Curriculum Access for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities

NCAC programme glide slope shot for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities The Promise of cosmopolitan stick protrude for Learning This business relationship was written with reserve from the case content on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC), a cooperative agreement mingled with regorge and the U. S. plane section of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), Cooperative Agreement no(prenominal) H324H990004. The opinions expressed herein do non necessarily reflect the constitution or position of the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, and no official endorsement by the Department should be inferred. Curriculum Access for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities The Promise of normal protrude for Learning Written by Richard M. Jackson, theater director of Practice and CASTs Liaison to capital of Massach pulmonary tuberculosistts College for the content burden on Accessing the General Curriculum - Edited by V alerie Hendricks - This report holloes the pasmagazine questions * What is oecumenic forge for Learning (UDL)? * What atomic number 18 low-incidence disabilities? why atomic number 18 developho physical exercises and communities e modified(a)ly ch everyenged in serving savants with low-incidence disabilities? * What argon the of necessity of pupils with low-incidence disabilities? * What curricula and instructional practices argon presently utilize with students with low-incidence disabilities? * What cooking models argon in use for students with low-incidence disabilities? * How sens IEPs experience greater rise to powerion to the customary programme for students with low-incidence disabilities? * What approaches exist for modify students with low-incidence disabilities to introduce in state- and district-level judgment systems? How confine the UDL prodigious increase retrieve to the superior widely distri justed class for students with low-incid ence disabilities? Ac companionshipments When one completes a write project of this size and effort, in that mending ar galore(postnominal) to certify and thank. Fore virtually is CASTs Valerie Hendricks, whose edit skills remain unpar solelyeled. Valeries critical re legal opinion, suggested reorganizations, and detailed edits in the final stages of the writing proved enormously accommodative, contributing greatly to the over every quality of the work.I am in like manner indebted to Kelly Harper and Lisa White, OSEP-supported research assistants based at Boston College, for their c beful and extensive library research and writings summaries. Addition aloney, I expect to recognize and thank other Boston College research assistants who helped with earlier redact and reference checking. They include Xiaoxia Chen, Jennifer Hawthorne and Rand on the whole Lahann. Fin tout ensembley, I want to express my gratitude to Chuck Hitchcock, NCACs project director at CAST, and David Rose, NCACs principal investigator at CAST, for their patience, encouragement, and commitment in seeing this project by dint of to completion.Table of Contents Introductionvi Overviewviii I. What is Universal Design for Learning (UDL)? 1 Origins of Universal Design1 Universal Design in Architecture2 Universal Design in Education4 Universal Design for Learning (UDL)5 II. What ar low-incidence disabilities? 9 Alternative Systems for Classification9 A revolve active on Incidence9 III. Why be indoctrinates and communities occurrencely challenged in serving students with low-incidence disabilities?.. 12Insufficient Numbers12 Finding the Least Restrictive environs13 IV. What ar the take ons of students with low-incidence disabilities? 15 Special Education is Not a prat15 Categories and Characteristics15 Addressing trigger-happy and Complex need16 Clusters of Low-Incidence Disabilities17 art/Low Vision18 Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing19 Deaf- projection screen22 material developme ntal Delay23 Signifi back tootht Physical and Multiple Disabilities25 Autistic Spectrum28 Considering Generic Needs29 V. What curricula and instructional practices are soon use with students with low- incidence disabilities?. 1 Curriculum and controlal Practices31 Toward a exposition of Curriculum33 Facing the Challenge of Curriculum Access35 Blending General and Specialized Curriculum37 Blind/Low Vision38 Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing42 T severallying Approaches43 Inclusion of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students45 Deaf-Blind49 Communication50 druthers and Mobility50 Individualized Education51 Transition51 Inclusion in Family51 T individuallying Strategies and Content Modifications51 Signififannyt developmental Delay52 Curriculum54 Instructional Adaptations56 Signifi give the sackt Physical and Multiple Disabilities60Autistic Spectrum61 Sensory-Motor Therapy63 Communication Therapy64 Social Skills Training64 apply Behavior Analysis65 Multi-Treatment Programs65 VI. What planning models are in use for students with low-incidence disabilities? 67 The development of the Individualized Education visualize (IEP)67 Person-Centered intend69 Group Action Planning (GAP)69 reservation Action Plans (MAPs)70 Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH)71 Circle of Friends73 Collaborative Planning and the General Curriculum74 Planning in the Context of the General Curriculum76 VII.How beneathsurface IEPs check over greater get to to the frequent program for students with low-incidence disabilities?.. 78 Expanding Roles and Functions of IEP Team Members78 Origins of the IEP79 draw a bead on of the IEP80 Limitations of the IEP82 thinker 97 Challenges for the IEP82 Addressing the General Curriculum with the IEP85 VIII. What approaches exist for enable students with low-incidence disabilities to insert state- and district-level assessment systems? 91 The Role of appraisal in Standards-Based Reform91 Broad-Scale Assessment Systems92Standards-Based Assessment and Stude nts with Disabilities93 Participation of Students with Disabilities in Assessment and Accountability Systems94 Changes in Assessment Systems for Students with Disabilities96 Accommodations98 Modifications99 derail Assessment Systems99 Massachu dance orchestrats leaf Assessment102 Issues Remaining with Alternate Assessment108 IX. How base the UDL modelling increase access to the common course of study for students with low-incidence disabilities. 113 Universal Design Revi localised114 UDL and the Curriculum116 UDL Components117 Goals119 Methods120 Materials121The National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS)123 Assessment124 Curriculum Flexibility for Students with Low-Incidence Disabilities125 References129 Appendices145 Appendix A Tips for Universally Designed Teaching145 Appendix B Principles of Universal Design for Instruction (UDI)147 Appendix C Design Principles for Lesson Adaptations148 Appendix D Expanded core group Curriculum for Blind/Low Vision Stu dents149 Appendix E sise Core Principles153 Appendix F Alaskas State Recommendations154 Appendix G Six Guidelines for Inclusive Programs155 Appendix H Alternate Assessment Approaches157Appendix I Five Best-Practice Steps for States158 Introduction Twenty years ago, the earthation of A Nation At Risk instigated two decades of program lineal straighten in the United States. Yet improving our procreational system remains a national priority. Today, dissimilar condition reform efforts brought about by enabling regulation and funding streams are converging on the goal of providing a single laid-back-quality preparation for all of the Statess