeck, R. & St. Peter, S. (1994). Facilitator's guide to inclusive
education: Systems change that supports all students. Inclusive Communities Press, Wayne State University,
Detroit, MI.
Lilly, M. (1987). Lack of focus on special education in literature on educational reform. Exceptional
Children, 53(4), 325-330.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of America society.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762-706.
McGregor, G., & Vogelsberg, T. (1998). Inclusive Schooling Practices: Pedagogical and Research
Foundations. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices, Allegheny University of the Health Sciences,
Pittsburgh.
National Center for Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (1995). National study of inclusive education.
New York: City University of New York, NCERI.
Salisbury, C., Palombaro, M. & Hollowood, T. (1993). On the nature and change of an inclusive
elementary school. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18 (2) 75-84.
Schaffner, C. & Buswell, B. (1996). Ten critical elements for creating inclusive and effective school
communities. In S. Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.) Inclusion. A guide for educators. (pp 49-65). Baltimore: Paul
Brookes.
Schattman, R. (1992). The Franklin Northwest Supervisory Union. In R. Villa, J. Thousand, W. Stainback
& S. Stainback (Eds.) Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrators guide to creating
heterogeneous schools (pp. 143-159). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1995). Managing complex change within an inclusive schooling. In R. Villa & J.
Thousand (Eds.) Creating and inclusive school. (pp.51-79). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
York-Barr, J., Kronberg, R. & Doyle, M. (1996). Creating inclusive school communities. Module 4Collaboration: Redefining roles, practices, and structures. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Curriculum and Instruction
Cosden, M. & Haring, T. (1992). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Contingencies, group interactions
and students with special needs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2 (1), 53-71.
Deno, S. L., Foegen, A., Robinson, S., & Espin, C. (1996). Commentary: Facing the realities of inclusion
for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 345-357
Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D. Hamlett, C. , Phillips, M., & Karns, E. (1995). General educators' specialized
adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 61, 440-459.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students with learning disabilities:
Differences between general and special educators. Learning Disabilities Research, 7, 120-128.
15
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C. & Iverson, V. (1993a). Choosing options and accommodations for children
(COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Giangreco, M., & Putnam, J. (1991). supporting the education of students with severe disabilities in
regular education environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.) Critical Issues in the Lives of People
with Severe Disabilities. (pp. 245-270.)
Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive educational programs, practices, and outcomes for
students with severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 3-29.
Jorgensen, C. (1992). Natural supports in inclusive schools: Curricular and teaching strategies. In J. Nisbet
(Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Logan, K. Bakeman, R. Keefe, E. (1997). Effects of instructional variables on engaged behavior of
students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, (4) 481-498.
Logan, K. R., & Keefe, E. B. (1997). A comparison of instructional context, teacher behavior, and engaged
behavior for students with severe disabilities in general education and self-contained elementary classrooms. Journal
of The Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 16-27.
Marston, D. (1996). A comparison of inclusion only, pull-out only, and combined service models for
students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121-132.
Monda-Amaya, L. & Pearson, P. (1996). Toward a responsible pedagogy for teaching and learning literacy.
In M.C. Pugach & C. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education and reform. Refocusing the conversation.
(pp.143-163). New York: Teachers College Press.
Nolet, V., & Tindal, G. (1993). Special education in content area classes: Development of a model and
practical procedures. Remedial and Special Education, 14, 36-48.
Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of
curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, 62, 68-83.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General
education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61, 335-352.
Staub, D., & Peck, C. A. (1995). What are the outcomes for nondisabled students? Educational Leadership,
December 1994/January 1995, 36 – 40.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1995). A process for adapting curriculum in inclusive classrooms. In R. Villa & J.
Thousand (Eds.) Creating an inclusive school.Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M.
(1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76,
531-540.
General Education Reform as the Context for Inclusion
Adelman, N. E., & Walking-Eagle, K. P. (1997) Teachers, time and school reform. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.)
