Teaching in Todays Inclusive Classrooms A Universal Design For Learning Approach 4Th Edition Richard M Gargiulo Full Chapter

Teaching in Today's Inclusive
Classrooms: A Universal Design for

Learning Approach 4th Edition Richard
M. Gargiulo
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/teaching-in-todays-inclusive-classrooms-a-universal-
design-for-learning-approach-4th-edition-richard-m-gargiulo/
4th Edition
Teaching in Today’s
Inclusive Classrooms
A Universal Design for Learning Approach
Richard M. Gargiulo
Professor Emeritus
University of Alabama at Birmingham
Debbie Metcalf
East Carolina University
Australia ● Brazil ● Canada ● Mexico ● Singapore ● United Kingdom ● United States
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the eBook version.
Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms: Last three editions, as applicable: © 2017, © 2013, © 2010
A Universal Design for Learning Approach, Copyright © 2023 Cengage Learning, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Fourth Edition WCN: 02-300
Richard M. Gargiulo and Debbie Metcalf No part of this work covered by the copyright herein may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, except as permitted by U.S.
copyright law, without the prior written permission of the copyright owner.
SVP, Higher Education Product Management:
Erin Joyner Unless otherwise noted, all content is Copyright © Cengage Learning, Inc.
VP, Product Management, Learning The names of all products mentioned herein are used for identification
Experiences: Thais Alencar purposes only and may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their
Product Director: Jason Fremder respective owners. Cengage Learning disclaims any affiliation, association,
Product Manager: Lauren Whalen connection with, sponsorship, or endorsement by such owners.
Product Assistant: Dallas Wilkes For product information and technology assistance, contact us at
Cengage Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706 or
Content Manager: Anoop Chaturvedi and
Sibasis Pradhan, MPS Limited support.cengage.com.
Digital Delivery Quality Partner: Beth Ross

For permission to use material from this text or product,
Director, Product Marketing: Neena Bali submit all requests online at www.copyright.com.
Product Marketing Manager: Ian Hamilton
IP Analyst: Ashley Maynard Library of Congress Control Number: 2021912775
IP Project Manager: Anjali Kambli, Lumina

Datamatics Ltd. ISBN: 978-0-357-62509-5
Production Service: MPS Limited

Cengage
Designer: Felicia Bennett 200 Pier 4 Boulevard
Cover Image Source: MsMaya/Shutterstock Boston, MA 02210
.com USA
Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with employ-

ees residing in nearly 40 different countries and sales in more than 125 coun-
tries around the world. Find your local representative at www.cengage.com.
To learn more about Cengage platforms and services, register or access

your online learning solution, or purchase materials for your course, visit
www.cengage.com.
Notice to the Reader

Publisher does not warrant or guarantee any of the products described
herein or perform any independent analysis in connection with any of the
product information contained herein. Publisher does not assume, and
expressly disclaims, any obligation to obtain and include information other
than that provided to it by the manufacturer. The reader is expressly warned
to consider and adopt all safety precautions that might be indicated by the
activities described herein and to avoid all potential hazards. By following the
instructions contained herein, the reader willingly assumes all risks in con-
nection with such instructions. The publisher makes no representations or
warranties of any kind, including but not limited to, the warranties of fitness
for particular purpose or merchantability, nor are any such representations
implied with respect to the material set forth herein, and the publisher takes
no responsibility with respect to such material. The publisher shall not be lia-
ble for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole
or part, from the readers’ use of, or reliance upon, this material.
Printed in the United States of America
Print Number: 01 Print Year: 2021
This book is dedicated with respect
and admiration to all of the
teachers who strive daily to
make a difference in the lives of
their students.
RMG
DJM
October 2021
About the Authors
Richard M. Gargiulo is professor emeritus of special education in the Depart-

ment of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
(UAB). Prior to receiving his Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of
Wisconsin, Richard taught fourth graders as well as young children with intellectual
disability in the Milwaukee Public Schools. Upon receiving his doctorate he joined the
faculty of Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio, where he taught for
over eight years. He was a teacher educator at UAB for over three decades.
A frequent contributor to the professional literature, Richard has authored
or coauthored over 100 publications, including twenty textbooks. His previous
professional contributions include serving as the first Fulbright Scholar in special
education assigned to the former Czechoslovakia; twice elected as president of the
Alabama Federation, Council for Exceptional Children; former president of the Division
of International Special Education and Services (DISES), Council for Exceptional
Children; and former president of the Division on Autism and Developmental
Disabilities (DADD), Council for Exceptional Children.
Teaching, however, has always been Richard’s passion. In 1999 he received
UAB’s President’s Award for Excellence in Teaching. In 2007 he was honored by the
Alabama Federation, Council for Exceptional Children, with the Jasper Harvey Award
in recognition of being named the outstanding special education teacher educator in
the state.
Debbie Metcalf has worked in partnership with Pitt County Schools and East
Carolina University in Greenville, North Carolina, as a special educator and interven-
tion specialist for Pitt County Schools. Debbie has served as a teacher-in-residence in
the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at East Carolina University for over
20 years. She currently teaches methods courses and works in the classroom with
undergraduate preservice teachers and graduate students seeking alternative teacher
certification.
Debbie holds a Master of Arts in Education from San Diego State University
and is certified in both general and special education, including assistive technology.
She became a National Board Certified Teacher in 1997. In 2004, she was awarded
the Clarissa Hug Teacher of the Year Award from the International Council for
Exceptional Children (CEC). She has served on the board of directors for the Council
for Exceptional Children and is active in the Division of International Special
Education and Services (DISES).
Debbie has taught students of all ages for over 30 years in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Michigan, and North Carolina. She continues to mentor new teachers and has
frequently led staff development sessions. Her primary research areas include access
to the general curriculum for students with exceptionalities, service learning, and
international partnerships.
iv
Brief Contents
Preface xviii
Part 1 Foundations for Educating All Learners

Chapter 1 Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms: Your Journey Begins 1
Chapter 2 Introducing Universal Design for Learning 31
Chapter 3 Policies, Practices, and Processes for Special Education

and Inclusive Education 57
Chapter 4 Diversity in the Classroom: Learners with High Incidence Disabilities 79
Chapter 5 Diversity in the Classroom: Students with Low Incidence Disabilities 117
Chapter 6 Learners with Gifts and Talents, Learners Who Are Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse, and Other Learners at Risk 146
Part 2 Planning Instruction for All Learners

Chapter 7 Collaboration and Cooperative Teaching: Tools for Teaching All Learners 166
Chapter 8 Designing Learning That Works for All Students 190
Chapter 9 Assessing and Evaluating Learner Progress 226
Chapter 10 Selecting Instructional Strategies for Teaching All Learners 252
Chapter 11 Selecting Behavioral Supports for All Learners 287
Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices

for All Learners
Chapter 12 Assistive Technologies and Innovative Learning Tools 319
Chapter 13 Creating Literacy-Rich Environments for All Learners 344
Chapter 14 Developing an Understanding of Mathematics in All Learners 382
Chapter 15 Teaching Critical Content in Science and Social Studies to All Learners 422
Appendix A InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards 459
Appendix B C
ouncil for Exceptional Children: Initial Level Special Education
Preparation Standards 460
Glossary 462
References 472
Index 491
Contents
Preface xviii

Chapter 1 The Seven Principles of Universal Design 34
Universal Design Applications in Society 34
Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Implications for Today’s Classrooms 35
Classrooms: Your Journey Begins 1 Teaching All Learners UDL Strategies for all
Teaching All Learners Communicating About Classrooms 35
Individuals with Disabilities 3 The Development of Universal Design
Learners in Today’s Classrooms 3 for Learning 36
Learners in Need of Special Services 4 Brain-Based Research: Recognition, Strategic, and
Affective Systems 36
By the Numbers: A Quick Look 6
Cognitive-Social Learning Theories 38
Placement Options for Educating
Students with Special Needs 7 Multiple Intelligences and Learning Preferences 42
Educational Placements 7 Implications for Teaching and Learning 42
A Cascade of Service Delivery Options 8 Three Essential Qualities of UDL: Representation,
Inclusionary Practices and Thinking 9 Action and Expression, and Engagement 45
Teacher Voices The Importance of Inclusionary Multiple Means of Representation 45
Classroom Practices 10 Multiple Means of Action and Expression 47
Introducing Universal Design for Learning 10 Multiple Means of Engagement 48
The Role of the Courts in Special Education 11 Teacher Voices Teachers Talk About UDL 50
Key Judicial Decisions 12 UDL and Differentiated Instruction 51
Key Special Education Legislation 12 The Benefits of Flexible Options 52
Educational Reform for Students and UDL in the Classroom Feedback from the
Teachers 19 Field 54
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 19 Thematic Summary 55
Common Core State Standards 20 Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 55
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Learning Activities 55
Act of 2004 21
Looking at the Standards 56
Every Student Succeeds Act 24
Key Concepts and Terms 56
Teaching All Learners IDEA Highlights: 1975–2004 25
Civil Rights Legislation 26
Thematic Summary 28
Chapter 3
Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 29 Policies, Practices, and Processes
Learning Activities 29 for Special Education and Inclusive
Looking at the Standards 29 Education 57
Identification and Assessment of Individual
Chapter 2 Differences 58
Introducing Universal Design Referral and Assessment for a Special
Education 60
for Learning 31 Prereferral 60
The Concept of Universal Design 33 Referral 64
Background in Architecture 33 Assessment 65
vii
viii Contents
Teaching All Learners Assessment Etiology of Speech and Language Impairments 94

Accommodations 66 Selected Characteristics of Learners with Speech
Instructional Programming and Appropriate and Language Impairments 94
Placement 67 UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL
The Individualized Education Program 68 Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards: Speech
Teaching All Learners Elements of a Meaningful and Language Impairments 95
IEP 70 Learners with Emotional or Behavioral
Teaching All Learners Suggested Individualized Disorders 96
Education Program Meeting Agenda 71 Defining Emotional or Behavioral Disorders 96
Related Services 71 Classifying Learners with Emotional
Section 504 Accommodation Plan 72 or Behavioral Disorders 98
Who Is Protected by Section 504? 73 How Many Learners Exhibit Emotional or Behavioral
Disorders? 98
Providing a Free Appropriate Public Education 73
Etiology of Emotional or Behavioral Disorders 99
Section 504 Eligibility Determination 73
Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics
Accommodation Plans 74 of Learners with Emotional or Behavioral
Thematic Summary 77 Disorders 101
Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 77 UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating
Learning Activities 77 UDL Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards:
Emotional or Behavioral Disorders 101
Key Concepts and Terms 78 Learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders 102
Defining Autism Spectrum Disorders 102
How Many Learners Exhibit Autism Spectrum
Chapter 4 Disorders? 105
Etiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders 105
Diversity in the Classroom:
Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics of
Learners with High Incidence Learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders 106
Disabilities 79 Learners with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder 106
Learners with Intellectual Disability 82
UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL
Defining Intellectual Disability 82
Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards: Autism
Classification of Learners with Intellectual Spectrum Disorders 107
Disability 84
Defining Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
How Many Learners Exhibit Intellectual Disorder 108
Disability? 85
How Many Learners Exhibit Attention Deficit
Etiology of Intellectual Disability 86 Hyperactivity Disorder? 108
Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics of Etiology of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Learners with Intellectual Disability 86 Disorder 109
Learners with Learning Disabilities 86 Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics
Defining Learning Disabilities 87 of Learners with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder 110
How Many Learners Exhibit Learning
Disabilities? 90 UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL
Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards: Attention
Etiology of Learning Disabilities 90
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 111
Learners with Learning Disabilities 91 Summary of Selected Learning and Behavioral
Characteristics 112
Learners with Speech and Language
Today’s Students Michael 113
Impairments 91
Today’s Students Sam 114
Defining Speech and Language 92
Thematic Summary 115
Classifying Learners with Speech and Language
Impairments: Speech Disorders 92 Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 115
Language Disorders 93 Learning Activities 115
How Many Learners Exhibit Speech Looking at the Standards 116
and Language Impairments? 93 Key Concepts and Terms 116
Contents ix
Chapter 5 Disabilities, Health Disabilities, or Traumatic

Brain Injury 140
Diversity in the Classroom: Students Students with Traumatic Brain Injury 141
with Low Incidence Disabilities 117 Teaching All Learners Recommended Classroom
Adaptations for Students with Physical or Health
Learners with Hearing Impairments 118 Disabilities 142
Defining Hearing Impairments 119 Teaching All Learners Instructional Recommendations
Classification of Learners with Hearing for Students with Traumatic Brain Injury 143
Impairments 120 UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL
How Many Learners Exhibit Hearing Impairments? 122 Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards: Physical
Etiology of Hearing Impairments 122 Disabilities 143
Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics of Summary of Selected Learning and
Learners with Hearing Impairments 123 Behavioral Characteristics 144
UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL Thematic Summary 144
Essential Qualities and Common Core Standards: Hearing Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 144
Impairment 124 Learning Activities 144
Learners with Visual Impairments 125 Looking at the Standards 145
Defining Visual Impairments 125 Key Concepts and Terms 145
Classification of Learners with Visual Impairments 126
How Many Learners Exhibit Visual Impairments? 127 Chapter 6
Etiology of Visual Impairments 127 Learners with Gifts and Talents,
Selected Learning and Behavioral Characteristics of Learners Who Are Culturally and
Learners with Visual Impairments 128
UDL and Common Core Standards Incorporating UDL
Linguistically Diverse, and Other
Essential Qualities and Common Core Standard: Visual Learners at Risk 146
Impairment 129
Learners with Gifts and Talents 147
Learners with Deaf–Blindness 130
Defining Giftedness 148
Defining Deaf–Blindness 130
How Many Learners Exhibit Gifts and Talents? 148
Teaching All Learners Orientation and Mobility Tips for Etiology of Giftedness 149
General Educators 130
How Many Learners Exhibit Deaf–Blindness? 131
Learners with Gifts and Talents 149
Etiology of Deaf–Blindness 131
Learners Who Are Culturally and Linguistically
Diverse 150
Learners with Deaf–Blindness 132
Terminology of Cultural Differences 151
Learners with Physical Disabilities,
Bilingual Education: Concepts and
Health Disabilities, or Traumatic Brain Injury 133 Characteristics 152
Defining Physical Disabilities, Health Disabilities, and
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity and Special
Traumatic Brain Injury 134
Education 153
Conditions Associated with Physical and Health
Teaching All Learners Instructional Options for Students
Disabilities 135
Who Are Bilingual: Approach and Strategies 154
Physical Disabilities 135
Learners at Risk for Success in School 155
Multiple Disabilities 137
Defining at Risk 155
Family Poverty 156
Orthopedic Impairments 135
Homelessness 157
Health Disabilities 138 Child Abuse and Neglect 159
Other Health Impairments 138
Summary of Selected Learning and Behavioral
Teaching All Learners Steps for Teachers to Take When Characteristics 162
a Tonic-Clonic Seizure Occurs 139
Today’s Students Maria 163
How Many Learners Exhibit Physical Disabilities,
Health Disabilities, or Traumatic Brain Injury? 140 Thematic Summary 163
Etiology of Physical Disabilities, Health Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 164
Disabilities, and Traumatic Brain Injury 140 Learning Activities 164
Selected Learning and Behavioral Looking at the Standards 164
Characteristics of Learners with Physical Key Concepts and Terms 165
x Contents
Part 2 Planning Instruction for All learners
Chapter 7 Teacher Voices Creating the Right Learning

Environment 209
Collaboration and Cooperative Designing Social Learning Environments 212
Teaching: Tools for Teaching All ACCESS to the Social Environment 212
Learners 166 Teaching All Learners Creating Caring School
Communities Using Social Skills Instruction 217
Collaboration 167
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and
Collaboration Between General and Special UDL 219
Educators 168
Using Adaptations to Support Universally
Collaborating with Paraprofessionals 169 Designed Learning Environments 219
Collaborating with Parents/Families 171 Accommodations 220
Teaching All Learners It Takes a Village 173 Modifications 220
Teaching All Learners Recommendations
Collaboration in Planning Universally Designed
for Building Culturally Competent Relationships 176
Learning Environments 221
Collaborative Consultation 176 Collaborative Planning and Teaching 222
Teaming Models 179 Collaborative Problem-Solving 223
Multidisciplinary Teams 179 Thematic Summary 224
Interdisciplinary Teams 179 Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 224
Transdisciplinary Teams 180 Learning Activities 224
Cooperative Teaching 180 Looking at the Standards 225
Cooperative Teaching Options 182 Key Concepts and Terms 225
Research Support 183
Suggestions for Building Successful
Cooperative Teaching
Arrangements 184 Chapter 9
Teacher Voices One Teacher’s View of Collaboration Assessing and Evaluating Learner
and Inclusion 186
Progress 226
Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 188 Types and Purposes of Classroom
Learning Activities 188 Assessment 227
Looking at the Standards 188 Large-Scale Assessments 228
Key Concepts and Terms 189 Alternate Assessments 228