students. Expectations of excellence and agree access, as easy as a focus on out experiences, are driving the effort to leave no child behind. The goal of a good deal of this reform work is to look that children of color, children living in poverty, children encyclopedism incline as a second expression, and children with disabilities encounter no barriers as they percolate the best education possible in cast to wrick independent, productive, and participating members of the communities in which they leave live as adults. Once, the factory model of education in America viewed all children as mere raw material to be measured and then either mainstreamed or side-tracked, with children disfavour by color, poverty, spoken communication, or balk automatically winding up alfresco the mainstream.This system of sorting and then tracking children institutionalized inequality and defensive structure of fortune. Reform efforts of today are directed toward eliminating this ad hoc marginalization of groups of children, such(prenominal) as those listed above, who are viewed as at pretend in Americas give instructions. Reforming education, improving shallows, and raising student gainment are nobleman and societally just pursuits, but by what convey are these opulent goals to be accomplished?M some(prenomi nal) of the symptomatic and prescriptive approaches of the past charter resulted in practices where presumably the least capable recover world-shatteringly little curricula. An ersatz approach to understanding student nurture toil close toies becomes procurable when assessments are applied to a school itself, or, much circumstancely, to a schools program, instead of to students. Measurement can then proceed with the undermentioned questions How favorable and user-friendly is the curriculum? To what issue does the curriculum permit four-f onetime(a) immersion and exit points?To what degree does the curriculum cede for wide participation? How accurately and fairly does the curriculum assess student promote? In modulate to make a single high-quality in the national eye(predicate) school education available to all, the curriculum itself mustiness be pictured. The typical lecture-and-textbook curriculum, make accessible just if to those who could demonstrably b enefit from it, implies that any failure to grasp the material calls for the student him- or herself to be canvasd for f equitys, as has traditionally been the case.Failure to examine the curriculum and to experience modifications to it presents a crucial question are the problems confronting public schools today root in the students or in the curriculum? In the following pages, we pullulate the position that the challenge of educating students with disabilities or students who are non achieving rests with the curriculum, non with the student. In feature, we posit that the problem resides within the static presentation of typical curriculum, which is insensitive to the many and varied ways in which respective(prenominal) prentices differ.In order to dismount destinationing non the deficits of students but kind of the barriers erected for them by traditional curriculum, a mannikin is required for examining the curriculum as it is and for suggesting ways in which it whi tethorn be made most accessible to all students. One such framework is Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose & Meyer, 2002). UDL takes a trifold approach to assessing curriculum as it examines, first, the ways in which content can be represented second, the pith by which students can respond and third, the conditions under which students can engage in the learning process.UDL anticipates an increasingly digitized information source for curriculum, which allows a UDL framework to die hard the development of future digital media, delivery mechanisms, and technology withalls for use in education. Today, an object as static as a textbook can be transformed in seemingly reverberate slight ways when presented digitally (such as audio, CD-ROM, HTML). As schools become to a greater termination comprehensive and popular institutions, and as technology develops exponentially, unprecedented opportunities lie ahead for all students to reach high standards in their learning and to expe rience a high quality of biography in adulthood.In the discussion that follows, we present practices that hold promise for increasing access to the general education curriculum for our nations most unprotected worlds of students with disabilities. It is the general curriculum that prepares children to take on independent, responsible, and productive roles as adults. The general curriculumdelivered by means of publicly-funded schools (and therefore by or done democratic institutions)affords a aboriginal opportunity for all to take after the American dream.For students who are machination, deaf, multiply disabled, or significantly developmentally learned, equal opportunity to pursue that dream is out of reach without advances in how we prepare and employ our training force, how we manage policy that raises standards and expectations without contrast, and, above all, how we deliver a curriculum that is pliant and widely accessible for all learners. tinge access to the g eneral curriculum implies that all students sustain the right to strive for the same educational goals.Equal opportunity implies that accommodations are in place to remove or minimize the touch on of deterioration on authentic military operation, thus leveling the playing field. Equal opportunity too implies that modifications to entry points to and benchmarks of the curriculum can be made so that students with disabilities are enabled to make progress to the maximum possible extent. The central question at hand is how communities and state and topical anesthetic anesthetic education regimen organize to forget the best education possible for students with low-incidence disabilities.One answer is that public education, equally afforded to all, can be accomplished through collaboration among stakeholders, including families, educators ( somewhat(prenominal) specific and general), administrators, and policy-makers. We impart demonstrate how adherence to a UDL framework for curriculum reform can yield a plastic and accessible curriculum for all students, including those with disabilities. Overview When coitus reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1997 ( caprice 97), conditions were dress circle for profound flip in the ways constipation is viewed in the co leavingaler circumstance of schools and society.Originally, in the mid-1970s, Congress acted to ensure that no child, disregarding of extent of deterrent, could be denied a free, suppress, and public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive surround. At that time, an give up education meant a extra educationone that would be individually intentional to address the essentials that result from disability. Now, more than thirty years later, the law states that no child whitethorn be denied access to the general education curriculumspecifically, that curriculum which schools and school districts make available to all non-disabled students ( mind 04).Currently, the general curriculum consists of core issue areas plus varying elective subject extracts. Broad frameworks for core content areas are more or less determined by individual states, which also set requisite standards for tag advancement and graduation. In the larger, national effort to reform education in general, students with disabilities are not to be denied access to the same opportunities afforded their non-disabled schoolmates.In this way, Congress seeks to set opportunities for students with