1997 ASCD Yearbook. Rethinking education change with a heart and mind (pp 92-110). Alexandria, BA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
16
Apple, M. W. & Beane, J. A. (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Astuto, T. A., Clark, D. L., Read, A., McGree, K., & Fernandez, L. D. (1994). Roots of reform:
Challenging the assumptions that control change in education. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan Foundation.
Brooks, J. & Brooks, M. (1993). In search of understanding. The case for constructivist classrooms.
Alexandria, BA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Canady, R. L. & Rettig, M. D. (1995). Block scheduling. A catalyst for change in high schools.
Princeton, N.J.: Eye on Education.
Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175-186.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 753-761.
Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action. Studies of schools
and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learning styles program. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What's worth fighting for in your school. New York: Flamer Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73, 754-752.
Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Haper Collins.
Goodlad, J. (1994). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill.
Goodlad, J. & Lovitt, T. (Eds.) (1994). Integrating general and special education. New York: McGraw
Hill.
Hargreaves, A. (1997a). Introduction. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking
educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv). Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development
.
Hargreaves, A. (1997b). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success.
In A. Hargreaves (Ed.) 1997 ASCD yearbook. Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. (pp. vii-xv).
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hopfenberg, W. & Levin, H. (1993). The accelerated schools resource guide. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989a) Cooperation and Competition: Theory and research. Eden, MN:
Interaction Books.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1989b). Leading Cooperative Schools. Eden, MN: Interaction Books.
Kohn, A. (1996). What to look for in a classroom. Educational Leadership, 54(1), 54-55.
Lieberman, A. (Ed.) (1995). The work of restructuring schools. Building from the ground up. New York:
Teachers College Press.
17
National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1993). Five standards of authentic instruction. Educational Leadership,
50(7), 8-12.
Newmann, F. & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring. Alexandria, VA: Association of
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Building community in schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teele, S. (1995). The multiple intelligences school. A place for all students to succeed. Redlands, CA:
Citrograph Printing.
United States Senate-House. (1994, March 21). Goals 2000: Educate America Act. (Conference Report
103-446). Washington D.C.: Author.
Legal, Policy , Cost & Urban Issues
Gorves, S., with Hartsfield, S. Ruff, Jones, R., and Holinga, M. (1995). How an urban school promotes
inclusion. Educational Leadership, 52(4) 82-84.
Kubicek, F. (1994). Special education in light of select state and federal court decisions. The Journal of
Special Education 28, 27-42.
Lipton, D. (1994). The "full inclusion" court cases: 1989-1994. National Center on Educational
Restructuring and Inclusion Bulletin, 1, (2), 108.
National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winners All: A Call for Inclusive Schools.
Virginia: Alexandria.
National Association for State Boards of Education. (1992). Winning Ways. Virginia: Alexandria.
Osborne, A. Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate: Legal implications:
Exceptional Children, 61, 6-14.
Salisbury, C. & Chambers, A. (1994). Instructional costs of inclusive schooling. The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19(3), 215-222.
Yell, M. (1995). Least restrictive environment, inclusion and students with disabilities: A legal analysis.
The Journal of Special Education, 28, 398-404.
Yell, M. (1995). The least restrictive environment mandate and the courts: Judicial activism or judicial
restraint? Exceptional Children, 61, 578-581.
Parent Issues & Perceptions
Erwin, E., Sodak, L. (1995). I never knew I could stand up to the system: Families' perspectives on
pursuing inclusive education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, (2) 136—146.
Green A., & Stone, A. (1989). Attitudes of mothers and fathers of non handicapped children. Journal of
Early Intervention, 13(4), 292-304.
Palmer, D., Borthhart, M., Huang, A. & Melblom, C. (1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for
their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64 (1), 271-282.
18
Ryndak, D., Downing, J., Jaqueline, L. & Morrison, A. (1995) Parents' perceptions after inclusion of their
children with moderate or severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps,
20,. 147-157.
York, J. & Tunidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators, parents
and students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,. 31--44.
Problem Behavior
Macmillan, D., Gresham, R., & Forness, S. (1996). Full inclusion: An empirical perspective. Behavioral
Disorders, 21(2), 145-159.