Ongoing Assessment 230
UDL in the Classroom Alternative Assessments 230
Chapter 8
Effective Classroom Assessment
Designing Learning That Works Approaches 231
for All Students 190 Approaches to Initial Assessment
That Increase Learner Engagement 231
Four Components of Universally Designed Review of School Records 231
Curriculum 192 Formal and Informal Assessments 231
Goals 192 Inventories 232
Materials and Resources 199 Working Collaboratively 236
Methods 201 Interpreting Standardized Tests 237
Assessment 203 Interpreting Behavior Rating Scales 237
The UDL Lesson Plan 204 Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports 238
Designing Physical Learning Environments 206 Planning and Organizing Assessments 238
Physical Environment Considerations 207 Planning for Ongoing Assessment 238
ACCESS to the Physical Learning Environment 207 Formative Assessments 238
Contents xi
Summative Assessments 239 Considering Specific Learning Domains in

Informative Assessments 239 General Strategy Selection 275
Organizational Systems for Assessments 240 Cognitive/Generalization 275
Recording Assessments 240 Giftedness 276
Curriculum-Based Measurement 240 Language/Speech 276
Data-Based Individualization 240 Memory 277
Rubrics 242 Study Skills, Organization, and Test-Taking 277
Applying Universal Design for Learning Attention Disorders/Hyperactivity/lmpulsivity 278
Principles 242 Social/Emotional/Motivational Challenges 278
High-Tech and Low-Tech Materials 243 Physical/Motor/Sensory Challenges 281
Computerized Assessments and Electronic Using Classroom Web Sites and Other Web
Device Applications 243 Tools 283
Multiple Means of Representation in Thematic Summary 284
Assessment 243 Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 284
Teacher Voices Multiple Means of Assessment 244 Learning Activities 285
Multiple Means of Engagement in Assessment 248 Looking at the Standards 285
Thematic Summary 250 Key Concepts and Terms 286
Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 250
Learning Activities 250 Chapter 11
Selecting Behavioral Supports
for All Learners 287
Establish Learning Goals: Big Ideas
Chapter 10 for Behavioral Support 288
Selecting Instructional Strategies Teacher Expectations and Challenging
Behaviors 289
for Teaching All Learners 252 Students with Exceptionalities and Other
Considering Stages of Learning in Strategy Diverse Learners 289
Selection 254 Multiple Meanings of Challenging Behavior 291
Entry Level/Acquisition Stages 255 Using Positive Behavior Interventions and
Proficiency 255 Support 292
Maintenance 255 Assessment of Behavior 293

Generalization 256 Teacher Voices Positive Behavior Intervention and
Application 256 Support 294
Targeting the Behavior 294
Using Curricular Design Principles
in Strategy Selection 257 Tracking the Behavior 295
Begin with Big Ideas 257 Recording Behavior 295
Activate Prior Knowledge 258 Analyzing Behavior 299
Integrate Learning Goals 259 Methods, Materials, and Resources that Promote
UDL and Common Core Standards Authentic, Project- Positive Behavior for All Learners 300
Based Learning 261 Understanding Terminology 300
Use Conspicuous Strategies 262 Increasing Appropriate Behavior 301
Teacher Voices UDL Inspired Instructional Decreasing Inappropriate Behavior 303
Approaches 263 Teaching New Behavior 305
Apply Mediated Scaffolding 266 Maintenance and Generalization 309
Teaching All Learners Using Task Analysis in Your Peers and School Personnel 309
Classroom 268 UDL in the Classroom The MotivAider® 310
Provide Purposeful and Cumulative Review 271 Teaching All Learners Collaborating with Special
Tier Talk Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance— Educators to Support Students with Challenging Behavior
Differentiation of General Strategy Selection 274 in Inclusive Classrooms 311
xii Contents
Collaborating with Parents 311 Thematic Summary 316

Culturally Diverse Families 313 Making Connections for Inclusive Teaching 316
Summary—Putting It All Together 314 Learning Activities 317
Tier Talk Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance— Looking at the Standards 317
Strategies and Interventions 315 Key Concepts and Terms 318
Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices

for All Learners
Chapter 12
Assistive Technologies and Innovative Learning Activities 342
Learning Tools 319 Looking at the Standards 343
Technology in the 21st Century Classroom 320
History of Technology for People with
Disabilities 322
Chapter 13
Definition of Assistive Technology 322
Examples of Assistive Technology 323 Creating Literacy-Rich Environments
UDL in the Classroom Augmentative and Alternative for All Learners 344
Communication (AAC) Tools 326
Assistive Technology: Key to Goals: Literacy Instruction Big
Accessing the General Education Ideas 347
Curriculum 329 Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, and Word
Recognition 348
Accessible Educational Materials 330
Fluency with Text 349
Learner Needs and Preferences 330
Vocabulary 349
Differentiated Instruction, Learning Menus,
and Assistive Technology 331 Teaching All Learners UDL and Differentiated
Instruction 350
Teacher Voices One Classroom Teacher’s Thoughts on
Assistive Technology 332 Teacher Voices UDL Inspired Strategies for Literacy
Instruction 351
Function over Disability 332
Comprehension 351
Obtaining Assistive Technology for the
Writing/Spelling/Handwriting 352
Classroom 332
Whose Responsibility Is It? 333 Literacy Assessment 352
The AT Evaluation 333 Formal Assessments 352
Selecting Assistive Technology: Reading and Writing Questionnaires 353
The SETT Framework 333 Informal Assessments 354
Student 333 Ongoing Assessments 356
Environment 333 Methods, Materials, and Resources That Promote
Task 334 Literacy for All Learners 356
Tools 334 Fostering Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, and Word
Other Assistive Technology Planning Tools 335 Recognition 356
Active Learning Through Innovative Increasing Fluency with Text 357
Technology 336 Developing Vocabulary 359
Social Software Tools 336 Building Comprehension 362
Visual and Media Literacy Tools 337 Assisting with Writing/Spelling
Teaching All Learners Interactive Whiteboard Tips 338 /Handwriting 364
Opportunities Through UDL in the Classroom Connecting with Tablet
Technology 341 Computers and Smartpens 367
Contents xiii
UDL Applications for Reading UDL in the Classroom Graphic Organizers for
in the Content Areas 368 Mathematics 408
Modify the Reading Requirement 368 Geometry and Spatial Sense 409
Modify the Reading Level of the Text 369 Measurement 410
Adapt the Format of the Text/Print Material 371 Data Analysis and Probability 412
Adapt the Presentation of the Text 371 Universal Design for Learning Lesson
Possible Barriers and Solutions Planning with Differentiated Instruction for
to Literacy Achievement 372 Mathematics 414
Vision 372 Tier Talk Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance—
Mathematics Strategies and Intervention 417
Hearing 372
Fostering Collaboration in Mathematics
Social/Emotional 373
Instruction 418
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder 373
Motivation 373
UDL Lesson Planning with Differentiated
Learning Activities 420
Instruction for Literacy 374
Tier Talk Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance—
Literacy Strategies/Interventions 377 Key Concepts and Terms 421
Fostering Literacy Collaboration 379

Thematic Summary 380 Chapter 15
Teaching Critical Content in
Looking at the Standards 381 Science and Social Studies to All
Key Concepts and Terms 381 Learners 422
Challenges for Diverse Learners in Science
Chapter 14 and Social Studies 424
Developing an Understanding of Teacher Voices An Interdisciplinary Unit Planned with
Mathematics in All Learners 382 UDL Principles in Mind 425
Learning Goals 426
Teacher Voices Math in an Inclusive Fourth Grade Big Ideas in Science 426
Classroom 384
Big Ideas in Social Studies 428
Establish Learning Goals: Big Ideas
Interdisciplinary Unit Planning 429
in Mathematics Instruction 385
Differentiating for Complexity 431
Problem-Solving 385
Science and Social Studies Content Area
Mathematic Communication 386
Assessment 431
Numbers and Operations 387
Using Rubrics 432
Algebra 388
Applying UDL to Science and Social Studies
Geometry and Spatial Sense 388 Assessments 433
Measurement 388 Methods, Tools, Materials, and Resources for
Data Analysis and Probability 389 Science and Social Studies Instruction 435
Assessment of Mathematics 389 Multiple Means of Representation 438
Formal Assessment 390 Working with Vocabulary and Readability 439
Informal Assessment 390 Multiple Means of Action and Expression 442
Methods, Materials, and Resources That Promote Multiple Means of Engagement 446
Mathematics for All Learners 393 UDL in the Classroom Using VoiceThread in UDL
Teaching All Learners Concrete-Representational- Classrooms 448
Abstract 394 Academic, Social, and Physical Adaptations 449
Problem-Solving 396 The Academic and Social Environment 449
Communication of Mathematic Ideas 397 The Physical Environment 449
Numbers and Operations 401 Teaching All Learners Teaching in the Science Content
Algebra 405 Area 450
xiv Contents
UDL Lesson Planning with Differentiated Looking at the Standards 458

Instruction for the Content Areas 452 Key Concepts and Terms 458
Collaboration in Science and Social Studies
Instruction 454 Appendix A InTASC Model Core Teaching
Co-teaching 454 Standards 459
Building Community Support 455 Appendix B
Council for Exceptional Children: Initial Level
Tier Talk Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance— Special Education Preparation Standards 460
Differentiation of Science/Social Studies 455
Glossary 462
References 472
Index 491
Special Features
TEACHER VOICES
The Importance of Inclusionary Classroom Practices 10 Positive Behavior Intervention and Support 294
Teachers Talk About UDL 50 One Classroom Teacher’s Thoughts on Assistive
One Teacher’s View of Collaboration and Technology 332
Inclusion 186 UDL Inspired Strategies for Literacy Instruction 351
Creating the Right Learning Environment 209 Math in an Inclusive Fourth Grade Classroom 384
Multiple Means of Assessment 244 An Interdisciplinary Unit Planned with UDL Principles
UDL Inspired Instructional Approaches 263 in Mind 425
TEACHING ALL LEARNERS

Communicating About Individuals with Disabilities 3 It Takes a Village 173
IDEA Highlights: 1975–2004 25 Recommendations for Building Culturally Competent
UDL Strategies for All Classrooms 35 Relationships 176
Assessment Accommodations 66 Creating Caring School Communities Using Social
Skills Instruction 217
Elements of a Meaningful IEP 70
Using Task Analysis in Your Classroom 268
Suggested Individualized Education Program Meeting
Agenda 71 Collaborating with Special Educators to Support
Students with Challenging Behavior in Inclusive
Orientation and Mobility Tips for General Educators 130
Classrooms 311
Steps for Teachers to Take When a Tonic-Clonic
Interactive Whiteboard Tips 338
Seizure Occurs 139
UDL and Differentiated Instruction 350
Recommended Classroom Adaptations for Students
with Physical or Health Disabilities 142 Concrete-Representational-Abstract 394
Instructional Recommendations for Students with Teaching in the Science Content Area 450
Instructional Options for Students Who Are Bilingual:
Approach and Strategies 154
TODAY’S STUDENTS
Michael 113 Maria 163
Sam 114
UDL IN THE CLASSROOM

Feedback from the Field 54 Connecting with Tablet Computers and
Alternate Assessments 230 Smartpens 367
Authentic, Project-Based Learning 261 Graphic Organizers for Mathematics 408
The MotivAider® 310 Using VoiceThread in UDL Classrooms 448
Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC)
Tools 326
xv
xvi Special Features
TIER TALK
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance— Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance—
Differentiation of General Strategy Selection 274 Mathematics Strategies and Interventions 417
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance— Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance—
Strategies and Interventions 315 Differentiation of Science/Social Studies 455
Multi-Tiered Systems of Support at a Glance—
Literacy Strategies and Interventions 377
Letter to Our Readers
Dear Readers
You are about to embark upon an important and exciting journey—how to reach
and teach all different members of your classroom community. We hope this text
will serve as a road map for each one of you as you search for effective ways to
instruct, engage, manage, and challenge a wide range of learners in your classroom
to meet rigorous goals. Students in today’s K–12 schools have grown up with tech-
nology and access to abundant information. They will be entering a highly competi-
tive global workforce. How can we adjust our teaching practices in order to help
each student reach their maximum potential in the midst of this change? Our goal
for this book is just that.
There are many excellent books available on the topic of inclusive teaching. Two
things, however, make our text different from most others. First, our application of
a Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework is applied throughout most of
the text. Even though UDL evolved as a concept out of special education, general
educators are also realizing that “one size does not fit all” in today’s diverse
classrooms. To meet the demands of the 21st century learner, we must change how
we teach. The UDL framework provides an effective way to design learning plans
that have accessible goals, assessment, evidence-based strategies, and materials.
Technology tools are infused throughout with the knowledge that they can increase
access, flexibility, motivation, and our ability to compete globally. Technology
can no longer be a barrier in this digital age—we offer many free or low-budget
suggestions on ways to integrate technology in every classroom, in addition to “high
tech” ideas. UDL is also compatible with differentiated instruction, collaborative
teaching, positive behavior intervention and supports, and more.
The second way our text differs from others is that we have modeled
collaborative writing by combining the efforts of a university professor and a K–12
public school teacher. We felt it was important to blend the higher education and
K–12 perspectives as we wrote to capture the best work each of us had to offer. In
our busy lives, sometimes the researchers and practitioners don’t always have time
to connect. This text collaboration gave us a way to communicate frequently about
topics we are both so passionate about. It also served as a way to double check our
own understandings of this ever-changing educational world.
We are deeply indebted to the researchers at CAST (Center for Applied Special
Technology) for the pioneering work they have done on UDL. It is our hope that
our interpretations and applications help to move this conceptual framework
forward. With continuing research and on-going teacher training in methodology,
technology, and collaboration, our schools truly will become places that are exciting
to students—places that both teachers and students can’t wait to go when they wake
up every morning!
Best regards,
Richard and Debbie
xvii
Preface
Why This Book?

Federal legislation along with legal mandates have resulted in a growing number of stu-
dents with a broad range of educational needs seeking services in general education class-
rooms. Because of this growing national trend, general educators are confronted with
creating learning environments that are responsive to the needs of all learners. Success
in this endeavor calls for, among other factors, a well prepared teacher workforce. Regret-
tably, some general educators may feel inadequately prepared to meet the needs of an
increasingly diverse population of learners—a group that often includes not only pupils
with disabilities, but also individuals who are gifted or talented, those at risk for success
in school, and students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. In addi-
tion to a changing clientele, teachers are continually encountering demands for greater
accountability for the performance of all learners. Consequently, increased attention is
being focused on what students are being taught, as well as how they are being instructed.
Our Goals and Approach

