Educating One and All Students with Disabilities and Standards-Based Reform (1997) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 CONTENT STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, AND INSTRUCTION
4 CONTENT STANDARDS, CURRICULUM, AND INSTRUCTION
Pages 113-150
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 113... ...
We then examine how these standards interact with the educational outcomes and curricular and instructional experiences that are valued for students with disabilities. We compare key characteristics, derived from research, associated with effective instruction for special education with the instructional assumptions of standards-based reform.
|
From page 114... ...
Varied Characteristics of State Content Standards As discussed in Chapter 2, states are taking various approaches to developing content standards; consequently, their standards tend to differ by level of
|
From page 115... ...
The only in-depth analysis of the pedagogical implications of standards was conducted in the areas of mathematics and science by the Council of Chief State School Officers (Blank and Pechman, 1995~. The results of this review of state standards indicated that recently developed state standards frameworks link math
|
From page 116... ...
All seven states have completed math, science, and social studies standards as well as standards in areas of reading and writing or language arts. Three of these states have developed specific standards in the arts, health and/or physical education, and second languages.
|
From page 117... ...
These pedagogical features noted by the committee in its examination of state standards appear to be part of a larger trend across national and state content standards. The review of math and science standards by the Council of Chief State School Officers (Blank and Pechman, 1995)
|
From page 118... ...
POST-SCHOOL OUTCOMES, CURRICULUM, AND INSTRUCTION IN SPECIAL EDUCATION In order to consider the potential impact of participation in standards-based reform on students with disabilities, it is first necessary to understand the kinds of post-school outcomes, curriculum, and instruction that currently characterize special education. This section describes the post-school outcomes traditionally valued in special education for many students with disabilities and their instructional implications.
|
From page 119... ...
recognizes its importance by mandating the provision of transition services.2 The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) , in consultation with state directors of special education, teachers, parents, policy groups, and local school administrators, has developed a model for conceptualizing the broad range of educational outcomes relevant to special education and the goal of productive adult status.
|
From page 120... ...
For secondary-school-age students, curricular priorities include employment preparation and placement, personal management, and leisure (McDonnell et al., 1991; Wehman, 1996~. For students with mild disabilities, a combination of academic, vocational, and functional outcomes is often selected with the specific mix of components dependent on individual student goals and needs.
|
From page 121... ...
Whether or not states will develop standards in vocational/career areas is an as yet unknown but important consideration in efforts to include students with disabilities in content standards. Characteristics of Effective Special Education Instruction Research provides a great deal of information about what constitutes an effective instructional environment for students with disabilities.
|
From page 123... ...
Among individuals with cognitive disabilities, the characteristics apply to the entire range of students, from those with mild to those with severe disabilities. · These characteristics represent broad principles that, in light of the heterogeneity of the population of students with cognitive disabilities, must be particularized to meet individual student needs.
|
From page 124... ...
. Although research on positive educational interventions supports the effectiveness of these characteristics and demonstrates that they can be applied in actual school settings, a gap exists between what is known about effective special education instruction and the typical state of practice.
|
From page 125... ...
Individually referenced decision making is perhaps the signature feature of effective special education practice, exemplifying a basic value and representing a core assumption of special educators' professional preparation. "Effective" is defined as statistically significant gains in specific skills.
|
From page 126... ...
Preliminary results of this longitudinal study indicate that children in all three intensive instruction treatments had comparable achievement, significantly better than the control group. Just as for students with mild disabilities, research indicates that one-to-one intensive instruction helps develop the skills of students with more severe cognitive disabilities, particularly in the area of personal management, including dressing, personal hygiene, money management, and sexual behavior (Billingsley et al., 1994~.
|
From page 127... ...
But they contrast with special education practice that has maintained a strong focus on the explicit teaching of basic skills. Indeed, three empirical literatures question the tenability of constructivist principles for many students with disabilities.
|
From page 128... ...
Despite some questions about the pertinence of constructivist assumptions to programs for some students with cognitive disabilities, constructivist philosophy nevertheless has influenced concepts of effective special education practice in substantial ways. The notion of isolated skills instruction has been replaced with more contextualized presentations, in which strategies for applying skills in generalized contexts are taught explicitly.
|
From page 129... ...
Model special education instruction focuses on the individual as the unit of analysis, whereas general education relies on the group. Students with cognitive disabilities require intensive instruction, whereas carefully designed nonintensive instruction appears to meet the needs of most students without disabilities.
|
From page 132... ...