Walker, H. M. & M. Bulls (1991). Behavior disorders and social context of regular class integration: A
conceptual dilemma? In The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues and models. J.
W. Lloyd, N Singh, and A. Repps, (Eds.) Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brookes Cole.
Rationale "for and against" Inclusion
Ayers, B. J., Meyer, L. H. Erevelles, N. & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives
on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 8493.
Ciopani, E. (1995). Inclusive education: What do we know and what do we still have to learn?
Exceptional Children, 61, 498-500.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994). Incsive schools movement and the radicalization of special education
reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294-309.
Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1995). Counterpoint: Special Education--Ineffective? Immoral? Exceptional
Children, 61, 303-306.
Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S. Schattman, R. (1993). "I've counted Jon":
Transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 359-372.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating students with moderate and severe
disabilities into general education classes. Exceptional Children, 61, 425-438.
Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (1995). The illusion of full inclusion. A comprehensive critique
of a current special education bandwagon. Austin, Tex: PRO-ED.
Kauffman, J. M. (1993). How we might achieve the radical reform for special education. Exceptional
Children, 60, 6-16.
Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. The Journal of Special Education,
29, 192-199.
O'Neil, J. (1995). Can inclusion work? a conversation with Jim Kauffman and Mara Sapon-Shevin.
Educational Leadership, 52(4) 7-11.
Rankin, D., Hallick, A. Hartley, P. Bost, C. & Uggla C. (1994). Who's dreaming? A general education
perspective on inclusion. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 235-237.
Taylor, S. J. (1995). On rhetoric: A response to Fuchs and Fuchs. Exceptional Children. 61, 301-302.
Vergason, G. A. & Anderegg, M. L. (1993). "In my dreams": A second look at inclusion and
programming. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 296-298.
19
Werts, M., Wolery, M., Snyder, E., Caldwell, N., & Salisbury, C. (1996). Supports and resources
associated with inclusive schooling: Perceptions of elementary-school teachers about need and availability. Journal
of Special Education.
Wolery, M., Werts, M., Caldwell, M., Snyder, E., & Lisowski, L. (1995). Experienced teachers'
perceptions of conditions and supports for inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Delay, 30, 15-26.
Social, Friendship & Community Issues.
Hall, L. (1994). A descriptive assessment of social relationships integrated classrooms. The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 302-313.
Helmsetter, E., Peck, C. Giangreco, M. (1994). Outcomes of interactions with peers with moderate or
severe disabilities: A statewide survey of high school students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 19, 263-276.
Janney, R. E., Snell, M. D. (1996). How teachers use peer interactions to include students with moderate to
severe disabilities in elementary general education classes. Journal of Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps.
Kunc, N. (1992). The need to belong: Rediscovering Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In R. A. Villa, J.
Thousand, W. Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Restructuring for caring and effective education: An administrative
guide to creating heterogeneous schools. (pp. 25-40). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Logan, K., Diaz, E. Piperno, M., Rankin, D., MacFarland, A. & Berbamian, K. (1995). How inclusion built
a community of learners. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 42-45.
Staub, D., Schwartz, I., Gallucci, C., Peck, C. (1994). Four portraits of friendship at an inclusive school.
The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19,
314-325.
Strully, J. & Strully, C. (1992). The struggle toward inclusion and the fulfillment of friendship. In J. Nisbet
(Ed.) Natural supports in school, at work, and in the community for people with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
Transition Services
Lake. K. and K. Kafka (1996). Reporting methods in grade K-8. In communicating student learning, ed. T.
Gusky, 90-118. Alexandria: Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Leconte, P. M. Castleberry, S. King & L. West (1994-1995). Critical issues in assessment: Let's take the
mystery out of assessment for vocational preparation, career development and transition. Diagnostique, 20 (1-4):
33-51.
Love, L. (1993). Developing and including transition services in the IEP: transition services program.
Phoenix: Arizona Department of Education (ERIC Document NO. 380 964).
20