Our purpose in writing this book is to provide general educators (as well as special edu-
cators) with practical, evidence-based teaching and learning strategies that form an
overall framework for effective instruction and classroom management appropriate to
the realities and challenges of schools in the 21st century. We have chosen to adopt a
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) approach to accomplish this task. Unlike other
books, Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms focuses on best practices appropriate to
teaching all children in general education classrooms from the start. Our book embraces
an instructional philosophy of “Teachers teach students, not disability labels,” and “If
a child doesn’t learn the way we teach, then we better teach the way the child learns.”
We believe that a UDL perspective best reflects our beliefs. Simply stated, our aim is to
offer pre-service educators and other professionals currently working in our schools a
foundation for creating effective co-teaching (collaborative) situations by examining such
critical variables as teaming, common planning, and a shared responsibility for instruc-
tion and assessment. The fourth edition of Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms
considers the integration of teaching skills, instructional content, technology tools, and
the individuals (for example, teachers, paraprofessionals, and parents) needed to suc-
cessfully sustain learning environments that meet the needs of every pupil.
Text Organization
The six chapters of Part I: Foundations for Educating All Learners lay the ground-
work for understanding the challenges and opportunities that educators face in
today’s classrooms. This section of the book addresses historical and contemporary
perspectives on teaching, an introduction to universal design for learning, and educa-
tional policies and procedures affecting today’s learners. Additionally, Part I provides
descriptions of students with high and low incidence disabilities, learners with gifts
and talents, pupils who are culturally or linguistically diverse, and individuals con-
sidered to be at risk for success in school. Collectively, these chapters secure a solid
foundation for Parts II and III of the book.
xviii
Preface xix
Part II: Planning Instruction for All Learners, consisting of five chapters,
introduces the reader to the concept of collaboration and cooperative teaching. The
Universal Design for Learning framework is then applied to collaborative classroom
planning. This design addresses academic, physical, and social needs that can be
addressed “up front” to maximize access to the curriculum for all students. UDL
principles are applied to assessment, instructional strategy selections, behavioral
supports, and environmental design. Lesson planning models, differentiated
instruction strategies, and an ACCESS mnemonic are included to help teachers see
how the principles of UDL can be integrated into their curricular plan from the start.
The four chapters of Part III: Implementing Effective Instructional Practices
for All Learners begin with a closer look at assistive technologies and innovative
learning tools for 21st century learners. This is followed by Universal Design for
Learning applications that promote literacy skill development and enhance overall
content area instruction in K–12 classrooms. Applications and examples in language
arts, mathematics, and science and social studies are included. An integrated unit
plan, sample lesson plans, and many evidence-based-strategies and interventions are
included. These examples show how individual interests, strengths and needs can be
used as a guide to differentiate and maximize instructional time. The three principles
of UDL are highlighted consistently throughout the text to show how they can
positively impact goal setting, planning, assessment, and implementation of effective
instruction that can potentially meet the needs of all learners. The interventions
highlighted in these chapters will also benefit the schools implementing multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS) that include both RTI and PBIS initiatives.
Text Features
Helpful student learning features found in the fourth edition of Teaching in Today’s
Inclusive Classrooms include:
● Today’s Students—The text includes three in-depth student case studies presented
within Chapters 4, 5, and 6. These case studies profile three different diverse
learners and their specific strengths and challenges.
● Case Reflections—These marginal mini-boxes encourage readers to reflect back
on the three case studies and apply what they have learned within the chapters to
the case studies.
● Teacher Voices—We are excited to offer more practical ideas, suggestions, and
instructional commentary provided by award-winning classroom teachers.
● Teaching All Learners—Boxes have been updated to present a wide selection of
evidence-based instructional tips, strategies, and practical information.
● UDL and Common Core State Standards—These features, found in the high- and
low-incidence chapters, offer ways to consider UDL applications in lesson
planning.
● Tier Talk—This feature, located in Chapters 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15, suggest
current thinking about strategies and interventions for applying multi-tiered
systems of support (MTSS).
● UDL in the Classroom—This box series highlights what the research says about
UDL and its implications for classroom applications.
● Web Resources—Each chapter provides a list of helpful web sites appropriate to
the topics addressed in individual chapters.
● All chapter content is aligned with InTASC (Interstate New Teacher Assessment
and Support Consortium) and Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Initial
Level Special Educator Preparation Standards. A common core state standards
discussion is also provided.
xx Preface
● Sample UDL/differentiated instruction lesson plans are included within the text.
● Examples of current assistive technology tools and tips are integrated throughout
the text.
● The most current information on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and
autism spectrum disorders (including DSM-5 material).
● Each chapter concludes with a bulleted Thematic Summary, student activities and
exercises, Looking at the Standards feature, along with key terms with
accompanying text page numbers.
Accompanying Teaching and Learning Resources

Additional instructor and student resources for this product are available online.
Instructor assets include an Instructor’s Manual, Solution and Answer Guide, Transi-
tion Guide, PowerPoint slides, and a test bank powered by Cognero®. Sign up or sign in
at www.cengage.com to search for and access this product and its online resources.
Online Instructor’s Manual

An online Instructor’s Manual accompanies this book. It contains information to
assist the instructor in designing the course, including discussion questions, teach-
ing and learning activities, learning objectives, and additional online resources. Addi-
tional online resources and assessments include:
PowerPoint Lecture Slides

These vibrant Microsoft PowerPoint lecture slides for each chapter assist you with
your lecture by providing concept coverage using images, figures, and tables directly
from the textbook.
Cengage Learning Testing Powered by Cognero

Cengage Learning Testing Powered by Cognero is a flexible online system that allows
you to author, edit, and manage test bank content from multiple Cengage Learning
solutions, create multiple test versions in an instant, and deliver tests from your LMS,
your classroom, or wherever you want.
Acknowledgments
Writing a textbook is a tremendous undertaking, a task that requires immense team-
work and collaboration (along with small dose of insanity). We are especially grate-
ful to Emily Bouck, Michigan State University, who revised the chapter on assistive
technology. We also deeply appreciate the contribution of Eric Common, University of
Michigan-Flint, who updated the chapter on behavioral supports. Lastly, we acknowl-
edge the expertise and assistance of Chan Evans, Jennifer Willliams, and Tara Jeffs
while at East Carolina University, who contributed chapters to the first three editions
of the text. The contributions and talents of these professionals immeasurably added
to the significance of our book. We are also indebted to our students, who provided
constant feedback, reality checks, and creative ideas and suggestions.
We are also grateful to those individuals who reviewed the many drafts of
this work. Their expertise and guidance, along with their thoughtful suggestions,
Preface xxi
contributed to a book that we are very proud of. We deeply appreciate the invaluable
assistance of the following reviewers.
Reviewers of the fourth edition: Deborah Webster, Cleveland State

Rebecca Castile, Spartanburg University
Community College Jessica Wery, Meredith College
Christie Johnson, Wofford Collene Cynthia Wilson, Florida Atlantic
Doreen Myrie, Bennett College University
Mandy Perdue, Bossier Parish Reviewers of the second edition:
Community College Sara Aronin, West Virginia University
Leigh Rodhe, Salem State University Betty Ashbaker, Brigham Young
Sonia Schonning, Massasoit University
Community College David F. Bateman, Shippensburg
Reviewers of the third edition: University
Pena Bedesem, Kent State University Marianne L. Blanda, Roberts
Jane Bogan, Miami University Wesleyan College
Jane Brower, University of Tennessee Deborah Bracke, Augustana College
at Chattanooga Frances M. Carlson, Chattahoochee
Nancy Burton, Concord University Technical College
Jennifer Buss, Lewis University Scot Danforth, The Ohio State
Beverley Calvo, University of Texas at University
El Paso Mary Jo Dare, Indiana University,
Vicki Caruana, Regis University Indianapolis
Barbara Cordasco, Georgian Court Stephanie Ernst, Diablo Valley College
University Kim Floyd, West Virginia University
Rama Cousik, Indiana University- David P. Fuller, Macon State College
Purdue University Fort Wayne Heather Garrison, East Stroudsburg
Helen Dainty, Tennessee Technological University of Pennsylvania
University Terri M. Griffin, Westfield State
Leigh Gates, University of North University
Carolina Wilmington Jessica Hagaman, University of
Thomas C. Gibbon, Shippensburg Wisconsin-Whitewater
University Paula Hartman, Northern Illinois
Maryann Gromoll, Daytona State University
College Mary Ann Jackson, Lone Star
Sharon Hirschy, Collin College College-Tomball
Pamela Juniel, University of Nevada Donna M. Janney, Towson University
Las Vegas Elda E. Martinez, University of the
Yeunjoo Lee, California State Incarnate Word
University, Bakersfield Angela McIntosh, San Diego State
Sandy Long, Carson-Newman University
University Sonia Michael, Eastern Kentucky
Nancy Mamlin, North Carolina University
Central University Sureshrani Paintal, Chicago State
Sonja Michael, Eastern Kentucky University
University Bianca Prather-Jones, Northern
Melanie Presnell, Florida State Kentucky University
University April Regester, University of Missouri
JoAnne Putnam, University of Maine Mary Schreiner, Alvernia University
at Presque Isle John W. Somers, University of
Denise Ross, DePaul University Indianapolis
Amy Stoios, Eastern University Tammy Stephens, Texas Woman‘s
William Stolfi, Long Island University- University
C.W. Post Jan Stivers, Marist College
Shirley Taylor, Becker College Jeffrey S. Trotter, Anderson
Casey Thrift, Old Dominion University University
xxii Preface
Reviewers of the first edition: Maurice Miller, Indiana State University

Elizabeth Ankeny, St. Cloud State Melanie Presnell, Florida State
University University
L. Cheri Bradley, Fairmont State Sandy Ritter, California State
University University, Northridge
Billie Friedland, Delaware State Delar Singh, Eastern Connecticut State
University University
Gay Goodman, University of Houston Anita Solarski, University of West
Patrice Hallock, Utica College
Florida
Mary Hilsenbeck, University of
John Somers, University of
Louisville
Indianapolis
Sue Houdyshell, Virginia
Commonwealth University Diane Taylor, Tarleton State
Liz Kramer, Florida International University
University Deborah Webster, Cleveland State
Frank Lilly, California State University
University, Sacramento Sarah Williams, East Carolina
Robbie Ludy, Buena Vista University University
Shirley McKinney, Arizona State Nancy Yost, Indiana University of
University Pennsylvania
We would like to thank the outstanding teachers who contributed to the “Teacher
Voices” sections and lesson plans. Some of the greatest joys of teaching can be found
by surrounding oneself with “giants.” These contributors are all truly giants in this
profession and we are honored to work with them and showcase their ideas and efforts.
Each one of them is selflessly dedicated to helping each and every student reach their
full potential.
We would be remiss if we did not thank the talented editorial and production
team at Cengage and MPS Limited who worked with us to bring our ideas and vision
to life. The leadership, direction, and belief in this project exhibited by our product
manager, Lauren Whalen, is gratefully acknowledged. We also wish to sincerely thank
our senior project manager, Jenny Ziegler, and content manager, Anubhav Kaushal
and Anoop Chaturvedi, who helped us identify areas to add and update at the start
and to Sibasis Pradhan who helped us bring it all together at the end. We also thank
other key team members: Ashley Maynard, intellectual property analyst; Both Ross,
digital delivery quality partner; Dallas Wilkes, product assistant; and Ian Hamilton,
marketing manager. We were also very fortunate to work with an outstanding copy
editor, Heather Mann who had the difficult task of keeping us grammatically and
stylistically accurate and whose judicious editing and meticulous attention to details
ensured the readability of our book.
Lastly, this book would not be possible if it were not for the unwavering support
of our families. Over the past 12 months they were, at times, ignored because of “the
book.” Their understanding, encouragement, patience, and love helped to make this
book possible. Our families truly are the unnamed coauthors. We thank you from the
very bottom of our hearts.
Chapter
Teaching in Today’s
Inclusive Classrooms
Your Journey Begins
1
Ariel Skelley/Photodisc/
Getty Images
Learning Outcomes
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
■ Identify the various types of learners in today’s classrooms.

■ Describe placement options for educating students with special needs.
■ Explain the concept of universal design for learning (UDL).
■ Describe the role of the courts in the special education.
■ Explain the effects of educational reform on students and teachers.
2 Chapter 1 Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms
Chapter Outline
Learners in Today’s Classrooms Introducing Universal Design for Learning

Learners in Need of Special Services The Role of the Courts in Special Education
By the Numbers: A Quick Look Key Judicial Decisions
Placement Options for Educating Key Special Education Legislation
Students with Special Needs Educational Reform for Students and Teachers
Educational Placements No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
A Cascade of Service Delivery Options Common Core State Standards
Inclusionary Practices and Thinking Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement
Act of 2004
Every Student Succeeds Act
Civil Rights Legislation
E ach and every one of us is a unique human being. Some of our differences are
obvious—for example, the length and color of our hair or whether we are con-
sidered to be tall or short. These, and other features, contribute to making us distinct
and interesting individuals. Some aspects of our individuality, however, are not easily
recognizable, for instance, our ability to solve quadratic equations or throw a football
in a perfect spiral. Of course, some characteristics are more important than others. Most
people would attach greater significance to intellectual abilities than eye color. Luckily,
the recognition and appreciation of individual difference is one of the cornerstones of
contemporary society.
Most of us would consider ourselves to be normal or typical (however defined);
yet, for millions of school-age children and adolescents, this label does not apply.
They have been identified and/or perceived to be “different.” These differences might
be the result of behavioral deficiencies, language differences, intellectual abilities,
cultural heritage, or sensory impairments, along with a host of other possible rea-
sons. This textbook is about these individuals who compose today’s student popu-
lation. Although many children are viewed as typical, some pupils may require a
special education, others may be at risk for learning difficulties, and still others
might be seen as gifted or talented. Our goal is to assist you to in developing an
understanding and an appreciation for all the learners you will encounter in your
classroom.
Finally, as you begin to read and learn about the children and young adults
enrolled in our schools, you will notice we have purposefully adopted a people-first
perspective when talking about individuals with disabilities or other special needs.
We have deliberately chosen to focus on the person, not the disability or impairment.
Thus, instead of describing an adolescent as a “learning disabled student,” we will
say a “student with learning disabilities;” rather than an “at risk learner,” we say a
“learner who is at risk for success;” and finally, rather than a “gifted child,” we say
a “child who is gifted.” This writing style reflects more than just a change in word
order; it reflects an attitude and a belief in the value, dignity, and potential found
within all of our students. The individuals described in this book are first and fore-
most people. As educators we need to focus on their assets and abilities—not their
limitations or deficits. See the accompanying feature for additional ideas about using
people first language.
Chapter 1 Teaching in Today’s Inclusive Classrooms 3
TEACHING ALL LEARNERS

Communicating About Individuals with Disabilities
As a teacher, you are in a unique position to help shape the ■ Avoid euphemisms in describing disabilities. Some blind
attitudes and opinions of your students, their parents, and your advocates dislike “partially sighted” because it implies
colleagues about individuals with disabilities. Please consider avoiding acceptance of blindness. Terms such as “handi-
the following points when writing about or discussing people capable,” “mentally different,” “physically inconve-
with disabilities: nienced,” and “physically challenged” are considered
condescending. They reinforce the idea that disabilities
■ Do not focus on a disability unless it is crucial to a story.
cannot be dealt with up front.
Avoid tear-jerking human-interest stories about incurable
diseases, congenital impairments, or severe injury. Focus ■ Do not equate disability with illness. People with dis-
instead on issues that affect the quality of life for those abilities can be healthy, though they may have chronic dis-
individuals, such as accessible transportation, housing, eases such as arthritis, heart disease, and diabetes. People
affordable health care, employment opportunities, and who had polio and experienced aftereffects have postpo-
discrimination. lio syndrome; they are not currently experiencing the
active phase of the virus. Also, do not imply disease if a
■ Do not portray successful people with disabilities as
person’s disability resulted from anatomical or physiologi-
superhuman. Even though the public may admire super-
cal damage (for example, a person with spina bifida).
achievers, portraying people with disabilities as super-
Finally, do not refer to people with disabilities as patients
stars raises false expectations that all people with
unless their relationship with their doctor is under discus-
disabilities should achieve at this level.
sion, or if they are referenced in the context of a clinical
■ Do not sensationalize a disability by saying “afflicted setting.
with,” “crippled with,” “suffers from,” or “victim of.” ■ Show people with disabilities as active participants in
Instead, say “person who has multiple sclerosis” or “man
society. Portraying persons with disabilities interacting
who had polio.”
with nondisabled people in social and work environments
■ Put people first, not their disability. Say “a youngster with helps break down barriers and open lines of
autism,” “the teenager who is deaf,” or “people with dis- communication.
abilities.” This puts the focus on the individual, not the
Source: Adapted from Guidelines: How to Write and Report
particular functional limitation.
About People with Disabilities, Research and Training Center on
■ Emphasize abilities, not limitations. For example, say Independent Living, University of Kansas, Lawrence, n.d.
“uses a wheelchair” or “walks with crutches,” rather than
“is confined to a wheelchair,” “is wheelchair bound,” or “is
crippled.” Similarly, do not use emotional descriptors such
as “unfortunate” or “pitiful.”
Learners in Today’s Classrooms

If a teacher who retired in the late 1990s were to visit a classroom today, they would
be truly astonished by the diversity of students. Our schools are a microcosm of the
changing face of American society. A diverse population of learners is no longer the
exception; today it is the norm. Over 100 languages are spoken in our schools, and
it is not uncommon to find students with disabilities in general education class-
rooms, or pupils whose cultural beliefs and practices vary significantly in important
ways from mainstream American customs. One of the challenges confronting today’s
teachers and other professionals is how best to meet the needs of a changing and
expanding population of learners. We think this growing diversity is something to be
valued and appreciated, an opportunity for students to respect and understand their
classmates for their differences. Public education in the United States, in contrast to
other nations, is an amazing system. It is purposely designed to provide educational
opportunities to all youth. Yet this was not always the case. Exclusionary practices
rather than inclusionary policies characterized public education in this country for
many decades. Generally speaking, from a historical perspective, publicly funded
education was provided only to a rather exclusive group of students—white males
from affluent families. Public schooling was usually unavailable to other children.
Females, for instance, did not routinely attend school until the early 1900s. Further-
more, it was not until the second half of the nineteenth century and the early years
of the twentieth century, that classes for students with special needs began to appear
in public schools (Gargiulo & Bouck, 2021). Greater access to public education for
youth viewed as “different” (the poor, those with disabilities, or non-English-speaking
children) slowly came about due to the efforts of enlightened educational reformers,
to parental advocacy, and to political activism coupled with litigation and federal
legislation.
Teachers today are charged with providing effective instruction to a diverse popu-
lation of learners who bring to the classroom a wide variety of cultures, languages,
learning styles, and abilities as well as disabilities. This diversity heightens the need
for inclusionary practices coupled with instructional strategies capable of meeting the
compelling and oftentimes complex needs of the full range of students attending our
schools.
Learners in Need of Special Services