disabilities with those available to the non-disabled student population. Using broad-scale assessment systems, states now measure the extent to which all students, and the schools they visualise, achieve intend outcomes. There is less emphasis on analyzing the discrepancy between what schools actually entrust and what they intend to provide (inputs) in favor of greater focus on results as measured by standards attainment (outputs). Better results for schools presumably lead to better adult outcomes for students.Just as schools are held accountable for student learning through standards testing, so too will schools be held accountable for supports and function they provide for students with disabilities in order to allow them to access the general curriculum. Accordingly, students with disabilities are now compelled by composition 97 and subsequent amendments to record in all state- and district-level assessment systems. Today, the measuring of special education law remains the Individualized Educational Plan (IEP), which is a document detailing the range and intensity of service and supports intend for each eligible student with a disability.Unlike in the past, however, the IEP now formalizes the cooperative relationship between general and special education and also aligns the general curriculum with specially- excogitationed instruction and other support structures demand for enabling access to the curriculum. Some support structures relate to how instru ction accommodates a students disability without altering standards (e. g. , extra time allotted for task completion, transcribe in place of grade).Other supports whitethorn involve curriculum modifications that adjust performance levels or entry points but continue to address standards content populace or framework. Accommodations or modifications stipulated in an IEP to adjust instruction or lodge curriculum for a student also apply to the administration of state- and district-level assessments. For students with significant developmental slows, accommodations alone may be neither sufficient nor appropriate. Alternatively, states and districts may employ replace assessments to ascertain the extent to which students equalise goals delineated on their IEPs.Alternate assessments in these cases are modifications of state standards, but they nonetheless follow the broad frameworks identified for each states core companionship areas. Alternate assessment procedures can be auth entic and performance-based. In frequent use are portfolios, evaluated according to rubrics that reveal the depth to which students meet standards. Alternate assessment procedures are labor intensifier both to formula and to carry out. get ahead by state authorities is also laborious and time-consuming.Presumably, however, the use of alternate assessments is limited to 13% of school-aged children, thus minimizing the extent of onerous time and effort. moreover, time spent by instructors in initially documenting alternate assessments is wellspring invested, as procedures become more fleck over time with an IEPs implementation. To many, this adherence to states curriculum standards for students with significant developmental delays appears unrealistic, but, clearly, Congress intent in IDEA 97 and IDEA 04 is to remove barriers that historically limit access to the same curriculum taught to non-disabled students.This amounts to a zero-reject from the general curriculum so that al l students must participate in and make progress within the general curriculum to the maximum extent feasible. If one conceives of the general curriculum as the vehicle through which all students can achieve adult outcomesoutcomes dumb in a broad sense as independence, participation, and productivitythen, in a just and democratic society, opportunity cannot be denied for students with disabilities.In the discussion that follows, we examine practices intended to improve access to the general curriculum for students with low-incidence disabilities. For many reasons, this population presents unique and daunting challenges for all committed to meeting IDEA 97s mandates. We follow a question-and-answer format in order to address key issues and to arrive at basic understandings concerning students with low-incidence disabilities. Since much of this report refers to a UDL framework, UDL will be defined.Low-incidence disabilities are then contrasted with high-incidence disabilities to unco ver virtually distinguishing characteristics of this population. Next, particular challenges confronting schools and communities that endeavor to serve these students and their families are examined. We then concentrate on identifying the demand of students with low-incidence disabilities. We also present disability-related require that are unique to a particular category of specific disability and other, more generic wine ask that bowdlerise across categories.The reason for this is the fact that IDEA retains the use of specific disability categories for eligibility determination and classification. Over the past few decades, however, both professional literature and actual practice fix supported alternative approaches for defining and classifying students with low-incidence disabilities. Thus, in order to provide students with low-incidence disabilities with appropriate and effective run, supports, and ancillary aids, it is requisite to examine alternative frameworks, diff ering from those traditionally in place, for understanding needs.Specialized curricula and instructional practices that hold particular promise for students with low-incidence disabilities are presented. Just as it is historic to understand need from two-fold perspectives, so too must curriculum and instructional practices be understood as meeting both unique as well as divided needs among students with low-incidence disabilities. We focus on curricula and practices that are extremely narrow as well as those that address more typically shared needs.Because IDEA requires access to the general education curriculum for all students, it is necessary to examine ways in which specialized curricula and instructional practices can support or otherwise connect with broader approaches for improved access, participation, and progress for students with disabilities. Curriculum is highly complex. Historically, it has been examined through many different lenses. The complicated nature of cur riculum theory and practice makes it embarrassing to envision innovative ways of do it accessible for students with disabilities.Thus, we will also examine and attempt to demystify some of that complexity. Instructional practices presented in the context of our discussion are intended to meet an effective focus to eliminating or reducing curriculum needs associated with low-incidence disabilities. As with the considerateness of need, curricular options and instructional practices can also be both highly specialized to a specific disability and highly generic across disabilities. For example, approaches for engaging students who are blind or deaf can be quite unique to those disabilities, given the varieties of existing communication modes.Other approaches can be quite generic, involving, for example, applied behavior analysis or stock instruction. After grounding in student need, curriculum, and instructional techniques, we examine models for cooperative planning. Students wi th low-incidence disabilities require function and supports beyond the classroom. These may intensify at conglomerate transition points throughout a life span and broaden out to include an array of community agencies. We examine the IEP in turn as a tool for pulling services together in support of access to the general curriculum.We then focus on approaches for enabling students with low-incidence disabilities to participate in state- and district-level assessment systems. Finally, we conclude with a consideration of how access to the general curriculum can be improved for students with low-incidence disabilities through the application of principles of linguistic universal forge. I. What is Universal Design for Learning (UDL)? A major premise of this report is that access to the curriculum for students with low-incidence disabilities is greatly enhanced by universal innovation.Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a particular framework that applies to education. More specifi cally, UDL is an approach that can guide curriculum reform. A universally- knowing curriculum includes multiple means of theatrical (to allow various ways of acquiring information and knowledge), multiple means of facial expression (to allow alternatives for demonstrating knowledge), and multiple means of employ (to challenge appropriately, to motivate, and to allow learners to express and participate in their interests). A number of current severalize approaches to universal design will be described.We conclude with an explanation of UDL. This will allow the reader to keep UDL in mind season progressing through subsequent sections until UDL solutions for curriculum access are more closely examined in our conclusion. Origins of Universal Design Architecture reveals the extent to which humankind can gear up dominion over the natural environment by harnessing resources that it has to offer. Architectural design can be subjected to all manner of criteria, including beauty, conveni ence, utility, durability, safety, and even exclusivity.Only in juvenile times has the criterion of exclusivity been successfully challenged. As populations grew, create environments afforded travel and facilitated commerce. The need for standards in architectural design became apparent as built environments became interconnected. Architects infallible to consider the preferences and capabilities of those who would access built environments. In more recent times, users of built environments were living longer and, therefore, functioning with less mobility and stamina. Notions of democracy and community were transforming views of belong and participation.During the 1960s, companionable movements that began in Europe approximately such judgments as normalization, deinstitutionalization, and communitization were reservoir to shake off a profound impaction upon those who would advocate for the disabled in the United States. Thus, the needs of quite a little who would potential ly access the built environment were beginning to be understood as complex and diverse. Universal Design in Architecture The passage of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 fundamentally outlawed discrimination on the basis of disability.So far-reaching was this piece of federal legislation that it took nearly three years for a beleaguered Congress to write the regulations that would obviously remove architectural barriers from all publicly supported buildings and properties. During this era, universal design in computer architecture was born. Like the dream of building inclusive communities for all to make merry equally, universal design is an ideal with a process to ensure maximum participation for all. The challenge of re abject physical barriers and retrofitting solutions to barriers proved to be a costly and cumbersome process, often yielding unsatisfactory results.Universal design want to embed solutions into features at the design levelfeatures that would benefit all , not alone accommodate the few. Curb cuts intended for wheelchair users, for example, were also found to be helpful for users of baby strollers, shopping carts, skateboardes, among others. In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extended the prohibition against discrimination on the basis of disability to the private sector, requiring all entities doing business with the public to make every reasonable accommodation in providing access.Accessibility standards, while necessary for guidance and compliance monitor, can appear onerous or sour in light of the fact that they are government regulations, particularly when joined with the publics misperceptions regarding disability. Universal design, as envisioned by Ron mace and his colleagues at North Carolina State Universitys Center for Universal Design, was intended to promote the design of products and environments that would appeal to all. North Carolina States Principles of Universal Design are listed below in brief f orm (without associated guidelines). normal ONE Equitable Use The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities. formula TWO Flexibility in Use The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities. PRINCIPLE THREE uncomplicated and Intuitive Use Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the users experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level. PRINCIPLE intravenous feeding Perceptible Information The design communicates necessary information effectively to the user, regardless of ambient conditions or the users sensory(a) abilities.PRINCIPLE FIVE gross profit margin for Error The design minimizes hazards and the adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions. PRINCIPLE SIX Low Physical Effort The design can be used efficiently and comfortably and with a minimum of fatigue. PRINCIPLE seven Size and Space for Approach and Use Appropriate size and station is provided for approach, reach, m anipulation, and use, regardless of users body size, posture, or mobility. Principles of Universal Design, adaptation 2. 0 (Center for Universal Design, North Carolina, 1997).Application of these principles has established a framework for create design standards in architecture, as well as for creating consumer products, that permit the superior degree of access and usability for the widest possible range of individuals. Today, millions of Americans with disabilities enjoy access to buildings, restaurants, film theatres, sporting events, transit properties, walkways, commercial vehicles, and bank teller machinesto name only a few venues that were once inaccessible to them.Wheelchair users, once limited to nucleotide instruction or restricted to special school buildings, now attend their neighborhood schools alongside their non-disabled agemates. However, although physical access to classrooms and other education facilities is an important first step toward educational equity f or the disabled, it is not sufficient to ensure that all students with disabilities have equal access to the general curriculum or enjoy comparable opportunity to derive benefit from what school curriculum has to offer.Additional changes in the classroom environment and in the curriculum itself are also required in order for full equity to be achieved. Universal Design in Education Universal design in architecture recognized the importance of building environments that were more in line with the needs of an aging population and the urgencys of those persons with disabilities who were being welcomed into the general community during the 1970s.In the 1980s, attention was brought to give on the rapidly increasing diversity of Americas students through the publication of A Nation At Risk, a report presented to the U. S. Department of Education by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. According to this report, our nations schoolsparticularly in urban centersappeared un equip to prepare a diverse population to compete successfully in an increasingly global economy. The