You are on page 1of 6

Running head: HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

Having Access to the General Education Curriculum, Formulating Individualized IEPS


and Setting Evaluation procedures are the bases for Effective Inclusion (Revised)
Martha McNeil
University of St. Thomas
COUN 6326
Spring 2015

HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

Having Access to the General Education Curriculum, Formulating Individualized IEPS


and Setting Evaluation procedures are the bases for Effective Inclusion
Can you remember a time in which being in a class, place or group made you feel
different or uncomfortable from your other peers? What about having the plummeting feelings
of despair, hopelessness, depression or perhaps, lacking the motivation to even try because it
might bring about unwanted attention to you, such as, a sense of inferiority or embarrassment.
Ineffective inclusion can bring about these different emotional states of minds for Children with
Disabilities (CWD) when they are placed in a general education classroom with ineffective
planning towards the implementation of an Individual Education Plan (IEP). First, a student must
have access to the general education curriculum; next, a Special Education teacher should
formulate or draft meaningful and useful goals for each student that will meet the student where
they are at and provide linkage to future learning in the inclusive general education setting.
These goals often start with the parent expressing their long term wishes for their child to the
Annual Review and Dismissal Committee (ARD). Along with, decisions on what
accommodations and Supplementary Aids and Services and Related Services (SASRS), and
lastly, how the student will be evaluated on their goals and objectives, should help the student to
explore new horizons, in an inclusion setting.
Having Access to the General Curriculum
The regulations implemented in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA)'97, described the general curriculum as the same curriculum that is traditionally used for
students without disabilities ( No Child Left Behind, 2001). The general curriculum can be
thought of as "the overall plan for instruction adopted by a school or school system. Its purpose

HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

is to guide instructional activities and provide consistency of expectations, content, methods, and
outcomes." (Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002) In recent years, the general curriculum
has come to be influenced more and more by the adoption of standards by many states, and local
school districts (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).
In 1997, Congress made a number of important changes to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). One of the most significant changes is the requirement that
students with disabilities receive access to the general curriculum. Under the new law, students
with disabilities must have equal access to the general curriculum; be involved in the general
curriculum; and show progress in the general curriculum.
Having access before IDEA 97 was vastly different, from when the first national special
education law was first passed in 1975 by Congress. At the time, Congress estimated that one
million children with disabilities were being excluded from public schools. The purpose of the
1975 law was to give children with disabilities the right to a public education, individually
tailored to address disability-specific needs. This preliminary law focused mainly on providing
students with disabilities with access to special education services and physical access to school
buildings. This 1975 law did not pose any requirements on educating (CWD). During these early
years, the concepts of mainstreaming and inclusion also evolved, but tended to center on the
placement of students with disabilities in the regular education classroom without the need for
many necessary supplementary aids and services, accommodations, modifications, and supports.
Beginning in the 1990s, many enhancements and developments have been made in the education
of children with disabilities.
However, with the amendment or revision of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act and
IDEA in 2004, the nature of this debate has changed substantially over the last decade, given the

HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

emphasis on high stakes accountability for all students in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
and IDEA 2004. In spite of this continuing attention for CWD, increasing numbers of students
with Learning Disabilities (LD) are being educated in general education classroom settings. This
journal reviews research connected to the degree to which full inclusion programs provide
students with learning disabilities the support needed to meet high stakes accountability
standards in reading and math. The results reveal that while some elementary students with LD
in full-time inclusion classrooms made significant educational progress, a majority of students
made very little academic progress, even when extraordinary resources were used to develop the
programs. In addition, this literature review also revealed that overrepresentation of African
Americans in special education programs has produced much concern within the education
system. (Butler & Samuels, 2013).
Formulating Meaningful and Purposeful IEP Goals and Objectives
The IEP goals drive placement decisions at Annual Review Dismissal (ARD) meetings. If
a student is demonstrating the ability to make progress toward the goals in an inclusive
environment, the committee should not consider a more restrictive placement. It is important that
these goals be appropriate and achievable for the general education classroom. For example,
learning how to use public transportation would not be appropriate in a general education
inclusion classroom. When establishing long term goals for a student, the parent wishes and
desires should always be considered first. Parents should express to the committee their long
term realistic goals, for their child. It is critical that the committee sees the student's future
through both the parents' and the student's eyes. For example, some future goals to consider are
after high school expectations, such as, future employment, education, community involvement
and daily independent living. These goals should be specific. IEP goals should be individualized

HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

to a students particular strengths and weaknesses. It should be explicit. An IEP goal should
clearly lay out what is expected of a student and how they can demonstrate their achievement of
the goal. An IEP goal should be clear and concise to anyone with a need to pick up the document,
including other service provides or collaborating teachers, parents, administrators, or next years
teachers. It should be ambitious. These goals should be present knowledge, coupled with a
connection to future goals. An IEP goal should require a significant amount of learning and skills
practice to take place before mastery occurs. This determines the overall growth in which a
student has made over a period of time.

Evaluating students that are taught in an inclusion classroom


Lastly, an effective IEP goal lays out specific criteria for how and when a student must
reach the accepted goal; these criteria should be measurable, using clear, plain and demonstrable
strategies. IEPs must show how progress toward the goals will be measured, either through
timed assessments, observation, performance assessment, portfolios, rubrics, or any other
valuable tool available to the teacher. When equal and fair access to the general curriculum is
provided, coupled with meaningful individualized goals, and along with a way to demonstrate
and evaluate success, inclusion should increase social positive interactions and success amongst
(CWD) while being educated in an inclusion classroom. If inclusion is going to be successful for
CWD, we must include current methodology and pedagogy training that is result driven by first
meeting CWD were they are at as it pertains to academic ability in the general education setting.
Teachers must collaborate curriculum to modify instructions for CWD and above all, these
students, must have an individual educational plan prepared for them to be successful in the
classroom, community and later in life.

HAVING ACCESS (REVISED)

6
References

Butler, D. & Samuel, A. (2013). Overrepresentation of African American Boys in Special


Education. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 410-436.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general
curriculum: Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq. (2001).
Nolet, V. & McLaughlin, M.J. (2000). Accessing the General Curriculum: Including Students
with Disabilities in Standards-Based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

You might also like