As we stated previously, diversity in our classrooms is the norm rather than the excep-
students with disabilities tion. Probably the largest group of diverse learners are students with disabilities.
Individuals who exhibit According to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (PL
intellectual disability, hearing
impairment (including deafness),
108-446), commonly called IDEA 2004 (which will be discussed later in this chapter),
speech or language impairment, pupils with disabilities include individuals who exhibit
visual impairments (including
intellectual disability, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impair-
blindness), emotional disturbance,
ments, visual impairments (including blindness), emotional disturbance, orthopedic impairments,
orthopedic impairments, autism,
traumatic brain injury, other autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities. (§ 602
health impairments, or specific (3) (A) (i))
learning disabilities.
We will talk about individuals with these disabilities in greater detail in later
chapters. Table 1.1 provides the federal definitions of these various disability
categories.
TABLE 1.1 Federal Definitions of Disabilities

Category Definition
Autism Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication
and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a child’s educational
performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive
activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily
routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. The term does not apply if a child’s
educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional
disturbance as defined below.
A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age 3 could be diagnosed as having
autism if the criteria in the preceding paragraph are satisfied.
Deafness Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing
linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification, that adversely affects a child’s
educational performance.
Deaf-blindness Deaf-blindness means concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes
such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be
accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with
blindness.
(continued)
TABLE 1.1 Federal Definitions of Disabilities (continued)

Category Definition
Emotional Emotional disturbance is defined as follows:
disturbance i. The term means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long
period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance:
A. An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors
B. An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and
teachers
C. Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances
D. A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression
E. A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school
problems
ii. The term includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially
maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance.
Hearing impairment Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that
adversely affects a child’s educational performance but that is not included under the definition of
deafness in this section.
Intellectual disability Intellectual disability means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing
concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period,
that adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Multiple disabilities Multiple disabilities means concomitant impairments (such as intellectual disability–blindness,
intellectual disability–orthopedic impairment, etc.), the combination of which causes such severe
educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one
of the impairments. The term does not include deaf-blindness.
Orthopedic Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s
impairment educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by congenital anomaly (for
example, clubfoot, absence of some member, etc.), impairments caused by disease (for example,
poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis, etc.), and impairments from other causes (for example, cerebral
palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).
Other health Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened
impairment alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational
environment, that
i. is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning,
leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and
ii. adversely affects a child’s educational performance.
Specific learning Specific learning disability is defined as follows:
disability i. General. The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved
in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including
conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia.
ii. Disorders not included. The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result
of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
Speech or language Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired
impairment articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child’s
educational performance.
Traumatic brain injury Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force,
resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment or both, that adversely
affects a child’s educational performance. The term applies to open or closed head injuries resulting
in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning;
abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial
behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. The term does not apply to brain
injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma.
Visual impairment Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even with correction,
adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and
blindness.
Source: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 34 C.F.R. Part 300 § 300.8 (c). August 14, 2006.
Of course, students with disabilities (in addition to their typical classmates) are
not the only types of youth with special needs found in today’s classrooms. Three
other groups of learners (to be discussed in Chapter 6) are also common in inclusive
classrooms—students who are gifted and talented; culturally and linguistically diverse
individuals; and pupils who are at risk for future learning difficulties, school failure,
and/or becoming a school dropout. Let us briefly examine each group:
■ Students who are gifted and talented. Pupils who are gifted and talented are not considered
to have a disability but are viewed as exceptional because of their overall intellectual abili-
ties, creativity, leadership abilities, athleticism, and/or talents in the visual and performing
arts (Roberts et al., 2018). Even though learning problems are generally not an issue for
these students, they do require specialized and effective instruction if their full potential and
abilities are to be expressed. We should point out, however, that some of these students
might have a disability such as a sensory impairment, attention deficit hyperactivity disor-
der (ADHD), or a learning disability. Interestingly, pupils who are gifted and talented are not
included in federal special education legislation (review Table 1.1). Many states, however,
have enacted legislation providing for the identification and education of children with spe-
cial gifts and talents.
■ Students who are culturally and linguistically diverse. This group of learners generally in-
cludes pupils whose values, attitudes, norms, folkways, traditions, and belief systems are in
some ways different than those of mainstream American culture. These students may or may
not speak English. Regrettably, in too many instances, culturally and linguistically diverse
children are thought to be less capable than their classmates. As educators working in in-
creasingly diverse schools, we must model respect for and sensitivity to the cultural and lin-
guistic characteristics represented by our students and their families.
■ Students who are at risk. Unfortunately, some students encounter life experiences that make
them more likely than their classmates to encounter difficulties in school. Although these
pupils are often ineligible for special education services, their success in school is often jeop-
ardized by a variety of sociocultural factors. These problems, which are frequently interre-
lated, may include domestic violence, homelessness, exposure to drug and alcohol abuse,
poverty, and child abuse, to mention only a few. It is important to note that exposure to these
conditions does not automatically guarantee learning or behavioral problems in school, only
that the probability of experiencing difficulties is heightened.
Many of the types of children we have just identified will primarily be educated in
the general education classroom. This means that the general educator, often working
in conjunction with other school personnel, must develop and implement instructional
programs designed to meet the needs of a very heterogeneous group of learners. One of
the purposes of this book is to help you successfully meet this challenge.
By the Numbers: A Quick Look

We have argued that the number of students with special needs in our classrooms is
growing. Although statistics do not always paint a complete picture, the following infor-
mation gives a hint of the changing demographics confronting educators and policy
makers alike.
■ Over 6.3 million students ages 6–21 were receiving a special education during the 2018–
2019 school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). These pupils represent approxi-
mately 12 percent of the public school enrollment in the United States (National Center for
Education Statistics, 2019).
■ Educators believe that approximately 3 to 5 percent of the school-age population is gifted or
talented. Of course, the number of students identified as gifted or talented depends on the
definition of giftedness used by each state (Rimm et al., 2018).
■ By the year 2028, students of color are projected to make up over half of all school-age youth
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2019).
■ Approximately 12 million children ages 5–17 speak a language other than English at home
(Kids Count Data Center, 2020).
■ Over 5 percent of young adults ages 16–24, or 2.1 million individuals, in the United States
do not possess a high school diploma (National Center for Education Statistics, 2020).
■ In 2018 over 17 percent of children under the age of 6 lived in poverty (Children’s Defense
Fund, 2020).
■ More than 673,000 children, or one youngster every 47 seconds, was abused or neglected in
2018 (Children’s Defense Fund, 2020).
Placement Options for Educating

Students with Special Needs
With such diversity evident in today’s classrooms, where are students with special needs
typically served? As you will soon see, this is not an easy question to answer. In fact, the
response to this inquiry has evolved over several decades. The majority of learners with
special needs are being educated in general education classrooms; this includes pupils
with special abilities as well as their classmates with disabilities, those children viewed
as being at risk for success in school, and students who are culturally and linguistically
diverse.
We have chosen to frame our discussion about where children with special needs
are served around individuals receiving a special education. We adopted this tactic for
two reasons. First, students with disabilities represent the largest population of learners
with special needs. Second, it is because of the advocacy efforts, litigation, and legis-
lation on behalf of students with disabilities that the right to be educated in what is
commonly called the least restrictive environment (LRE) was secured (Photo 1.1). Edu- least restrictive environment
cationally speaking, this usually means the general education classroom. It is because of (LRE)
A legal term interpreted to mean
these efforts that many other learners with special needs are now routinely educated in
that individuals with disabilities are
the general education classroom. to be educated in environments as
The issue of appropriate placement of children with disabilities has generated close as possible to the general
considerable controversy and debate. In fact, it frequently is a point of contention education classroom setting; a
concept, not a place.
among educators. Federal legislation mandates that services be provided to students
in the least restrictive setting. The idea of least restrictive environment is a relative
concept rather than a particular educational setting. It must be determined individu-
ally for each pupil. The LRE is based on the student’s educational needs, not their
disability. We interpret the principle of LRE to mean that students with disabilities
should be educated in the setting that most closely approximates the general educa-
tion classroom and still meets the unique needs of
the individual. For a growing number of students,
this setting is the general education classroom. The
concept of LRE calls for maximum opportunity
for meaningful involvement and participation with
typical classmates. One of its inherent challenges
is the required balancing of maximum integration
with the delivery of an education appropriate to the
E.D. Torial/Alamy Stock Photo
unique needs of the student with disabilities. It is

important to remember that the degree of involve-
ment and participation is determined individually
for each pupil. No one arrangement is appropriate
for each and every child (Gargiulo & Bouck, 2021).
Educational Placements
The federal government acknowledges that children
PHOTO 1.1 Federal legislation requires that all pupils
with disabilities are unique learners, thus requiring with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive
educational placements that are appropriate to their environment.
individual needs. The U.S. Department of Education
annually monitors the various settings in which pupils

Separate class with disabilities receive a special education. Figure 1.1
13.1%
illustrates the percentage of students in the various
educational environments currently recognized by the
Regular (general Resource room federal government. A description of these educational
education) classroom 17.9% settings can be found in Table 1.2.
64.0%
Other A Cascade of Service

environments
5.0% Delivery Options
As we have just seen, the federal government recog-
FIGURE 1.1 Percentage of Children with Disabilities nizes that no one educational setting is appropriate
Served in Various Educational Settings for meeting the needs of all children with disabilities.
Note: Data are for students ages 6–21 enrolled in special education during Effective delivery of a special education requires an
the 2018–2019 school year. Information based on data from 49 states, Puerto
Rico, the District of Columbia, Bureau of Indian Education schools, and outly-
array or continuum of placement possibilities custom-
ing areas. Data for Wisconsin not available. Other environments include sep- ized to the individual requirements of each pupil. The
arate schools, residential schools, homebound/hospital environments, concept of a continuum of educational services has
correctional facilities, and parentally placed in private schools.
been part of the fabric of American special education
Source: U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Forty-second annual report to
Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education for more than five decades. Reynolds (1962) originally
Act, 2020 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), p. 53. described the concept of a range of placement options
in 1962. His thinking was later elaborated on and
expanded by Deno (1970), who constructed a model
offering a “cascade” or continuum of settings. A traditional view of service delivery
options, based upon Deno’s original thinking, is portrayed in Figure 1.2.
In this model, the general education classroom is viewed as the most normalized or
typical setting; consequently, the greatest number of students are served in this environ-
ment. This placement is often considered the least restrictive option for many learners.
Deviation from the general education classroom should occur only when it is educa-
tionally necessary for the pupil to receive an appropriate education. Each higher level
depicted in Figure 1.2 represents a progressively more restrictive setting. Movement
up the hierarchy generally leads to the delivery of more intensive services to children
with more severe disabilities, who are fewer in number. However, intensive services and
TABLE 1.2 Definitions of Typical Educational Settings Serving School-Age Students with Disabilities
Regular Class Students who receive the majority of their education in a regular classroom and receive special
education and related services outside the regular classroom for less than 21 percent of the school
day. This placement option also includes individuals who are provided with specialized instruction or
services within the regular classroom setting.
Resource Room Students who receive special education and related services outside the regular classroom for at
least 21 percent but less than 60 percent of the school day. Students are “pulled out” of the regular
classroom and receive specialized instruction or services in a separate classroom for limited periods
of time. Services may be individualized or offered in small groups. A common placement option for
children with less severe disabilities.
Separate Class Students who receive special education and related services outside the regular class for more than
60 percent of the school day. Commonly known as a self-contained classroom wherein pupils, usually
those with more severe disabilities, receive full-time instruction or, in a modified version, participate
in nonacademic aspects of school activities. Classroom is located in regular school building.
Separate School Students who receive special education and related services in a public or private separate day
school for students with disabilities, at public expense, for more than 50 percent of the school day.
Residential Facility Students who receive a special education in a public or private residential facility, at public expense,
24 hours a day.
Homebound/Hospital Students placed in and receiving a special education in a hospital or homebound program.
Source: Adapted from U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office), p. II–14.
Fewer children
Hospitals and
More severe treatment centers Most Least
intense integrated
Homebound instruction
Residential school
Move only
Level Special day school as necessry Intensity
of and
disability Return as soon integration
as feasible Full-time special class
Part-time special class

(part-time regular classroom)
Regular classroom plus

resource room services
Less severe Least Most
Regular classroom with modifications and intense integrated
supportive services available
More children
FIGURE 1.2 A Traditional View of Service Delivery Options

Source: Adapted from S. Graves, R. Gargiulo, and L. Sluder, Young Children: An Introduction to Early Childhood Education (St. Paul, MN: West, 1996), p. 398.
supports are now being provided in general education classrooms with increasing fre-
quency. Environments at the upper levels are typically considered to be the most restric-
tive and least normalized.
As originally conceived by Deno (1970), the natural flow of this cascade of ser-
vice delivery options would be in a downward movement from more restrictive settings
to those viewed as least restrictive, such as the general education classroom with or
without support services. Contemporary thinking, however, suggests that pupils should
begin in the general education classroom and ascend the model, reaching a level that
meets their unique needs. A key feature of this model, too often overlooked, is that a
particular placement is only temporary; flexibility or freedom of movement is what
makes this model work. The settings must be envisioned as fluid rather than rigid. As
the needs of the pupil change, so should the environment; this is why there are an array
of service delivery possibilities.
Inclusionary Practices and Thinking

In many instances, the general education classroom is becoming the placement of
choice for a growing number of learners with special needs. A diverse learning com-
munity is no longer the exception but rather the norm. One result of the changing
face or composition of our classrooms is the trend toward inclusion. Unfortunately,
a clear understanding of this term has proven elusive. We simply see inclusion as inclusion
the movement toward, and the practice of, educating students with disabilities and The movement toward, and the
practice of, educating students
other learners with exceptionalities in general education classrooms alongside their
with disabilities and other
typical peers with appropriate supports and services provided as necessary. Inclu- learners with exceptionalities in
sive education, however, is more than just addressing how the pupil’s disability general education classrooms
impacts learning. It also must consider the various barriers that often impede or alongside their typical peers
with appropriate supports and
exclude meaningful and effective participation in the classroom. One of the underly-
services provided as necessary.
ing assumptions of inclusion is the belief that all students are part of or belong in the
general education classroom. Yet it is important to note that the physical placement
of students in a general education classroom is not an end in and of itself but rather
a means to an end.
TEACHER VOICES
The Importance of Inclusionary Classroom Practices

I believe it is vitally important for students with special needs to If I am fearful about anything in today’s classrooms, it is
be included in the general education classroom as much as pos- how educators are evaluated. This might be one reason why
sible because some of these children are fragile and uncertain as some teachers are apprehensive when they learn that a student
to who they are and whether or not they belong. I find that the with special needs is assigned to their class. When teacher per-
more students with special needs are included, the more their formance is evaluated by one single set of test scores at the end
self-esteem increases. The more the teacher includes these of the year, they may become fearful about achieving/maintain-
learners, the more they get involved, the more they learn, and ing their career status. Although my students with special
the more they support each other. It’s a slow process and it isn’t needs all show progress, many are unable to pass an end-of-
easy, but in the end everyone benefits, including the teacher. grade test in a subject that may be several grade levels above
Inclusion helps students to socially understand their world their working levels.
and gives them a feeling of ownership while building a sense of An inclusive learning community requires that general edu-
family or community. A great deal depends on the teacher for cation teachers, special educators, and related service profes-
making this happen. In fact, the teacher is KEY. When a teacher sionals work collaboratively. It is also vitally important that parents
creates a family, each member holds each other accountable. The are meaningfully involved. Without these supports, the teacher’s
students and teacher push and support each other within a safe task can be overwhelming. Inclusive teaching is a “family affair.”
environment. Yet, a teacher can hinder (or build) a community by One single person cannot realistically do it all. School leadership
their actions and attitude toward individuals with special needs. is also key in making this happen as effectively as possible.
Students with special needs have taught me that I do not While assessment data is important, I am more concerned
know everything. They have taught me that there are so many dif- with my students being successful in life. A numerical score on a
ferent ways children learn—not just a few ways. I have discovered standardized test is not what it’s all about. I measure my stu-
over my six years in the classroom that sometimes you need to dents’ progress by equipping them with the attitudes, skills, and
push and challenge your pupils by asking questions and having tools they need for success in school as well as for life. When a
them explain to their classmates how they have come to under- student or parent comes back and thanks me for helping them
stand something. You also have to frequently adapt assignments reach their goals, I know I did a good job. This is why I teach.
and activities so that all learners can be successful. You can’t mea-
sure one student’s success on the same scale as another’s. We Jami Dickerson
should be doing individualized education for all students any- Third Grade Teacher
way—that’s a teacher’s job. With customized instruction, a small 2014 Pitt County Schools Teacher of the Year
step for one student may be a giant step for another. Greenville, North Carolina
Inclusion does not refer to a physical space; it refers to a condition or state of

being. The concept of inclusion implies a sense of belonging and acceptance. Hence,
inclusion has more to do with how educators respond to individual differences than
it has to do with specific instructional configurations (Voltz et al., 2001, p. 24). Inclu-
sion emphasizes the creation of instructional environments that promote educational
success and a sense of belonging for all students. Successful inclusion requires a new
attitude or fresh thinking about where as well as how students with special needs
should be educated.
Introducing Universal Design for Learning