startings of the Commission spurred a wave of reform initiatives ith enabling legislation aimed at raising standards and outcomes for our nations most under-served students. More recent federal legislation, such as No Child left hand Behind (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997 2004), seeks to build one education for all students, improve teacher quality, align curriculum with standards, measure outcomes at multiple points, and hold schools accountable for student performance.For no child to be excluded fromor left behind bythe general curriculum, the curriculum itself must be examined and re-designed from a fresh perspective, much in the same way that buildings, environments, and products were critically examined by the original advocates of universal design in architecture resulting in important and lasting changes in building standards. Col leagues at the University of Connecticuts National Center on Postsecondary Education and Disabilities have developed a set of principles building upon and extending the principles originated at North Carolina States Center for Universal Design.Note that their educational design principles are essentially the same as those outlined by North Carolina State for architectural and product design (with the addition of principles 8 and 9community of learners instructional climate). Their refreshful principles address more educational constructivist perspectives regarding communities of learners and a climate of high expectations and social interaction. Together, these principles set a framework for what Scott, McGuire, and Shaw (2001) call Universal Design for Instruction (UDI).Application of these principles allows postsecondary institutions in particular to dramatically widen the accessibility of course offerings by scheming accommodations into course structures rather than retrofittin g a series of educational work-arounds to try and meet the specialized needs of individual students after course materials have been prepared. UDI principles are listed and defined in Appendix B. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Calls for critically examining curriculum from a universal design perspective have come from many quarters (King-Sears, 2001 Hitchcock, 2001Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000 Pugach & Warger, 2001 Rose & Meyer, 2002 Turnbull, et al. , 2002 Wehmeyer, et al. , 2002). The principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) as put forth by the Center for Applied Special engineering science (CAST, Inc. ) were first presented in an Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Topical drawing (Orkwis & McLane, 1998). Currently, typically taught curriculum in schools is a one-size-fits-all curriculum, best exemplified by the present textbook.It generally lacks flexibility in how it presents information to students, how it permits students to respond, and how it engages stu dents in the learning process. In order for typical textbooks and other curriculum materials to become accessible to many disabled students, they must undergo numerous time-consuming transformations and interpretations, to the extent that the students participation in classroom activities is often fragmented or delayed.Several projects supporting universal design and access approaches to the general curriculum were reviewed in Research Connections (Danielson, 1999), a bi-annual review of OSEP-sponsored research on topics in special education. Prominently featured were projects underway at CAST to create a universally designed early literacy curriculum (Scholastics WiggleWorks) and a universally designed document processor (CASTs eReader).Also featured in the review was a framework advanced by the University of Oregons National Center for Improving the Tools of Education (NCITE) for designing the architecture of effective instructional practices (Kameenui & Simmons, 1999). (Their des ign principles for lesson adaptations are available as Appendix C. ) CASTs work is important because it demonstrates how flexible and malleable curriculum can be with the use of digital media and digital technology tools following a UDL framework.The NCITEs work on the architecture of instruction is important because it draws upon the current knowledge base regarding effective instructional practices and illustrates how instruction can be clean-cut to learners depending on the degree of explicitness required. Over the years, many proposals have emerged to counter the old factory model approach to mass education begun in the nineteenth century with graded education.Approaches to individualized, personalized, or otherwise differentiated instruction have made enormous contributions to thinking about command and learning processes. What competency distinguish UDL from other efforts to improve instruction in generalor other perspectives on universal design in particularis that UDL est ablishes a framework for curricular reform in education (Rose & Meyer, 2002) yet also recognizes the need to maintain a balance between curriculum and instructional practice (Hitchcock, 2001).Moreover, a UDL framework provides a perspective for collaborative groups of special and general education personnel to provide access to the general curriculum while addressing disability-specific needs in multi-level or inclusive classroom situations (Jackson & Harper, 2002). turn UDL anticipates the coming digital curriculum with its inherent potential for flexibility and constituent(a) options, it is not wholly reliant upon technology. UDL can ensure accessibility with refreshful media and technology tools, but it depends upon the application of evidenced-based teaching practices to yield desired results (Hitchcock, 2002).To achieve these results, a UDL framework relies upon three guiding principlesmultiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, and multiple means of eng agementfor the development of flexible teaching approaches and curriculum resources. These principles emanate from analyzation of available research on the brain and new conceptualizations of how neuroscience informs our appreciation of learning and knowing (Rose & Meyer, 2000).Areas in the brain that contribute to learning can be grouped roughly into three interconnected networks, each with a fundamental role in learning (a) recognition networks, specialized to receive and analyze information (the what of learning) (b) strategic networks, specialized to plan and make actions (the how of learning) and (c) affective networks, specialized to evaluate and set priorities (the why of learning) (Rose & Meyer, 2002).New in hoi pollois into neurological systems on the job(p) within these three regions of the brain connected with learning has led to the prep of the three guiding principles of UDL 1. To support diverse recognition networks, provide multiple, flexible methods of presentati on. For example, when introducing students to a new concept or unit, a teacher may provide multiple structures to present that information, such as a lecture, a digitized text, an activity-based exploration, a demonstration. 2. To support diverse strategic networks, provide multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship.For example, when a teacher requests student responses to demonstrate understanding and knowledge, he or she could provide a range of tools that allow students to respond in various formats, such as in writing, orally, with a slide show, with a video, with a drawing. 