These data suggest that, for this nationally representative sample, students with disabilities were exposed to selected instructional practices (e.g., cooperative learning, mastery learning, whole language instruction) at approximately the same rates in both mathematics and language arts as general education students (see Table 4-1~.
|
From page 133... ...
133 be 4 Cq o a' a' a' EM a' Cq o Cq a' = · _4 ·_4 Cq ·_4 o .; ~ C)
|
From page 134... ...
. Students with disabilities received better grades in special education classes than they did in general education classes, but a number of students failed special education courses, too.
|
From page 135... ...
For example, students in upper grades spent significantly less time in academic courses than did those in the lower grades. This trend is paralleled by a significant increase in the amount of time spent in vocational education courses by older students.
|
From page 136... ...
The need to improve outcomes derives in part from data documenting problematic post-school outcomes for students with disabilities (Edgar et al., 1986; Hasazi et al., 1985; Blackorby and Wagner, 1996; see Chapter 3~. However, as these studies have demonstrated, post-school outcomes for many special education students are improved if they have access to strong vocational/career programs and other opportunities to develop important functional skills.
|
From page 137... ...
This suggests that the special education provided to students with disabilities in the math content area does not reflect the knowledge standards of current mathematics curricula. These documented problems with IEPs are particularly troublesome because of concerns that IEPs represent the entire curriculum in a specific subject matter for some students with disabilities (Pugach and Warger, 1993; Sands et al., 1995~.
|
From page 138... ...
The purpose of the national curriculum study was to investigate how both mainstream and special educational needs students coped with standard assessment tasks and how special education teachers perceived the national cur
|
From page 139... ...
For example, between 90 and 95 percent of instructional time in schools for the visually impaired was spent on the national curriculum; schools for students with emotional and behavior difficulties spent the least amount of time, an average 66 percent of available instructional time. Findings also corroborated the impression that teachers in special education tend to place greater emphasis on social skills, practical life skills, and cultural experiences than on fostering intellectual development of their students through the national curriculum (Wylie et al., 1995:289~.
|
From page 140... ...
~181~. In addition, for an education to be deemed appropriate, the package of special education and related services must be defined in an IEP, in conformity with the IDEA's procedural requirements, and must be reasonably calculated to allow the student to receive educational benefits (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v.
|
From page 141... ...
Thus, to meet the IDEA requirement for an appropriate education under a system of standards-based reform, special education and related services for students with disabilities will probably need to include specialized instruction and support services that are aligned with the common standards applicable to all students. When content and performance standards are part of the general curriculum, it can be further argued that the IEP team should address these standards when they make determinations about appropriate education and plan a curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities.
|
From page 142... ...
In addition, special education teachers, who are trained quite differently from general education teachers, will require inservice preparation and professional development to increase their understanding of common standards and the teaching and learning principles implied by them. Special educators will also need to learn effective methods for modifying the general curriculum for students with disabilities.
|
From page 145... ...
A determination to alter the common standards in any way will need to be made systematically, individually, and deliberately. A defensible decision-making process will need to consider at least three issues: · Do the common content standards represent skills critical to the individual's success once he or she leaves school?
|
From page 146... ...
In addition, the common content standards may bear little resemblance to the skills and knowledge that most students with severe cognitive disabilities require for successful post-school adjustment. Allocating instructional time to such nonfunctional learning activities is likely to divert effort from more relevant instruction.
|
From page 147... ...
If students are expected to achieve common standards, parents will want to know about the relationship between the IEP goals and the content standards. Parents of children with disabilities will need to participate in decisions about altering standards and to understand the ramifications of these decisions such as whether their children will be eligible for a standard high school diploma.
|
From page 148... ...
Moreover, reorienting the IEP process to increase expectations and measure meaningful outcomes will require considerable professional development for special educators. Finally, it should be noted that permitting alterations for some students within standards-based reform may be viewed as a capitulation to present inequalities in performance and could represent a political liability.
|
From page 149... ...
Research has identified three broad characteristics of effective instruction for students with cognitive disabilities (who constitute the majority of students with disabilities) : individually referenced decision making that focuses on the individual student's needs, intensive methods of delivering instruction, and explicit contextualization of skills-based instruction Currently, it is not known whether these three characteristics of effective instruction can be delivered comprehensively enough to allow students with cognitive disabilities to meet common content standards.
|
From page 150... ...
A revised IEP system may be needed to ensure accountability for this process. Although our analyses suggest that some of the specific aspects of standardsbased reform may not be very well matched with the characteristics of effective special education for some students with disabilities, this does not mean that these students should be left out of standards-based reform.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.