With so many different students now being served in the general education classroom,
universal design for learning how is a teacher supposed to meet the unique learning needs of each and every child?
(UDL)
One possible solution to this dilemma is to consider a concept known as universal
Curriculum and instruction that
includes alternatives to make it design for learning, commonly known by its acronym, UDL. UDL allows teachers to
accessible and appropriate for adapt curriculum, customize the delivery of instruction, and assess students in ways
individuals with different that permits them to demonstrate their mastery of the material.
backgrounds, learning
Originally developed for architects and consumer product designers, the principles
preferences, abilities, and
disabilities in widely varied of UDL have been adapted to the field of education. We offer the following concise
learning contexts. description of UDL:
The central practical premise of UDL is that a curriculum should include alternatives to make it
accessible and appropriate for individuals with different backgrounds, learning styles, abilities, and
disabilities in widely varied learning contexts. The “universal” in universal design does not imply one
optimal solution for everyone. Rather, it reflects an awareness of the unique nature of each learner
and the need to accommodate differences, create learning experiences that suit the learner, and
maximize his or her ability to progress. (Rose & Meyer, 2002, p. 70)
Essentially, UDL is an educational concept or approach to designing instructional

methods, materials, activities, and evaluation procedures in an effort to assist individu-
als with “wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, under-
stand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember” (Orkwis, 2003, n.p.).
Universal design for learning is accomplished by means of flexible curriculum
materials and activities that offer alternatives to pupils with widely varying abilities
and backgrounds. These adaptations are built into instructional design rather than
added on later as an afterthought. Universal design for learning provides equal access
to learning, not simply equal access to information. It allows the student to determine
the most appropriate method for accessing information while the teacher monitors the
learning process (Ohio State University Partnership Grant, n.d.). UDL assumes that
there is no one method of presentation or expression that provides equal access for
all learners. Learning activities and materials are purposely designed to allow for flex-
ibility and offer various ways to learn. These accommodations are “designed-in” or built
“directly into the materials so that all students with differing abilities can use the same
material, but in a way tailored to their strengths and instructional needs” (Freund &
Rich, 2005, p. 81).
Universal design for learning is envisioned as an instructional framework, a vehicle Web Resources
for diversifying instruction in order to deliver the general education curriculum to each Representative Web
pupil. UDL does not remove academic challenges; it simply removes barriers to access. Resources: Universal
The greatest promise of UDL is that of flexible, equitable, and accessible ways to teach. Design for Learning
With this approach “teachers can reach each individual students, disabled or nondis- Center for Applied Spe-
abled, providing a platform for each to interact with the curriculum—in ways that best cial Technology (CAST),
http://www.cast.org
support unique learning styles” (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005, p. 2). Some of
the beneficiaries of this strategy include, for example, individuals who speak English as National Early Child-
hood Technical Assis-
a second language, pupils with disabilities, and students whose preferred learning style
tance Center, https://
is inconsistent with their teacher’s teaching style (Ohio State University Partnership ectacenter.org/
Grant, n.d.). UDL Center, https://
Because UDL serves as both the philosophical and pedagogical anchor for our text, medium.com/udl-center
we will have much more to say about this instructional model in Chapter 2.
The Role of the Courts in Special Education1

Over the past several decades, the field of education, especially special education, has
been gradually transformed and restructured, largely as a result of judicial action and
legislative enactments (Photo 1.2). These two forces have been powerful tools in secur-
ing many of the benefits and educational rights presently enjoyed by pupils with disabil-
ities and other students with special needs. Securing the opportunity for an education
has been a slowly evolving process for students with disabilities. What is today seen as
a fundamental right for these children was, at one time, viewed strictly as a privilege.
In the 1954 landmark school desegregation case, Brown v. Board of Education of
Topeka (347 U.S. 483), the U.S. Supreme Court reasoned that it was unlawful to dis-
criminate against a group of individuals for arbitrary reasons. The Court specifically
ruled that separate schools for black and white students were inherently unequal, con-
trary to the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus unconstitutional. Furthermore, education
1Content adapted from R. Gargiulo and E. Bouck, Special Education in Contemporary Society, 7th ed. (Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage, 2021).
was characterized as a fundamental function of govern-

ment that should be afforded to all citizens on an equal
basis. Though primarily recognized as striking down racial
segregation, the thinking articulated in Brown had major
implications for children with disabilities. Much of contem-
porary litigation and legislation affecting special education
is legally, as well as morally, grounded in the precedents
established by Brown.
Moab Republic/Shutterstock.com
The movement to secure equal educational opportu-
nity for children with disabilities was also aided by the
U.S. civil rights movement of the 1960s. As Americans
attempted to deal with issues of discrimination, inequal-
ity, and other social ills, advocates for individuals with dis-
abilities also pushed for equal rights. Parental activism was
ignited.
Lawsuits were filed and legislation enacted primarily
PHOTO 1.2 Students with disabilities as well as as a result of the untiring, vocal, collaborative efforts of
learners with special needs have greatly benefitted parents and politically powerful advocacy groups. The suc-
from judicial and legislative actions. cess of these tactics was felt at the local, state, and eventu-
ally, national level.
It is exceedingly difficult to say which came first, litiga-
tion or legislation. Both of these forces have played major roles in the development of
state and federal policy concerning special education. They enjoy a unique and almost
symbiotic relationship—one of mutual interdependence. Litigation frequently leads to
legislation, which in turn spawns additional judicial action as the courts interpret and
clarify the law, which often leads to further legislation. Regardless of the progression,
much of special education today has a legal foundation.
Key Judicial Decisions

Since the 1960s and early 1970s, a plethora of state and federal court decisions have
helped to shape and define a wide range of issues affecting contemporary special educa-
tion policies and procedures. Although a thorough review of this litigation is beyond
the scope of this chapter, Table 1.3 summarizes, in chronological order, a few of the
landmark cases affecting the field of special education. Several of the judicial remedies
emanating from these lawsuits serve as cornerstones for both federal and state legisla-
tive enactments focusing on both students with disabilities and their classmates with
special needs. As you will see shortly, many of today’s accepted practices in special edu-
cation, such as nondiscriminatory assessments and due process procedures, can trace
their roots to various court decisions.
Key Special Education Legislation

Federal legislative intervention in the lives of persons with disabilities is of relatively
recent origin. Before the late 1950s and early 1960s, little federal attention was paid
to citizens with special needs. When legislation was enacted, it primarily assisted spe-
cific groups of individuals, such as those who were deaf or people with intellectual
disability. The past 50 years, however, have witnessed a flurry of legislative activity
that has aided the growth of special education and provided educational benefits and
other opportunities and rights to children and adults with disabilities. We will exam-
ine key laws that have dramatically impacted the lives of individuals with disabilities.
Our initial review will focus on PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Chil-
dren Act, or as it is now called, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
This change in legislative titles resulted from the enactment on October 30, 1990, of
PL 101-476, which will be reviewed later.
TABLE 1.3 A Synopsis of Selected Court Cases Influencing Special Education
Case Year Issue Judicial Decision
Brown v. Board of 1954 Educational Segregation of students by race ruled unconstitutional; children deprived of equal educational opportunity.
Education of Topeka, segregation Effectively ended “separate but equal” schools for white and black pupils. Used as a precedent for arguing that
Kansas children with disabilities cannot be excluded from a public education.
Hobson v. Hansen 1967 Classifying Ability grouping or “tracking” of students on the basis of nationally normed tests, which were found to be
students biased, held to be unconstitutional. Tracking systems discriminated against poor and minority children, thus
denying them an equal educational opportunity. Equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment violated.
Diana v. State Board of 1970 Class placement Linguistically different students must be tested in their primary language as well as English. Students cannot be
Education placed in special education classes on the basis of IQ tests that are culturally biased. Verbal test items to be
revised so as to reflect students’ cultural heritage. Group-administered IQ tests cannot be used to place children
in programs for individuals with intellectual disability.
Pennsylvania 1972 Right to education State must guarantee a free public education to all children with intellectual disability ages 6–21 regardless of
Association for Retarded degree of impairment or associated disabilities. Students to be placed in the most integrated environment.
Children v. Definition of education expanded. Case established the right of parents to participate in educational decisions
Commonwealth of affecting their children. State to engage in extensive efforts to locate and serve (“child-find”) all students with
Pennsylvania intellectual disability. Preschool services to be provided to youngsters with intellectual disability if local school
district serves preschoolers without disabilities.
Mills v. Board of 1972 Right to education Extended the Pennsylvania decision to include all children with disabilities. Specifically established the
Education, District of constitutional right of children with exceptionalities to a public education regardless of their functional level.
Columbia Students have a right to a “constructive education” matched to their needs, including specialized instruction.
Presumed absence of fiscal resources is not a valid reason for failing to provide appropriate educational services
to students with disabilities. Elaborate due process safeguards established to protect the rights of the child,
including parental notification of pending initial evaluation, reassignment, or planned termination of special
services.
Larry P. v. Riles 1972, Class placement A landmark case parallel to the Diana suit. African-American students could not be placed in classes for children
1979 with mild intellectual disability solely on the basis of intellectual assessments found to be culturally and racially
biased. The court instructed school officials to develop an assessment process that would not discriminate
against minority children. Failure to comply with this order resulted in a 1979 ruling that completely prohibited
the use of IQ tests for placing African-American students in classes for children with mild intellectual disability.
Ruling applies only to the state of California.
Lau v. Nichols 1974 Equal educational A milestone case in the field of bilingual education. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling noted that “there is not
opportunity equality in treatment merely by providing students with the same facilities, textbooks, teachers, and curriculum,
for students who do not understand English are effectively foreclosed from a meaningful education.” Decision
significantly affected the education of culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Although the Court did not
stipulate a specific method of instruction for non-English-speaking or limited-English-speaking pupils, it did
require schools to offer special language programs if schools were to confer equal educational opportunity.
Tatro v. State of Texas 1980 Related services U.S. Supreme Court held that catheterization qualified as a related service under PL 94-142. Catheterization was
not considered an exempted medical procedure, as it could be performed by a health care aide or school nurse.
Court further stipulated that only those services that allow a student to benefit from a special education qualify
as related services.
(continued)
13
14
TABLE 1.3 A Synopsis of Selected Court Cases Influencing Special Education (continued)
Case Year Issue Judicial Decision
Board of Education of the 1982 Appropriate First U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of PL 94-142. Court addressed the issue of what constitutes an
Hendrick Hudson Central education “appropriate” education for a student with hearing impairments making satisfactory educational progress.
School District v. Rowley Supreme Court ruled that an appropriate education does not necessarily mean an education that will allow for
the maximum possible achievement; rather, students must be given a reasonable opportunity to learn. Parents’
request for a sign language interpreter, therefore, was denied. An appropriate education is not synonymous with
an optimal educational experience.
Daniel R.R. v. State Board 1989 Class placement Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a segregated class was an appropriate placement for a student with
of Education Down syndrome. Preference for integrated placement viewed as secondary to the need for an appropriate
education. Court established a two-prong test for determining compliance with the least restrictive environment
(LRE) mandate for students with severe disabilities. First, it must be determined if a pupil can make satisfactory
progress and achieve educational benefit in the general education classroom through curriculum modification
and the use of supplementary aids and services. Second, it must be determined whether the pupil has been
integrated to the maximum extent appropriate. Successful compliance with both parts fulfills a school’s
obligation under federal law. Ruling affects LRE cases in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, but has become a
benchmark decision for other jurisdictions as well.
Oberti v. Board of 1982 Least restrictive Placement in a general education classroom with supplementary aids and services must be offered to a student
Education of the environment with disabilities prior to considering more segregated placements. Pupil cannot be excluded from a general
Borough of Clementon education classroom solely because curriculum, services, or other practices would require modification. A
School District decision to exclude a learner from the general education classroom necessitates justification and
documentation. Clear judicial preference for educational integration established.
Cedar Rapids 1999 Related services U.S. Supreme Court expanded and clarified the concept of related services. Affirmed that intensive and
Community School continuous school health care services necessary for a student to attend school, if not performed by a physician,
District v. Garret F. qualify as related services.
Schaffer v. Weast 2005 Burden of proof A U.S. Supreme Court ruling addressing the issue of whether the parent(s) or school district bears the burden of
proof in a due process hearing. The specific question before the Court was whether the parent(s), acting on
behalf of their son or daughter, must prove that their child’s individualized education program (IEP) is
inappropriate or whether the school district must prove that the IEP is appropriate. The court ruled that the
burden of proof is placed upon the party seeking relief.
Arlington Central School 2006 Recovery of fees At issue in this U.S. Supreme Court case is whether or not parents are able to recover the professional fees of an
District Board of Education educational consultant (lay advocate) who provided services during legal proceedings. The Court ruled that
v. Murphy parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of experts because only attorney fees are addressed in
IDEA.
Winkelman v. Parma City 2007 Parental rights One of the more significant Supreme Court rulings. The Court, by unanimous vote, affirmed the right of parents
School District to represent their children in IDEA-related court cases. Ruling seen as an expansion of parental involvement and
the definition of a free appropriate public education. Decision also interpreted to mean that IDEA conveys
enforceable rights to parents as well as their children.
Forest Grove School 2009 Tuition A Supreme Court decision involving tuition reimbursement for a student with learning disabilities and attention
District v. T. A. reimbursement deficit hyperactivity disorder as well as depression who was never declared eligible for a special education and
never received services from the school district. Parents removed their child from school and unilaterally
enrolled the child in a private school. Subsequently they sought reimbursement from the school district for
expenses. In a 6–3 decision, the Court found that IDEA authorizes reimbursement for private special education
services when a public school fails to provide a free and appropriate education and the private school placement
is appropriate, regardless of whether the student previously received special education services from the public
school.
Fry v. Napoleon 2017 IDEA exhaustion A suit filed on behalf of a young girl with a severe form of cerebral palsy who used a service animal. Because the
Community Schools clause school provided the student with a personal aide in accordance with her individualized education program, the
school refused to allow her the use of her service dog. The girl’s parents sought relief under the Americans with
Disabilities Act Amendments (ADAA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act rather than the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), which required the parents to exhaust all administrative
remedies (e.g., due process hearing) prior to suing under the ADAA and 504. As this was a disability
discrimination issue and the adequacy of the student’s educational services were not in question, the Supreme
Court, in a unanimous decision, found that because the parents were not seeking relief under the free
appropriate public education clause of IDEA, the exhaustion requirement of IDEA was not applicable.
Endrew F. v. 2017 Educational benefit A far-reaching Supreme decision involving an 8-year-old boy with autism spectrum disorder. The child’s parents
Douglas County School removed him from public school and enrolled him in a private school due to an individualized education program
District (IEP) that they believed did not provide sufficient academic and social progress. The school district refused the
parents’ request for tuition reimbursement. Although the lower courts agreed with the school district, the
parents appealed to the Supreme Court. The court found, in a unanimous decision, that an IEP must provide
more than de minimis or minimal educational benefit. It stated that an IEP must be “appropriately ambitious” in
light of a pupil’s circumstances and every student must be given the opportunity to meet challenging objectives.
Source: Adapted from R. Gargiulo and J. Kilgo, An Introduction to Young Children with Special Needs, 5th ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2020), pp. 30–33.
15
Public Law 94-1422 The Individuals with Dis-