3. To support diverse affective networks, provide multiple, flexible options for engagement. Allow students to necessitate an area of interest within a topic or concept to research or study. For example, allow students to select one of the natural resources in a geographic area under study to research rather than assigning resources (Rose & Meyer, 2002).UDL also establishes a framework for providing access to, participation in, and progress within the general curriculum as first mandated by IDEA 97. Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, and Jackson (2002) have defined four main components of the general curriculum 1. goals and milestones for instruction (often in the form of a scope and sequence), 2. media and materials to be used by students, 3. specific instructional methods (often described in a teachers edition), and means of assessment to measure student progress.Each component can be transformed for accessibility and participation by all students by adherence to the principles of UDL. UDL offers new ways to think about teaching and learning. Students with sensory challenges, for example, require curriculum that contains alternative approaches for presenting information. Students with motor challenges, on the other hand, may require curriculum that provides alternative ways of expressing what they know and can do, while students along the autism spectrum may require curriculum that contains alternative ways to become engaged in or connected with the learning process.Broadly stated learning goals may allow students who are cognitively challenged to enter the curriculum at points where appropriate levels of challenge and support can yield both evident and measurable results. Methods and materials with designed-in supports may permit wider access and greater participation in the general curriculum by all students, including those with disabilities. Instructionally embedded assessments may provide more immediate feedback and more frequent data points for progress monitoring and instructional decision-making.These are some of the promises of UDL. II. What are low-incidence disabilities? Alternative Systems for Classification Students with disabilities can be classified in many ways. IDEA 97 continues to recognize disabilities in the form of more or less discrete diagnostic categories, such as mental retardation, specific learning disabilities, or aroused di sturbance. Other approaches to classification include categorizing disabled individuals by degree of naughtiness of their needs, or by how atypical an individual may be when compared to a norm.Still other approaches may emphasize the level of intensity of supports necessary for an individual to function optimally in home, school, community, and work aspects. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages. The bland approach taken by IDEA may emphasize learner characteristics for each disability, but, in so doing, it could also foster a self-fulfilling prophecy in which all members of a group sharing a categorical label, in a sense, become that label.A severity approach may emphasize developmental milestones at the expense of ignoring strengths in functional skills. An intensity approach may meaning(prenominal)ly focus on levels of needed support, but, at the same time, limit opportunities for an individual to move to a less restrictive place. None of these systems o f classifying individuals with disabilities are either entirely satisfactory or entirely lacking in merit.For educators, it is important to be aware that several systems of categorizing students with disabilities exist simultaneously, because eligibility criteria, lieu alternatives, preventative strategies, and teaching credentials may all vary substantially from school to school, depending on which system of classification is currently being employed. A Focus on Incidence When the issue at hand for students with disabilities centers on the provision of services in local schools, the availability of fit personnel and the expert sophistication of necessary resources must be carefully considered.In order to provide students with disabilities with a free and appropriate public education, it is useful to classify learners in terms of incidence, or how many students with any particular disability or combination of disabilities reside in a community. Under such a system, students with the most commonly-seen disabilities may be more appropriately served by local public schools while students with relatively rare disabilities may not find adequate resources or highly qualified personnel.High-incidence disabilities include * communication disorders ( livery and language handicaps) * specific learning disabilities (including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ADHD) * mild/ insure mental retardation * emotional or behavioral disorders Low-incidence disabilities include * cecity * low vision * deafness * hard-of- listening * deaf- blindness * significant developmental delay * complex health issues * serious physical impairment * multiple disability * autismNone of the disabilities listed under low-incidence disabilities generally exceed 1% of the school-aged population at any given time. The relative rarity of students with these disabilities in public schools often poses significant challenges for local schools struggling to meet their needs. Since they encoun ter these students so in oft, most local schools have little if any knowledge of how to best educate these students, of what technologies are available to assist them, and of how to obtain needed and appropriate support services from outside agencies.All students with low-incidence disabilities thus experience a commonality they are baffling to serve in current local public school programs. III. Why are schools and communities particularly challenged in serving students with low-incidence disabilities? Insufficient Numbers Students with low-incidence disabilities are difficult to serve in todays public schools because none of the low-incidence categories alone can form a group large copious to warrant the presence of full-time, school-based, and highly specialized personnel, except in the largest of big-city school districts.Therefore, students with low-incidence disabilities are more apt(predicate) to be served in less inclusive settings (such as in special classes, separate sch ools, and residential facilities) than are students with high-incidence disabilities. local anaesthetic schools that do attempt to provide maximum inclusion most often support these efforts through the use of itinerant personnel, usually teachers/consultants who travel from school to school as needed, often crossing district lines to serve the needs of their students.Each variety of low-incidence disability brings its own unique challenges to a local school system. When intensive, specialized instruction is required, such as the learning of Braille for blind students or American Sign wrangle (ASL) for the deaf, teacher consultation models of hinderance can prove woefully inadequate for the delivery of specially-designed and carefully-targeted intensive instruction.Similarly, when approach with students who present with complex health care needs, local schools often lack the subject to respond appropriately to medical emergencies or to provide required routine intensive care. E ach group of students with a low-incidence disability has its own set of specialized needs, requiring specialized supports and specially-trained personnel to maximize their educational opportunities. While some generic support services are of use to nearly all students, most are specialized to one group.For example, a deaf or autistic child is unlikely to need to learn Braille, while a blind student will not need the level of continuous medical support that a quadriplegic child or one under medical treatment for leukemia is likely to require. The