abilities Education Act is viewed as a “Bill of Rights”
for children with exceptionalities and their families; it
is the culmination of many years of dedicated effort by
both parents and professionals. Like many other spe-
cial educators, we consider this law to be one of the
most important, if not the most important, pieces of
federal legislation ever enacted on behalf of children
with special needs. PL 94-142 may rightfully be
thought of as the legislative heart of special education.
The purpose of this bill, which was signed into law
by President Gerald Ford on November 29, 1975, is
to assure that all handicapped children have available
to them . . . a free appropriate public education which
emphasizes special education and related services
designed to meet their unique needs, to assure that the
PHOTO 1.3 Preschoolers who have a disability rights of handicapped children and their parents or
are entitled to receive a free appropriate guardians are protected, to assist States and localities to
public education. provide for the education of all handicapped children,
and to assess and assure the effectiveness of efforts to
educate handicapped children. [Section 601(c)]
In pursuing these four purposes, this legislation incorporates six major components
and guarantees that have forever changed the landscape of education across the United
States. Despite legislative and court challenges over the past decades, the following prin-
ciples have endured to the present day:
■ A free appropriate public education (FAPE). All children, regardless of the severity of their
disability (a “zero reject” philosophy), must be provided an education appropriate to their
unique needs at no cost to the parent(s)/guardian(s) (Photo 1.3). Included in this principle
is the concept of related services, which requires that children receive, for example, occupa-
tional therapy as well as other services as necessary in order to benefit from special
education.
■ The least restrictive environment (LRE). Children with disabilities are to be educated, to the
maximum extent appropriate, with students without disabilities. Placements must be consis-
tent with the pupil’s educational needs.
■ An individualized education program (IEP). This document, developed in conjunction
with the parent(s)/guardian(s), is an individually tailored statement describing an educa-
tional plan for each learner with exceptionalities. The IEP, which will be fully discussed in
Chapter 3, is required to address (1) the present level of academic functioning; (2) annual
goals and accompanying instructional objectives; (3) educational services to be provided;
(4) the degree to which the pupil will be able to participate in general education pro-
grams; (5) plans for initiating services and length of service delivery; and (6) an annual
evaluation procedure specifying objective criteria to determine if instructional objectives
are being met.
■ Procedural due process. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act affords parent(s)/
guardian(s) several safeguards as it pertains to their child’s education. Briefly, parent(s)/
guardian(s) have the right to confidentiality of records; to examine all records; to obtain an
independent evaluation; to receive written notification (in parents’ native language) of pro-
posed changes to their child’s educational classification or placement; and the right to an
impartial hearing whenever disagreements arise regarding educational plans for their son/
daughter. Furthermore, the student’s parent(s)/guardian(s) have the right to representation
by legal counsel.
2Nationallegislation, or public laws (PL), are codified according to a standardized format. Legislation is thus designated
by the number of the session of Congress that enacted the law followed by the number of the particular bill. PL 94-142,
for example, was enacted by the 94th session of Congress and was the 142nd piece of legislation passed.
■ Nondiscriminatory assessment. Prior to placement, a child must be evaluated by a multidis-

ciplinary team in all areas of suspected disability by tests that are neither racially, culturally,
nor linguistically biased. Students are to receive several types of assessments, administered
by trained personnel; a single evaluation procedure is not permitted for either planning or
placement purposes.
■ Parental participation. PL 94-142 mandates meaningful parent involvement. Sometimes re-
ferred to as the “Parent’s Law,” this legislation requires that parents participate fully in the
decision-making process that affects their child’s education.
Congress indicated their desire by September 1, 1980, to provide a free appropriate

public education for all eligible children ages 3–21. The law, however, did not require
services to preschool children with disabilities. Because many states were not provid-
ing preschool services to typical children, an education for young children with special
needs, in most instances, was not mandated. Although this legislation failed to require
an education for younger children, it clearly focused attention on the preschool popula-
tion and recognized the value of early education.
PL 94-142 did contain some benefits for children under school age. It offered small
financial grants (Preschool Incentive Grants) to the individual states as an incentive to
serve young children with disabilities. It also carried a mandate for schools to identify
and evaluate children from birth through age 21 suspected of evidencing a disability.
Finally, PL 94-142 moved from a census count to a child count of the actual number
of individuals with disabilities being served. The intent was to encourage the states to
locate and serve children with disabilities.
Public Law 99-457 (1986 Amendments to PL 94-142) In October 1986,

Congress passed one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation affecting young
children with special needs and their families—PL 99-457. This law changed both the
scope and intent of services provided to preschoolers with special needs and formulated
a national policy for infants and toddlers at risk for and with identified disabilities.
Simply stated, this law is a downward extension of PL 94-142, including all its
rights and protections. This legislation does not require that preschoolers be identified
with a specific disability label. It does demand that, as of the 1991–1992 school year,
all preschoolers with special needs, ages 3–5 inclusive, are to receive a free appropriate
public education. This element of the law is a mandated requirement; states will lose
significant amounts of federal preschool funding if they fail to comply. The goal of this
legislation was finally accomplished in the 1992–1993 school year, when all states had
mandates in place establishing a free appropriate public education for all children with
disabilities ages 3–5.
Title I of PL 99-457 created the Handicapped Infants and Toddlers Program
(Part H), a new provision aimed at children from birth through age 2 with develop-
mental delays or disabilities. This component of the legislation is voluntary; states are
not compelled to comply. This part of the statute creates a discretionary program that
assists states in implementing a statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisci-
plinary, interagency program of services for very young children and their families who
are experiencing developmental delays or who evidence a physical or mental condition,
such as cerebral palsy or Down syndrome, that has a high probability of resulting in a
delay. (At the state’s discretion, youngsters who are at risk for future delays may also be
served.) As of September 30, 1994, all states had plans in place for the full implementa-
tion of Part H (U.S. Department of Education, 1995).
Eligible children and their families must receive a multidisciplinary assessment
conducted by qualified professionals and a written individualized family service plan, or
IFSP. An IFSP must be reviewed every six months (or sooner if necessary) to assess its
continued appropriateness. The law requires that each infant or toddler be reevaluated
annually. Regulations further stipulate that an IFSP must be developed within 45 days
after a referral for services is made.
PL 99-457 is the product of a decade of hard work by parents, professionals, advo-

cates, and legislators. It represents an opportunity to intervene and effect meaningful
change in the lives of our nation’s youngest and most vulnerable children.
Public Law 101-476 (1990 Amendments to PL 94-142) Arguably, one of

the most important changes contained in this legislation was the renaming of PL 94-142
as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). “Children” was replaced with
the term “individuals” and “handicapped” became “with disabilities.” This phrase signi-
fies a change in attitude to a more appropriate person-first point of view. We now realize
that an individual’s disability is but one aspect of their personhood.
Congress also recognized the importance of preparing adolescents for a productive
life after they exit from public school. These amendments required that each student
have, no later than age 16, an individual transition plan (ITP) as part of their IEP.
This plan allows for a coordinated set of activities and interagency linkages designed to
promote the student’s movement to post-school functions such as independent living,
vocational training, and additional educational experiences.
PL 101-476 also expanded the scope of the related services provision by adding
two services: social work and rehabilitation counseling. Another element of this legis-
lation was the identification of autism and traumatic brain injury as distinct disabil-
ity categories. Previously, these disabilities had been subsumed under other disability
labels. Lastly, Congress repealed states’ immunity from lawsuits for violating IDEA.
This part of the IDEA allows parents and others to sue a state in federal court for non-
compliance with the provisions of the law.
Public Law 105-17 (1997 Amendments to IDEA) After more than two
years of intense and sometimes difficult negotiations, Congress was finally able to pass
a comprehensive revision to IDEA. The IDEA Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA ‘97) was
overwhelmingly supported by both houses of the 105th Congress and was signed into
law by President Bill Clinton on June 4, 1997. This law restructures IDEA into four
parts, revises some definitions, and revamps several key components, ranging from
funding to disciplining students with disabilities to how IEPs are to be developed. Here
are some of the more significant changes:
■ Students with disabilities who bring weapons to school, possess or use illegal drugs, or pose
a serious threat of injury to other pupils or themselves may be removed from their current
placement only after a due process hearing and for no more than 45 days. Students who are
suspended or expelled are still entitled to receive a free appropriate public education in ac-
cordance with their IEP.
■ Pupils with disabilities who exhibit less serious infractions of school conduct may be disci-
plined in ways similar to children without disabilities (including a change in placement)
provided that the misbehavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability.
■ IEPs are now required to state how the student with disabilities will be involved with and
progress in the general education curriculum. Other provisions stipulate that transition plan-
ning will begin at age 14 instead of age 16, general educators will become part of the IEP
team, benchmarks and measurable annual goals will be emphasized, and the assistive tech-
nology needs of each learner must be considered by the IEP team.
■ Orientation and mobility services for children with visual impairments are now included in
the definition of related services.
■ The present mandate of comprehensive triennial reevaluation of pupils with disabilities is
lifted if school authorities and the student’s parents both agree that this process is
unnecessary.
■ A new section on mediation requires states to offer mediation services to help resolve dis-
putes as an alternative to using more costly and lengthy due process hearings. Parental par-
ticipation is voluntary, and parents still retain their right to a due process hearing.
■ The category of developmental delay may now be used when describing children ages 3–9.
The use of this term is at the discretion of the state and local education agency.
■ Initial evaluations and reevaluations are not restricted to the use of formal, standardized
tests. A variety of assessment tools and strategies are to be used in an effort to gather relevant
functional and developmental information. Curriculum-based tests, portfolio reviews, paren-
tal input, and the observations of teachers and related service providers may be considered
in determining whether or not the student has a disability and in developing the content of
the IEP. A student may not be considered eligible for a special education if educational diffi-
culties are primarily the result of limited proficiency in English or lack of adequate instruc-
tion in math and/or reading.
■ The reauthorization of IDEA requires schools to establish performance goals for students
with disabilities in an effort to assess their academic progress. Additionally, these youngsters
are to be included in state- and district-wide assessment programs or given alternative as-
sessments that meet their unique needs.
Educational Reform for Students and Teachers

Over the past decades, there has been a growing movement toward greater educational
accountability, with accompanying calls for educational reform or restructuring result-
ing in enhanced academic excellence. (See, for example, President Clinton’s Goals
2000: Educate America Act of 1994 [PL 103-227].) As a result of this trend, many
states initiated challenging academic standards and more stringent graduation require-
ments for their students, and several professional organizations published performance
indicators in various content areas, such as mathematics, language arts, and science.
Likewise, many state departments of education are moving toward performance-based
standards when establishing teacher licensure/certification requirements thus linking
student success with teacher qualifications. The overall focus of this movement, fueled
by various political, social, and economic forces, was a concern over the learning out-
comes of our students. It is equally concerned with establishing educational equity
among all learners.
Educational standards, which are “general statements of what students should
know or be able to do as a result of their public school education” (Nolet & McLaughlin,
2005, p. 5), are important for a couple of reasons. First, “they are intended,” according
to Nolet and McLaughlin, “to create equity across schools and classrooms in that they
define what all teachers should teach and . . . [they] also define the content that will be
assessed and for which schools will be held accountable” (p. 5). Recent federal legisla-
tion embraces this thinking. The importance attached to standards driven reform is
clearly evident in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

In 2001 Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, popularly
known as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110). This legislation reflected
President Bush’s commitment to educational reform and accountability. A brief syn-
opsis of this ambitious law reveals that eventually all pupils, including those in special
education, were expected to demonstrate proficiency in mathematics, reading, and sci-
ence. Annual testing of children in grades 3–8 was required, with students in grades
10–12 assessed at least once. Schools were expected to show adequate yearly progress
toward the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014. (A small percentage of students
could be excused from participating in state- and district-wide achievement tests if their
IEP provided for their exemption.) Because this law was concerned with the achieve-
ment of all students, test scores were disaggregated according to the pupil’s disability,
socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, and English-language proficiency. The anticipated
benefit of this requirement was that assessment results would directly translate into
instructional accommodations, further aligning special education and general education
into a unified delivery system responsible for serving all learners (Salend, 2016).
This legislation also required that educators incorporate teaching strategies based
evidenced-based practices on systematic and rigorous research, often referred to as evidence-based practices. These
The use of scientifically validated practices involved instructional tactics that have been shown to positively affect student
instructional practices or teaching
strategies that research has
learning and achievement. (See the Web Resources feature for additional information
documented to be effective. about evidence-based practices.)
The intention of the No Child Left Behind Act was to raise expectations for, and the
achievement of, all learners. Schools are now being held accountable for the academic
progress of all of their students. As a result of this law “the progress and performance
Web Resources of students with [and without] disabilities is now a shared responsibility of general and
Representative Web special education teachers” (Cortiella, 2006, p. 10).
Resources: Evidence-
Based Practices
Schools that experienced difficulty attaining the goal of adequate yearly progress
were provided technical and financial assistance. If a school failed to demonstrate ade-
Institute of Education
Sciences What Works quate yearly progress for three consecutive years, the local school district was required
Clearing House, https:// to offer supplemental instructional services such as tutoring, after school classes, and
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ summer programs (Council for Exceptional Children, 2003). Parents of children in “fail-
ing” schools were given the opportunity to transfer their child to another school, includ-
ing private and parochial schools.
In addition to stressing student educational accomplishment, other aspects of this
law required that the public as well as parents be informed of individual school perfor-
mance in addition to the qualifications of teachers. All elementary and secondary school
teachers were expected to be “highly qualified” by the end of the 2005–2006 school
year according to state criteria (Photo 1.4). Rigorous standards were also imposed on
teacher aides.
What are the implications of this law for general as well as special educators? How
competently will students with special learning needs perform in this age of educational
reform and standards-based education? Obviously, PL 107-110 emphasized academic
achievement as measured by student performance on standardized tests. The expecta-
tion seems to be that effective instructional strategies can compensate for a student’s
disability. The enactment of this law ushered in an era of what is now commonly referred
to as “high-stakes testing.” Greater emphasis is being placed on ensuring that pupils in
special education are exposed to the general education curriculum. More attention is
also being focused on aligning IEP goals with the content standards of the general
education curriculum (Council for Excep-
tional Children, 2003). Finally, how colleges
and universities prepare future teachers is
also undergoing significant change in efforts
to ensure that graduates are highly qualified
professionals.
Common Core State Standards

The current focus on exposing students with
disabilities to the general education curricu-
lum is clearly evident in a relatively recent
national education initiative known as the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
kali9/E+/Getty Images
(Common Core State Standards, 2020).

This controversial proposal, put forth by
the National Governors Association and the
Council of Chief State School Officers, refines
the general education curriculum while
establishing a set of grade-level expecta-
tions from kindergarten through the twelfth
PHOTO 1.4 Today’s educators are highly qualified professionals
who are responsible for the academic success of all their pupils. grade that dictate what pupils should know
in mathematics and English language arts in
order to be successful in college and their future careers. The thinking behind this
movement was that some teachers evidence low expectations of their students’ aca-
demic ability, which often results in lower achievement and subsequent failure later
in life. Reform minded educators and policymakers believe, however, that all pupils
(including those with disabilities) should be held to higher performance standards
(Hallahan et al., 2019). Forty-three states as well as the District of Columbia have
adopted the CCSS standards. See Table 1.4 for illustrative examples of representative
standards.
Because these standards apply to all learners, including individuals receiving a spe-
cial education, the work of aligning IEP goals to the CCSS will most likely challenge
many special educators. How does one adapt instruction to meet the unique learning
needs of a student with a disability while also addressing rigorous content standards?
Teachers will need to carefully consider how the pupils’ disability affects their involve-
ment with and progress in the general education curriculum (Constable et al., 2013).
Some learners will require instructional supports with the curriculum presented in mul-
tiple ways which allow for multiple means of expression and engagement. (Recall our
earlier discussion on UDL. Also, see the Teaching All Learners feature in Chapters 4
and 5.) While the restructuring of the general education curriculum with its emphasis
on academic achievement for all learners is most praiseworthy, we believe that it cannot,
nor should it, replace an effective special education program that provides specialized,
individually tailored, and intensive services to individuals with special needs (Zigmonds
& Kloo, 2017).
Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act of 2004
On November 19, 2004, Congress passed legislation reauthorizing the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act. The new version of this law is called the Individu-
als with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, commonly referred to as
IDEA 2004. President George W. Bush signed this bill (PL 108-446) into law on
December 3. Many of the provisions of this legislation became effective on July 1,
2005; some elements of the law became effective, however, on the date the president
signed the bill.
It is safe to say that IDEA 2004 is significantly affecting the professional lives of
both general education teachers and special educators. Parents of children with disabili-
ties are also encountering new roles and responsibilities as a result of this law.
TABLE 1.4 Representative Grade Level Common Core Standards

English Language Arts Literacy Standards
Grade 2: Key Ideas and Details

Ask and answer questions as who, what, where, when, why, and how to demonstrate understanding of key details in a text.
Grade 6: Key Ideas and Details
Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.
Mathematics Standards
Grade 3: Geometry—Reason with Shapes and Their Attributes

Partition shapes into parts with equal areas. Express the area of each part as a unit fraction of the whole. For example,
partition a shape into 4 parts with equal area, and describe the area of each part as ¼ of the area of the shape.
Grade 8: Geometry—Understand and Apply the Pythagorean Theorem
Apply the Pythagorean Theorem to determine unknown side lengths in right triangles in real-world and mathematical
problems in two and three dimensions.
Source: Adapted from Read the Standards. Available at http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Plate 19.
Eggington Church. (Page 109.)
Willington Church.
As the manor of Egginton was divided into two moieties, so was
the rectory. Dr. Charles Cox thus writes, “Early in the reign of Henry
III., the two moieties of the rectory were respectively conveyed to the
newly-founded abbey of Dale by Amalric de Gasci and Geoffrey de
Musters.” In consequence of this division there were two rectors. The
abbots of Dale-Abbey continued to present till the year 1344,
meanwhile the lords of the manor laid claim to it, and, from that time
down to 1712, a series of law-suits were carried on, the result of
which is that at the present time the patronage is in five parts; two
turns belonging to the Everys, two to the Poles, and one to the
Leighs. An account of the various claimants, &c., and a list of the
rectors, will be found in Cox’s Derbyshire Churches, Vol. IV. The
church, dedicated to St. Wilfred, consists of chancel, nave, aisles,
and low west tower. At various times the church has been added to,
but it chiefly belongs to the Decorated period, the tower is
Perpendicular, as are some of the windows. In the south wall of the
south aisle are two recesses, one contains an effigy of a lady,
holding a heart in her hand, supposed to be Elizabeth, co-heiress of
Stafford, wife of William Tymmore. On the walls, and floor of the
chancel are memorial stones, and monuments of the Everys, and
several rectors.
There are three bells, bearing the following inscriptions:
I. “I was recast again to sing

By friends to country, church, and king.
Thomas Hedderley, founder, Nottingham, 1778.”
II. “Ihe. Ave Maria gracia plena Dominus tecum.”
III. “I sweetly toling men do call

To taste of meats that feeds the soole, 1615.”
Bell mark of Henry Oldfield.
The 2nd bell is supposed to be the only one left when the others
were sold for the repairing of Monks’ Bridge. The third bell is of the
same date, and bears the same inscription as the 2nd bell in Repton
Church.
The old Egginton Hall, the seat of the Every family, was destroyed
by fire in the year 1736, and was rebuilt by Sir Edward Every, Bart.,
from designs by Wyatt. In the Hall there are five splendid pieces of
tapestry, made at Gobelin’s, in Paris, by order of Sir Henry Every,
who died in 1709, before the order was completed. Four exhibit
emblematic devices of the four elements, earth, air, fire and water,
and armorial bearings, in each compartment.
Earth is represented by Ceres (Demeter) in her chariot in a
garden, with fountains in the background. By the side of the chariot
stands her daughter Persephone, wearing a mural crown. Lions and
other wild beasts occupy the foreground, the bordering is composed
of fruit and flowers.
Air is represented by Jupiter and Juno throned on the clouds.
Boreas blowing up a storm in the background, birds, storks, pelicans,
&c., occupy the foreground.
Fire is represented by Vulcan working at his forge, attended by
Venus and Cupid, at the back is a cave with a furnace in its
recesses. Weapons, and instruments of metal form a bordering.
Water is represented by Neptune and Amphitrite, in a chariot
drawn by sea-horses. The bordering is composed of seaweed,
shells, coral, &c.
The fifth hanging has a representation of Venus, with a little Cupid
standing before her, and has a pretty bordering of flowers,
landscapes, and medallions bearing symbolical emblems, coats-of-
arms, adorn the sides of the hanging. Le Brun, the famous director of
paneling at the Gobelin’s, is supposed to have designed the tapestry.
For many years the hangings were locked up in “a great chest at
Hodges’s, the coachmaker, in Chandos Street,” where they
remained till 1750, thus escaping the fire of 1736, they were set up
about the year 1760. In March, 1644, there was an engagement on
Egginton Heath, between the Royalists and Parliamentarians, when
both sides claimed the victory.
STRETTON.
Stretton is a little village about 3½ miles from Repton. Its name is
derived from the Latin strata, a street, and as the old Roman Icknield
Street passes close to it no doubt that had something to do with its
name. Within the last two years it has become noted to all who take
an interest in churches, and works of art. Following the good
example of his partners Bass and Ratcliff, and other successful
brewers, John Gretton, father of the M.P. for South Derbyshire, has
built a most beautiful church in his native village.
It consists of nave with aisles, central tower over the choir, and
chancel. The east end of the south aisle is separated from it by an
arch and a stone screen, with wrought iron gates, and forms a small
chapel.
The east end of the north aisle is used as an organ chamber, with
vestries for the clergy and choir behind it.
A cross, bearing an appropriate inscription, marks the site of the
former church, a little to the south of the present one. No expense
was spared in the construction of the church, and the greatest praise
is due to the founder, architect, (Mr. J. T. Micklethwaite), builder, (Mr.
Halliday of Stamford), and all concerned in the erection of one of the
finest village churches in England.
Where everything is so well done, it may seem unnecessary to call
attention to anything in particular, but the unusual beauty of design
and material of the font, (Frostely marble,) surmounted by its ornate
canopy of oak, the splendidly carved chancel screen, surmounted by
a cross of exceptional size and beauty, (the work of Mr. J. E. Knox,
of Kennington), the stone screen of the little south chapel, the
reredos, of marble and alabaster, in the chancel, the oak seats in the
nave, the choir stalls, the organ case and pulpit, the pavement of the
choir and sanctuary, and the furniture generally call for more than a
passing glance. In the chancel are three stained glass windows,
symbolizing our Lord in His glory, &c., by Sir William Richmond. The
tapestry in the chancel was designed by the late William Morris. The
roof of the chancel is decorated with angels playing and singing
“Gloria in excelsis,” the nave roof is also painted from designs by Mr.
Charles Powell, of London.
TUTBURY.
Sir Oswald Mosley, in his History of the Castle, Priory, and Town of
Tutbury, suggests that the name is derived from Tuisco, a Saxon
idol. At the Norman Conquest the town and castle were granted to
Hugh de Abrincis, who held them for a time till he acquired the
estates, &c., of the Earls of Chester, when the King conferred
Tutbury on Henry de Ferrariis or Ferrers, who was one of the
commissioners appointed to make the Domesday Survey. He rebuilt
and extended the Castle, and founded the Priory.
His descendant, Robert de Ferrers, joined Leicester in a rebellion
against King Henry III., which ended in Robert being fined £50,000.
Unable to pay so large a sum, he forfeited his estates to the King,
who granted them to his son Edmund, 1st Earl of Lancaster.
Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, was attainted and beheaded after
the battle at Boroughbridge, a.d. 1322. Tutbury Castle fell into a
state of ruin, and remained so till John of Gaunt, 4th son of Edward
III., rebuilt it. The only parts of this castle now remaining, are the
gateway, and the apartments on the north side which were occupied
by Mary, Queen of Scots, from January to December, 1585. Her son,
James I., often visited the Castle, “not,” as Sir Oswald writes, “to
indulge melancholy reflections, but to gratify an occasional delight
which he took in the diversion of hunting. His feelings were not much
affected when he surveyed the late abode of his unfortunate mother,
for extreme sensibility was not one of his foibles.”
King Charles I. also paid several visits to it, and in 1642 the Castle
was garrisoned for him, and placed under the command of Lord
Loughborough. After many privations, the garrison, at last, yielded
up the Castle on April 20th, 1646. By a vote on the 19th of July,
1647, the House of Commons ordered that “it should forthwith be
rendered untenable.” Its walls enclose a space of about three acres.
On the elevated mound, at its west side, the Julius Tower used to
stand, now its site is occupied by an artificial ruin. A deep moat or
foss surrounds three sides. Within the walls was a chapel, dedicated
to St. Peter, the site of which cannot now be found.
The Priory of Tutbury was founded by Henry de Ferrers, a.d. 1080,
and occupied the north side of the present church, which belonged
to it. On the 14th of September, 1538, it was surrendered into the
hands of King Henry VIII., when its revenue was valued at £242.
15s. 3d. All the Priory buildings were pulled down, with the exception
of the magnificent Norman nave and west end doorway of the Priory
church, which now form the present parish church.
The town is situated on the west bank of the river Dove, which
used to drive several corn and cotton spinning mills.
To John of Gaunt, Tutbury owed two of its ancient institutions, viz.:
—The Minstrel’s Court and Bull Baiting. The Minstrel’s Court was
held every year on the day after the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, being the 16th of August, to elect a king of the minstrels,
to try those who had been guilty of misdemeanours during the year,
and grant licences for the coming year. Various, very curious
customs were observed, which will be found in “The Book of Days,”
Vol. II., p. 224. The old horn, bearing the arms of John of Gaunt,
impaled with Ferrers arms, on a girdle of black silk, adorned with
buckles of silver, is now in the possession of the Bagshawes of Ford
Hall, Chapel-en-le-Frith.
The Bull Baiting is supposed to have been introduced, in imitation
of the Spanish bull-fights, by John of Gaunt, who assumed the title of
King of Castile and Leon, in right of his wife. A bull was granted by
the Prior of Tutbury, the poor beast’s horns were sawn off, his ears
and tail cut off, and his nose filled with pepper. Then the minstrels
rushed after the maddened beast, and if they could cut off a portion
of hair or skin before it crossed the river Dove, it belonged to the
Minstrels, if it escaped it was returned to the Prior. The proceedings
led to very great rows, and many returned home with broken heads,
&c. In 1778 the Duke of Devonshire abolished the whole
proceedings.
Plate 20.
Etwall Church. (Page 116.)
Etwall Hospital. (Page 119.)

In 1831 some workmen, digging gravel out of the bed of the river,
about thirty yards below the bridge, four or five feet below the
surface of the gravel, discovered “upwards of 300,000 valuable
coins,” which Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster, lost, together with his
baggage, when he was attempting to cross the river, in flood. For five
hundred years the coins, consisting of English, French, and Scottish
pieces, had remained hidden below the bed of the river.
The chief attractions at Tutbury are the Castle, Church, and Glass-
Works.
ETWALL AND ITS HOSPITAL.

Etwall is about four miles north-west from Repton, and six miles
from Derby.
The manor belonged to Henry de Ferrers at the making of
Domesday Survey, and included the lordships of Bearwardcote (its
old moated farm-house remains), and Burnaston. Etwall was for a
time in the possession of the Shirley family. In the year 1370 it was
conveyed to the Abbey of Beauvale in Nottinghamshire. In 1540,
King Henry VIII. granted the manor, together with the impropriate
rectory, and the advowson of the vicarage, to Sir John Porte, Knight,
one of the Justices of the King’s Bench, father of Sir John, the
founder of Repton School.
The church was granted by Roger de Pont l’Evêque, Archbishop of
York, (1154-1181), to the Abbey of Beauvale or Welbeck, and
belonged to it till it was granted to Sir John Porte, from whom,
through his son Sir John, it passed to Elizabeth, his eldest daughter
and heiress, who married Sir Thomas Gerard, Bart., of Bryn, County
Lancaster, “who, on account of his adherence to the Roman Catholic
faith, and alleged complicity in a plot for the release of Mary, Queen
of Scots, was imprisoned in the Tower of London, as a recusant,
during the years 1567-70, and again from September, 1586, to
August, 1588, when he was removed for some months to an inferior
jail, called the ‘Counter,’ in Wood Street.” Sir William Gerard,
grandson of Sir Thomas, sold the estate, and the advowson of the
vicarage, in 1641, to Sir Edward Moseley, who, five years later, sold
it to Sir Samuel Sleigh, whose co-heiresses Margaret and Mary, by
his second and third wives, married James Chetham, and Rowland
Cotton, of Bellaport, Shropshire, the descendants of Rowland still
live at Etwall Hall.
The church, dedicated to St. Helen, consists of nave, chancel,
north aisle, south porch, and a low embattled tower at its west end.
Originally the nave was separated from the north aisle by an arcade
of four semicircular Norman arches, supported by round piers with
indented capitals, the two arches, nearest the east end, have been
thrown into one, and a pointed arch substituted. The chancel is Early
English, but most of the church, including the tower, has been rebuilt
in the Perpendicular style. The chancel window of three stained
glass lights, representing the Crucifixion, is flanked by two small
square windows, a very unusual arrangement, they are also filled
with stained glass bearing the arms of the Sees of Canterbury and
Southwell. At the east end of the north aisle is the Porte chapel,
fitted up with carved seats and a reading desk for the use of the
“master and poor men” of the Hospital. The seats used to be
between the belfry and north door, and the Porte chapel partitioned
off from the nave. Early in the century the partition was taken down,
and the seats removed to their present position. Built on to the east
end of the north aisle is the Cokburne’s memorial chapel, which
blocks up the east window of the Porte chapel. Two of the
Cokburnes were Vicars of Etwall, their chapel was built about the
year 1830, it contains several mural tablets, and is now used as a
vestry.
Since Dr. Cox wrote his account of the church, a much needed
restoration has taken place. The galleries at the west end, and the
plaster ceiling, have been removed, and new seats, of pitchpine,
pulpit, prayer desk, &c., have taken the place of the old ones.
There are several monuments in memory of the Porte family. The
oldest one is a brass in memory of Henry Porte, and Elizabeth his
wife, and used to be on the floor of the chapel. It has been taken up,
and used to block up a door on the north side of the chancel. Only
the matrix of the brass of Henry is left, but his wife, clad in
conventual dress adopted by widows, and his children, nine sons
and eight daughters, remain. At the upper corners of the brass are
two shields, one bearing a figure of our Lord, with the “orbs mundi” in
His left hand, and the other the Blessed Virgin, and Child. Of the two
shields at the bottom one bears the arms of Porte, the other has
been taken away. Below, on a brass scroll, is an inscription:—
“Orate pro an̄ abus Henrici Porte, et Elizabeth ūxis ejus, qui
quidem Henricus obiit in festo Sc̄ i Thomæ Marturis.
Anno Dn̄ i M. V. duodecimo quorum an̄ abus propitietur
Deus.”
“Under the arche that is bytwene the chancell and the chapell,
where I and my wyff had used commonly to knele,” so did Sir John
Porte, justice of the King’s Bench, by will dated January 19th, 1527,
order that his body should be buried. Over the grave a monument
was erected, on which rest the effigies of Sir John, and his two
wives, Jane, daughter and heiress of John Fitzherbert of Etwall, and
Margaret, daughter of Sir Edward Trafford. The tomb has been much
mutilated, the heads of Sir John and one of his wives have been
knocked off. He wears his robes of office, with a collar and pendant.
On the north side of the monument are shields bearing the arms of
Porte impaling Fitzherbert, on the south Porte impaling the quartered
coat of Trafford. The Porte motto, “Intende prospere,” is frequently
repeated on the cornice above, and the various emblems of the
Passion are carved among the other decorations of the monument.
Built against the south wall of the chancel is “the comely and
handsome tomb of pure marble” of Sir John Porte, Knt., son of
Justice Porte by his first wife Jane. “Set and fixed, graven in brass,”
are portraits of Sir John, his two wives, (Elizabeth, daughter of Sir
Thomas Gifford, of Chillington, and Dorothy, daughter of Sir Anthony
Fitzherbert), and his five children, two boys and three girls, all by his
wife, Elizabeth.
Above the tomb, on a square slab, is a shield bearing the arms of
Porte, surmounted by helmet and crest. On the tomb, at the top left-
hand corner, a shield Porte, impaling quarterly of Gifford and
Montgomery, in the right-hand corner Porte impaling quarterly of the
two Fitzherbert coats. Below, set in three quatrefoils, are three
shields, (1) Porte, (2) Porte impaling Gifford and Montgomery, (3)
quarterly of four, Stanhope, Maloval, Longvillers, and Lexington
impaling Porte and Montgomery.
Below the figure is the following inscription:—
“Under thys tombe lyeth buryed the Boodye of Syr John Porte Knyght sonne and
heyre unto Syr John Porte one of the Justyces of ye Kyngs Benche at Westmynstʳ
Elsebeth & Dorothe wyves to the same Sʳ John Porte the sonne whych sonne
dyed the syrt day of June Anno Dni 1557.”
Etwall Hall came into lay hands after the dissolution of

monasteries. It is a very plain building, built, or rather faced, with
stone brought from the ruins of Tutbury Castle. Nothing worth
seeing, but, for those who admire tapestry, there are two beautiful
pieces. One representing a garden scene, with a pagoda-like
building, columns, flowers, fruit and Cupids. At the bottom the
goddess Diana and other figures. Another piece represents scenes
in the life of King David: playing before Saul, Battle scene, Marriage
with Bathsheba. The border consists of a series of figures, chiefly
ladies, with dogs, fruit, and flowers.
ETWALL HOSPITAL.
Etwall Hospital was founded by Sir John Porte. By Will, dated