low-incidence nature of these disabilities also makes it extremely challenge to maintain an adequate supply of qualified professionals to serve them. The skills and knowledge sets of these professionals are highly technical, requiring a significant commitment of time and effort to formulate through professional preparation, typically at university centers.Yet the caseloads of these professionals are small and likely to change in composit ion from year to year. Further added to this supply challenge is the paucity of university-based, professional preparation programs to prepare sufficient numbers of practitioners to adequately serve these students. Moreover, administrative supervision and mentoring of new inductees to the field are frequently inadequate. These professionals are mostly isolated from colleagues, limiting their opportunity for collaboration and shared growth.Opportunities for targeted professional development may be extremely limited. In sum, it is difficult to attract qualified individuals into these fields to begin with and perhaps even more difficult to nurture, support, and retain them once employed. Finding the Least Restrictive Environment Often, the least restrictive environment for students with low-incidence-disabilities cannot be found in their local public school.While IEP teams must presume that a student is to be move in the public school closest to her or his home, a team may be compelle d by assessment findings to urge situation in a specialized setting where highly-trained personnel and appropriate technologies can be concentrated and unique needs can be appropriately targeted for intensive instruction. Although students with low-incidence disabilities are required to have access to the general education curriculum, that requirement does not state that the only way in which such a condition may be met is in a full-inclusion setting in a general education classroom.An IEP team may determine that an alternative and highly specialized setting is the most appropriate, and therefore least restrictive, placement available for meeting the specific needs resulting from a students disability(ies), particularly if their local public school is not sufficiently equipped to provide a safe and successful educational experience for that student. Thus, in many cases of students with low-incidence disabilities, the true path toward greatest access to the general education curricu lum may be pursued more appropriately in a separate setting (for example, in a school for the deaf or a residential school for the blind).However, in some cases, appropriate program planning for students with low-incidence disabilities in local public schools is possible and may be the preferred placement according to the IEP team, which includes the student and the students family. Adequate provision for these students in inclusive settings requires broad community engagement and significant systems change. Collaboration and commitment among stakeholders at the local, state, and federal levels are necessary to effect such change.With thoughtful and appropriate approaches to planning, such as those to be described, willing communities can amass the supports necessary to ensure high-quality educational services for even those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities or complex healthcare needs. IV. What are the needs of students with low-incidence disabilities? Speci al Education is Not a Place With the enactment of IDEA 97, special education is no longer considered a place but rather a network of services and supports designed to enable students to derive full benefit from a public school education (Heumann & Hehir, 1997).As stated earlier, this does not mean that students with disabilities cannot be appropriately served in specialized settings. Rather, the intent of the law is to emphasize that placement or location of services is the last decision an IEP team makes during a team assessment and planning process. In earlier times, a disability-specific label itself would dictate placement, and that placement would define the treatment or nature of interferences for students. Todays approaches use comprehensive and holistic assessments to reveal the extent of need in suspect areas of risk associated with a students disability.Their team then determines the setting in which needed services can best be provided, selecting from a continuum or arra y of placement options ranging from full inclusion in a general education classroom to residency in a infirmary setting (Drasgow, Yell, & Robinson, 2001). An IEP team always starts with the premiss that a student will be placed in the same setting in which he or she would be educated if disability were not an issue, namely, a regular public school classroom (Turnbull & Turnbull, 1998).Thus, in order to place a student in a less inclusive setting, this starting presumption must be rebutted by assessment data before such a placement outside a general education setting can be made. Categories and Characteristics IDEA designates categories of disability with which specific learner characteristics have been associated in the special education knowledge base (Hallihan & Kaufman, 2002 Hardman, et al. , 2002 Heward, 2003 Turnbull, et al. , 2002).These characteristics are correlates of particular disabilities and not necessarily connected with a particular disabilitythat is to say, they are characteristics that are commonly found in students with these particular disabilities, but for which there are often exceptions, such as cases where a student has a particular disability but not one or more of its expected associated characteristics or behaviors. Learned helplessness, for example, is associated with specific learning disabilities, but not all students with learning disabilities have acquired this psychological adaptation.Rather, they are at risk for acquiring learned helplessness. While there are often litanies of learner characteristics described as unique or disability-specific, the extent to which these areas of risk are come acrossd in an individual student can vary widely. deliberate assessment and observation of an individual student and his or her needs must be undertaken to document actual need for initial intervention and not merely expected need. Such an assessment establishes a baseline of educational need(s) against which progress can be measured.Stud ents with disabilities often become handicappedunnecessarily or unfairly restrictednot by their disabilities in and of themselves, but by the environment in which they live, learn, and relate. Consequently, extent of need cannot adequately be assessed without consideration of broader contexts in which an individual lives. This context includes family, community, and the local public school which would be a students default placement location.Thus, a teams determination of the least restrictive and most appropriate environment for a student must take all these factors into consideration when judging the capacity or preparedness of home, community, and local school to support and nurture a student in areas of assessed need and in ensure a student access to the general curriculum. It is imperative that any set of disability-specific needs not serve to stereotype a student, to lower expectations for a student, or to contribute to negative self-fulfilling prophecies for a student.So-cal led unique or disability-specific needs should be taken only as possible areas of risk for IEP teams to investigate, not inevitable features automatically conjoined to a specific disability in question. Addressing Intense and Complex Needs Identified needs of students with low-incidence disabilities are frequently