March 9th, 1556, he directed “that six of the poorest of Etwall parish
shall have weekly, for ever, 20d. apiece over and besides such
lodgings as he or his executors should provide for them in an
almshouse, to be built in or near the churchyard of Etwall, and that
the money so to be paid to the said poor should be had and received
out of the lands and tenements thereinafter limited for the
performance of his Will.” These lands, &c., were in Moseley,
Abraham, and Brockhurst, in the County of Lancaster. The Hospital
was built as directed. In 1622, (by letters patent, dated 20 June, 19
Jac. I.), owing to the improvements of the lands, &c., and
consequent increase of funds, the number of poor men was raised to
twelve, and a Master of the Hospital was appointed at a salary of
£20. per annum. It was also ordered that “every day twice the poor
men should repair to the church at Etwall, and there continue all the
time of divine service, and sermon, if any, except for some just cause
to be allowed by the master, and should receive the sacrament three
times every year at the least; ... and that every one of them should
have for their stipend or allowance for every week 2s. 6d., to be paid
to them monthly.” The original building having fallen into decay, the
present building was erected in the year 1681. Built on three sides of
a square, on the north side of Etwall churchyard, from which it is
separated by iron rails and a low wall, the Hospital consisted of
twelve rooms and a lodge, where the Master resided, (i.e., a room in
the north-west corner, (No. 5),) till 1812, when the “Master’s Lodge”
was built, about half of a mile away, on the road to Willington. A
nurse used to live in the room, which has its entrance from the back
yard, at the north-east corner, where there is a washhouse, &c., her
duties were to nurse, cook, and wash for the almsmen who had no
wives. This room is now occupied by an almsman, the nurse, if there
is one, living elsewhere.
Over the door in the centre of the north side is the following
inscription:
“Sʳ John Port, Knight, son of Sʳ John Port, one of the

Justices of the Court of King’s Bench, haueing by his last Will
left an Estate for the Erection and Endowment of a Free
Schole at Repton and an Hospital in this place, departed this
Life June VI. MDLVII. the which Foundations hauveing been
accordingly established, this Hospitall, through length of time
falling to decay, was rebuilt, the Sallary’s increased, the Alms
Men augmented from VI. to XII. The Right Honourable
Theophilus Earle of Huntingdon, the Right Honourable Philip
Earle of Chesterfield, and Sʳ William Gerrard, Barronet,
Heires Generall to the Founder, being Governors,
MDCLXXXI.”
Over the inscription are three shields, containing the arms of the
governors, quartering, or otherwise impaling, those of Sir John Porte,
over these the shield of Sir John.
The almsmen used to wear blue cloth gowns, with a silver badge
on the shoulder, bearing the arms of Sir John.
In 1825 the number of “poor men” was increased to sixteen, and
the four rooms were added on the east side of the Hospital.
List of Masters.
YEAR.
1622- [2] Rev. John Jennings, M.A.
1657
1657- [2] Rev. John Jackson, M.A.
1691
1692- [2] Rev. Ellis Cunliffe, M.A., Jesus Coll., Cambridge,
1712 Fellow, B.A., 1671, M.A., 1675.
1713- [2] Rev. James Cheetham, D.D.
1740
1740- [2] Rev. Henry Mainwaring, M.A., St. John’s Coll.,
1746 Cambridge, B.A., 1732, M.A., 1736.
1746- [2] Rev. Samuel Burslem, M.A.
1785
1785- Rev. Joseph Turner, M.A.
1809
1809- Rev. William Beer, M.A.
1821
1821- Rev. John Chamberlayne, M.A., Formerly 2nd
1832 Master of Repton School.
1832- Rev. William Boultbee Sleath, D.D., Formerly
1842 Headmaster of Repton School.
1842- [2] Rev. William Eaton Mousley, M.A., Trinity College,
1863 Cambridge, B.A., 1839, M.A., 1842.
1863- Rev. John Morewood Gresley, M.A.
1866
1866 [2] Rev. David Crawford Cochrane, M.A., Trinity
College, Dublin, B.A., 1857, M.A., 1860. Ox.
Com. Caus. 1861.
FOREMARK AND ANCHOR CHURCH.

Foremark, or Fornewerke, as it was called in Domesday Book,
when it belonged to Nigel de Stafford. After passing through the
hands of various families, it finally belonged to the Verdons, through
the Verdons to Sir Robert Francis, who purchased it from them. The
heiress of Sir Robert Francis married Thomas Burdett, Esq., of
Bramcote, created a baronet in 1618, and it still belongs to that
family. It and Ingleby are mentioned as Chapels of Repton as early
as the thirteenth century. In 1650 a report was made by
Parliamentary Commissioners, from which we gather that Ingleby
was to be disused, and Foremark made the parish church. Owing to
the ruinous state of both chapels, Foremark was rebuilt, and Ingleby
was demolished, its wood and stone were used to build the bell-
tower and churchyard wall of Foremark. On the Feast of St. Matthew,
1662, the new chapel was consecrated by Bishop Hacket.
The position of Ingleby Church, and the reason why it was not
restored, have been clearly pointed out, in a letter, to Dr. Cox, by Mr.
C. S. Greaves, Q.C., “the chapel of Ingleby stood at the corner of a
field, bounded by the road through the village on one side, and by a
wall of a farm-yard on the other, occupied in my time by Browne. It
was the nearest farmyard to Derby. The course of the walls was
plainly indicated by the raised ground where they had stood. When
the present church (of Foremark) was in contemplation, the then
Baronet (Sir Robert Burdett) told the inhabitants that if they would
draw the stone for the church, he would build it wherever they liked;
but if they would not, he would build it where he liked. They refused,
and accordingly it was built where it was most convenient for the
Hall, and most inconvenient for Ingleby.” See Addenda, Derbyshire
Churches, Vol. IV., p. 530.
Dedicated to St. Saviour, the chapel consists of nave, chancel,
and west tower, in the later Perpendicular style. The chancel is
separated from the nave by a high oak screen, glazed with large
sheets of glass. The altar, a large slab of grey marble, supported by
a wooden table, is, according to Dr. Charles Cox (from whose “Notes
on the Churches of Derbyshire” these particulars have been taken),
the one consecrated by Bishop Hacket. There are four five-light
windows in the east end, and sides of the chapel. A gallery was
erected in 1819.
In the bell-tower are four bells bearing the bell-mark of George
Oldfield with the following inscriptions:—
I. “Let God arise and his enemies bee scattered. 1668.”

II. “Saint Savior. 1668.”
III. “All glory bee to God on high. Saint Saviours.”
IV. “God save his Church. 1660.”
To the east of the church is Foremark Hall, it occupies the site of

the old hall, “the seat of the Francis family, it was a long, low, half-
timbered structure, with a garden occupying about two acres, in the
centre of which was a large dove-cote.”
In the year 1755 the present Hall was built. To the south-west of
the Hall, in a secluded dell, is a ruined house called “Knowl Hills.”
Bigsby says it was erected by Walter Burdett, younger son of Sir
Robert Burdett, Bart., the first possessor of Foremark. Until the
erection of the Hall it was occupied by another Sir Robert Burdett,
Bart. Then a greater portion of this singularly beautiful retreat was
destroyed, but a grove of beech and lime trees still afford a grateful
shade on a lawn where, during the summer months, “parties” are, or
used to be held. There are also some very curious cellars excavated
in the red sandstone rock beneath.
ANCHOR CHURCH.
About two miles to the east of Repton the level meadow-land of

the Trent valley suddenly rises and forms a perpendicular bank,
composed of conglomerate rock, with bands of sandstone. The
Trent, which used to flow close to the bank, now flows at some
distance away, the old course is still indicated by a pool of sedge-
girdled water, (close in front of the rock,) which joins the river a little
lower down. The face of the rock is irregular and broken into
picturesque bays, with ivy-covered fissures between them, the whole
crowned with trees, brushwood, and bracken.
Here, ages ago, an Anchorite is supposed to have scooped out of
the rock an oratory and a dwelling, similar to that in Deepdale, (Dale
Abbey). Here he dwelt, far from the haunts of men, in quietness and
solitude. Who he was? who made it? and when? are questions that
can never be answered, the only reference to it is found in the
Repton Church Register under the year 1658. “Ye foole at Anchor
Church bur Aprill 19.” In later days it became the favourite retreat of
Sir Robert Burdett, who had it fitted up so that he and his friends
could dine within its cool, and romantic cells. It has been enlarged at
various times, at present it consists of a series of four cells.
Admittance is gained through an arched door-way, the first cell has
been divided into two by a brick wall, plastered over, a small one on
the right hand (10 ft 6 in. by 6 ft. 6 in.) with a small window, and a
larger one (13 ft. by 12 ft. 6 in.) with a window in front, and two
semicircular recesses at the back; between this and the next cell two
arch-ways have been made through the rock, with a pillar between
them, also of rock, this cell is 17 ft. 6 in. by 13 ft. 6 in., and also has
two similar recesses; through another arch the last cell is reached
(18 ft. by 17 ft.), this has three recesses, and two windows. The
ground plan is semicircular, so that the last cell projects some
distance out, and affords most extensive views of the valley of the
Trent, and the country to the north and west, including Twyford and
Repton. A little distance to the west is another cell (6 ft. by 4 ft.)
commonly known as the Anchorite’s “larder.”
The best way to get to the “Church” is, after passing in front of
Foremark Hall, and through a gate which blocks the road, to mount
the hill, and enter a field through the first gate on the left hand, cross
the field diagonally till a grassy glade is reached, which leads down
to a wicket gate on the right, the entrance to the “Church.”
MELBOURNE AND BREEDON.

Melbourne was in very ancient times a royal manor, and is
mentioned in the Domesday Survey as having a priest and a church.
It remained in royal hands, attached to the Earldom and Duchy of
Lancaster, till the year 1604, when King James I. granted it to
Charles, Earl of Nottingham, who conveyed it to Henry, Earl of
Huntingdon, from whom it descended to Francis, Marquis of
Hastings, now represented by the Earl of Loudoun. There used to be
a castle here, in which John, Duke of Bourdon, was imprisoned for
19 years, after his capture at the battle of Agincourt, in 1415. Queen
Margaret, wife of Henry VI., is said to have ordered it to be
dismantled in 1460, and it gradually fell into decay, only a few traces
of it can now be seen.
Plate 21.
Breedon Church. (Page 125.)
Melbourne Church. (Page 125.)

The name Melbourne is derived from Mael-burn, two Anglo-Saxon
words meaning the “brook of the Cross.” A tradition exists that a
cross was erected by the side of the brook, which runs on the south
side of the town, to commemorate the murder of Osthryth, Queen of
Ethelred, King of Mercia (675-704). Later on a small church was
erected over the spot, which was replaced by the present one, “one
of the finest and most interesting Norman churches in England—and
the earliest date we are inclined to assign to its commencement is
circa 1090.” Originally the church consisted of nave with side aisles,
central tower, with north and south transepts, three apses at the
east, two western towers, with a recessed doorway between them.
Galleries, supported by groined stone roof over the western portico,
extended over both aisles and central tower, two spiral stone stairs in
the western towers led up to the galleries. Five “horseshoe” arches,
ornamented with chevron or zizag mouldings, resting on round
pillars, 4 ft. in diameter, and 15 ft. high, separate the nave from the
aisles, the capitals are square, with slightly indented mouldings. The
triforium on the north side has triple round arches, that on the south,
of later date, has double pointed arches. The central tower, on the
inner sides, is divided into three tiers of semi-circular arches. The
three apses at the east end were removed probably during the reign
of Henry VII. A square end was then made, and is lit by a five-light
Perpendicular window. The apse arches in the transepts were built
up and a three-light Decorated window was placed in the south, and
a three-light Perpendicular window was placed in the north transept.
Later alterations and additions have been made which certainly have
not added to the beauty of the church, but, in spite of these, the
church remains, as Dr. Cox writes, “one of the finest and most
interesting Norman churches in England,” and well worth a visit.
In the year 1132 Henry I. founded the bishopric of Carlisle, and
granted the church to it as one of its endowments. The bishops built
a palace at the east end of the church, where they lived occasionally.
Melbourne Hall, built on the site of the palace by Sir Thomas Coke,
Chamberlain to Queen Anne, possesses one of the most beautiful
gardens in the kingdom, laid out in the old Dutch style, it affords a
favourite place of resort to many who visit its sylvan retreats during
the summer months. They are open to the public on Wednesday
afternoons.
About a mile from Melbourne is the village of King’s Newton with
its picturesque ruin, the remains of an Elizabethan Hall, the ancient
residence of the Hardinge family. About thirty-five years ago it was
burnt down. King Charles I. is said to have been entertained here by
Sir Robert Hardinge. After the King’s departure, some lines were
discovered written on a pane of glass, and signed “Carlos, Newton
Regis,” which accounts for the name. The view from the terrace is a
very extensive one, over the valley of the Trent, with Derby and the
high lands of the Peak district in the distance.
Breedon village is about two miles and a quarter from Melbourne,
it lies at the foot of a singular looking hill which rises suddenly out of
the plain. While all round is marl and sandstone, this hill is composed
of mountain lime-stone. Rising to a height of about one hundred and
fifty feet, it is seen for miles round, and is known as “the Bulwark,”
and was once an ancient camp. Its sides have been quarried, and
lime kilns at its base, when at work, do not improve the air. On its
summit is a church, all that remains of a Priory of Austin Canons,
built in Norman times. There is a legend which accounts for its
exposed position. It is said that evil spirits interfered with its erection
at the foot of the hill, and removed the foundations as often as they
were laid. In vain were exorcising prayers offered up, what was done
in the day was removed at night, so the materials were carried up to
the top, and the church was allowed to be built, in it have been laid
to rest members of the Ferrers, Curzons, and Shakespear families.
The Ferrers’ pew, separated from the church by iron bars,
surmounted by large escutcheons, is a rare example of the luxury,
selfishness, and exclusiveness which animated the feelings of “the
quality” in bygone times.
MICKLE-OVER, FINDERNE AND POTLAC OR

POTLOCK.

Teaching in Todays Inclusive Classrooms A Universal Design For Learning Approach 4Th Edition Richard M Gargiulo Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching in Todays Inclusive Classrooms A Universal Design For Learning Approach 4Th Edition Richard M Gargiulo Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Teaching in Today's Inclusive

Classrooms: A Universal Design for

Australia ● Brazil ● Canada ● Mexico ● Singapore ● United Kingdom ● United States

Digital Delivery Quality Partner: Beth Ross

Product Marketing Manager: Ian Hamilton

IP Analyst: Ashley Maynard Library of Congress Control Number: 2021912775

IP Project Manager: Anjali Kambli, Lumina

Production Service: MPS Limited

Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning solutions with employ-

To learn more about Cengage platforms and services, register or access

Notice to the Reader

Richard M. Gargiulo is professor emeritus of special education in the Depart-

Part 1 Foundations for Educating All Learners

Chapter 2 Introducing Universal Design for Learning 31

Chapter 3 Policies, Practices, and Processes for Special Education

Chapter 4 Diversity in the Classroom: Learners with High Incidence Disabilities 79

Part 2 Planning Instruction for All Learners

Chapter 8 Designing Learning That Works for All Students 190

Chapter 9 Assessing and Evaluating Learner Progress 226

Chapter 10 Selecting Instructional Strategies for Teaching All Learners 252

Chapter 11 Selecting Behavioral Supports for All Learners 287

Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices

Chapter 13 Creating Literacy-Rich Environments for All Learners 344

Chapter 14 Developing an Understanding of Mathematics in All Learners 382

Appendix A InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards 459

Part 1 Foundations for Educating All Learners

Teaching All Learners Assessment Etiology of Speech and Language Impairments 94

Chapter 5 Disabilities, Health Disabilities, or Traumatic

Part 2 Planning Instruction for All learners

Chapter 7 Teacher Voices Creating the Right Learning

Key Concepts and Terms 189 Alternate Assessments 228

Summative Assessments 239 Considering Specific Learning Domains in

Maintenance 255 Assessment of Behavior 293

Collaborating with Parents 311 Thematic Summary 316

Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices

Fostering Literacy Collaboration 379

UDL Lesson Planning with Differentiated Looking at the Standards 458

TEACHING ALL LEARNERS

UDL IN THE CLASSROOM

Richard and Debbie

Why This Book?

Our Goals and Approach

Accompanying Teaching and Learning Resources

Online Instructor’s Manual

PowerPoint Lecture Slides

Cengage Learning Testing Powered by Cognero

Reviewers of the fourth edition: Deborah Webster, Cleveland State

Reviewers of the first edition: Maurice Miller, Indiana State University

■ Identify the various types of learners in today’s classrooms.

Learners in Today’s Classrooms Introducing Universal Design for Learning

TEACHING ALL LEARNERS

Learners in Today’s Classrooms

Learners in Need of Special Services

TABLE 1.1 Federal Definitions of Disabilities

TABLE 1.1 Federal Definitions of Disabilities (continued)

By the Numbers: A Quick Look

Placement Options for Educating

unique needs of the student with disabilities. It is

annually monitors the various settings in which pupils

Other A Cascade of Service

Part-time special class

Regular classroom plus

FIGURE 1.2 A Traditional View of Service Delivery Options

Chapter 3 Policies, Practices, and Processes for Special Education

Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices

Part 3 Implementing Effective Instructional Practices