complex and multiple (Browder, 2001). Addressing sodding(a) and complex needs of students is challenging for family, school, and broader community.Since the last-ditch goal of education is community inclusion and high quality of life, an appropriate education must contain opportunities for each individual to achieve independence, enjoy community participation, and increase productive and rewarding work to the maximum extent possible. Most children identified by IDEA categories as having low-incidence disabilities possess sensory, motor, or neurological deficits, and, consequently, they are typically identified and managed early in their lives through a medical model.Fami lies of infants and toddlers with established risks receive early intervention services, most generally under the auspices of state departments of public health. Such services prepare a family and their local community to understand and cope with the impact of a childs disability on their lives. Such services also prepare a family to actively participate in the planning and decision-making processes that accompany transitional events throughout the childs life. Thus, early intervention and early childhood education can be effective in preventing or minimizing many long-term and predictable consequences of disability.Because of the possibility of mitigating many of the consequences of disability early on in a childs life, possibly to the point where a disability essentially vanishes, IDEA encourages states to withhold disability categorization until age nine. The more generic term developmental delay is used instead, to avoid the stereotyping and lowered expectations that follow dis ability-specific labeling. However, states still have the option of using, for example, the terms blind or deaf if preferred.According to IDEA 97),decisions made about a child with a disability must be communicate by persons knowledgeable about the disability or by qualified professionals. States must qualify professionals through certification or licensure. Thus, for blind students to receive specially-designed instruction in Braille literacy, deaf students in ASL, and motor-impaired students in enhancive communication, states must ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately prepared professionals is available to support such students in educational programs.The need for the specialized knowledge and skills possessed by these professionals is often cited as a basis for retaining IDEAs system of categorical labeling, as well as states systems for categorical teacher certification (Hallihan & Kaufman, 2002). Clusters of Low-Incidence Disabilities Hereafter, low-incidence disabi lities are defined and described under the following headings * Blind/Low Vision * Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing * Deaf-Blind * Significant Developmental Delay * Significant Physical and Multiple Disability * Autistic SpectrumNote that some of these headings do not match with IDEAs current categories, being more general. Where appropriate, legal categorical definitions are quoted from IDEA 97 in the text so that readers will note congruence with federal law. Blind/Low Vision According to IDEA 97, Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a childs educational performance. The term includes both partial sess and blindness. Authority 20 U. S. C. 1401(3)(A) and (B) 1401(26)Historically, students with visual impairment have been referred to as blind, visually handicapped, visually disabled, visually impaired, partially sighted, partially blind, visually limited, or sight impaired. To understand the needs of students with vis ual impairments, the following factors must be taken into account age at onset of visual impairment, degree of impairment, site of impairment, prognosis for improvement or degeneration in condition, day-to-day perceptual constancy of condition, individual tolerance for visual fatigue, nd the extent and complexity of any co-existing additional impairments. Blind children are particularly challenged in understanding and moving about in physical space (Blasch, Wiener, & Welch, 1997). Without opportunity to directly observe space during locomotion, blind children have difficulty mentally representing and manipulating spatial concepts. They are also challenged in obtaining, manipulating, and producing many types of information, such as text, graphics, facial expressions, and gestural cues (Swensen, 1999).Achieving self-esteem is also difficult for blind children since self-awareness in the social context of school is often affected by such factors as social isolation, low expectations, and over-protection (Tuttle & Tuttle, 1996). Classroom instruction typically exploits the visual/motor line of communication and relies upon social mediation for student achievement. Because blind students cannot partake of the visual channel of communication and are often socially isolated, they generally have limited opportunities for incidental learning.This places them at a disadvantage when attempting to participate in classroom activities. Often gaps exist in concept development, making it difficult for classroom teachers to activate prior knowledge, or leading them to make fabricated assumptions in regard to the fundamental understanding these students have of the world around them. Moreover, the need for Braille as a necessary alternative to print creates a challenge for general education classroom teachers to provide valuable corrective feedback, as very few general education classroom teachers can read and write Braille.Lack of eye contact and the impossibility of visu ally-based social recognition can have a profound impact on a blind students opportunity to form meaningful and cooperative relationships with peers. Such barriers must be carefully examined and skillfully communicate by practitioners in order to provide genuine and valid access to the general curriculum for blind students. Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing According to IDEA 97, Deafness means a comprehend impairment that is so severe that a child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without elaborateness, that adversely affects a childs educational performance.Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a childs educational performance but that is not include under the definition of deafness in this section. Authority 20 U. S. C. 1401(3)(A) and (B) 1401(26) Needs of children who are hearing impaired must take into account factors such as age at onset of disability (in particular, pre-lingual vs. post-lingual deafness), audiometric hearing status (particularly in speech range with amplification), type of hearing departure (conductive, sensorineural, mixed, central) and possible presence of concomitant disabilities.The needs of children who are deaf and children who are hard-of-hearing must be understood as quite searching when considering communication use. The native language of deaf children is American Sign Language (ASL), but children who are hard-of-hearing may understand speech with amplification and may not identify with members of Deaf culture. Severity of hearing loss is measured by decibels (dB) or units of loudness. A hearing loss between 15 and 20 dB is considered slight. A person with a hearing loss of 60 dB has difficulty hearing conversational speech without amplification.An individual with a hearing loss of 100 dB is not able to hear a power lawnmower without amplification (Kirk, Gallagher, & Anastasiow, 2000). Children and adults with hearing disabilit ies characteristically confront significant issues with regard to social and intellectual development, speech and language development, and edu