involvement and progress in the general curriculum for ... · ment; (b) lead to increased...

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

Involvement and Progress in the General Curriculum forStudents With Extensive Support Needs: K–12 Inclusive-

Education Research and Implications for the Future

Diane Ryndak, Lewis B. Jackson, and Julia M. White

Abstract

Since the passage of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, educationalservices for students with extensive support needs (e.g., intellectual disability, autism,multiple disabilities) have been constantly evolving, with at least three overlapping waves ofinquiry and practice. In this article we describe extant research, debate, and commentaryrelated to involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensivesupport needs, and we discuss implications for future research, policy, and practice related toinclusive education. The article begins with an exploration of some key concepts related tothe general curriculum, capturing some of the field’s diverse thinking about what constitutesfree appropriate public education. Then we examine selected research findings, debates, andcommentaries, organized around four key components of education: instructional context,curriculum content, assessment and accountability, and long-term student outcomes. Finally,we offer some overall observations about the state of extant research and implications forfuture research, policy, and practice related to involvement and progress in the generalcurriculum for students with extensive support needs in inclusive general-education contexts.

Key Words: Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975; public education; long-term studentoutcomes

Stimulated by the Free Appropriate Public Edu-cation mandate of the Education of All Handi-capped Children Act of 1975, educational servicesfor students with extensive support needs (e.g.,intellectual disability, autism, multiple disabilities)have been constantly evolving, with the fieldexperiencing at least three overlapping waves ofinquiry and practice that reflect different lines ofresearch, debate, and commentary. Some of theearliest research efforts and commentary withinthe field focused on the learning capabilities ofstudents with extensive support needs and theirpotential to benefit from educational services(Blatt, 1981; Haring & Brown, 1976, 1977; Sontag,Burke, & York, 1973). In this first of three waves,as research findings led to a clear affirmation thatall human beings possess learning potential, andthat the federally mandated free appropriate

public education could not be denied a studentbased on the severity of his or her disability, thefield developed a vision that interpreted educa-tional benefit as related to each student’s success-ful functioning in life. Out of these discussionscame the concept of the criterion of ultimatefunctioning (L. Brown, Nietupski, & Hamre-Nietupski, 1976), stipulating that educationalservices should focus on observable outcomesthat enhance each student’s acquisition and use ofskills he or she is projected to need to participatefully and as independently as possible in life.Typically, these skills have been interpreted asrequirements for living as an adult in our society(Ford et al., 1989; Neel & Billingsley, 1989). Theresearch generated by this thinking resulted in aclear demonstration that students with extensivesupport needs benefit from educational services,

28 Inclusive Education

and offered guidance related to providing themeffective educational services (Browder et al.,2007; Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, &Shrikanth, 1997).

Evidence that educational services were ofbenefit to students with extensive support needsled to a second and much more extensive wave ofresearch addressing the effectiveness of the educa-tional services provided, comprised of threeseparate lines of inquiry. The first line of inquiryfocused on how to teach students with extensivesupport needs—that is, instructional strategies thatwere effective in meeting the students’ learningneeds (Ault, Wolery, Doyle, & Gast, 1989;Billingsley & Romer, 1983; Wolery & Schuster,1997). This resulted in the identification of avariety of instructional strategies (e.g., promptingprocesses, task structuring strategies, consequationstrategies; see Cipiani & Spooner, 1994; Wolery,Ault, & Doyle, 1992). The second line of inquiryfocused on what to teach students with extensivesupport needs—that is, instructional content thatwas meaningful and socially valid (see Ryndak &Alper, 1996; Snell, 1987). This resulted in twoinitial approaches to determining what to teach:(a) the use of the curriculum content provided forstudents without disabilities who were performingat the same developmental level (Williams &Gotts, 1977); and (b) the use of an ecologicalapproach to determine the environments in whichan individual student spends time, the activitiesthat occur in those environments, the skills aperson needs to participate in those activities, andthe student’s performance related to the use ofthose skills during those activities (L. Brown et al.,1979). While both of these approaches are stillevident today in educational services for studentswith extensive support needs, the research clearlysupported the ecological approach and theembedding of instruction on developmental skillseither within naturally occurring activities orwithin simulations of those activities. The thirdline of inquiry, where to teach, focused on thecontext in which instruction was effective (L.Brown et al., 1977; Ford et al., 1989). This focuson context and the use of ecologically identifiedfunctional activities on which to provide instruc-tion resulted in studies being conducted both inself-contained special-education contexts and incontexts that naturally occurred in a student’s life,such as general-education classrooms and thecommunity (Collins & Griffen, 1996; Horner &MacDonald, 1993; McDonnell & Ferguson,

1989). Initial research findings about studentoutcomes relevant to context began to indicatethat students with extensive support needs wereacquiring more skills when they received instruc-tion alongside same-age peers who were develop-ing typically (Certo, Brown, Belmore, & Crowner,1977; Vincent & Broom, 1977), and research onparents’ advocacy efforts echoed this finding(Ryndak, Downing, Morrison, & Williams, 1996).

Although these lines of inquiry continue to bepursued today, they are being viewed with adifferent set of lenses in a third wave of researchinfluenced by the passage of the No Child LeftBehind Act of 2001 (2002) and the latestreauthorization of the Education of All Handi-capped Children Act (1975) as the IndividualsWith Disabilities Education Improvement Act(IDEA) of 2004 (2004). This legislation has hadthe effect of refocusing the field on what to teachstudents with extensive support needs (see Weh-meyer, 2006), and research has now shifted tofocus on students’ involvement and progress in:(a) the general curriculum, comprising skills andcontent knowledge appropriate for a student givenhis or her age and the grade level of his or herpeers; and (b) the alternate curriculum, comprisingskills and activities for participation in life duringand after exiting school and skills that arefoundational across life in and out of school(Bouck, 2009; McDonnell & Hunt, in press; Shurr& Bouck, 2013). Although one can see thecontinued influence of the criterion of ultimatefunctioning in much of this literature, differingperceptions of which type of curriculum contentcontributes to a greater capacity for meaningfulparticipation in society have initiated difficultdiscussions about the relative importance of thesediffering types of curriculum for students withextensive support needs (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas,& Sievers, 2011, 2012; Courtade, Spooner,Browder, & Jimenez, 2012). These changes haveled the field once again to question whereinstruction should occur, including discussionsrelated to the complex and dynamic relationshipbetween what to teach and where to teach thatcontent (Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, &Miller, 2007; Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer,2008/09; M. Jameson, McDonnell, Johnson,Riesen, & Shamby, 2007). Finally, inquiry intothese issues has reopened questions about how toteach students with extensive support needs,especially when these students receive theirservices during general-education instructional

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 29

and noninstructional activities and from collabo-rative teams working in general-education contexts(McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Riesen,2002; Ryndak, Lehr, Ward, & DeBevoise, inpress). Although these emerging lines of inquiryaddress the same topics as are found in the secondwave (i.e., what, where, and how to teach), theresearch in this third wave is demonstrablydifferent, having evolved from the legislationmandating involvement and progress in thegeneral curriculum for all students, includingthose with extensive support needs.

In this article we describe extant research,debate, and commentary related to involvementand progress in the general curriculum (i.e.,inclusive education) for students with extensivesupport needs, and we discuss implications forfuture research, policy, and practice. The articlebegins with exploring definitions of some keyconcepts related to the general curriculum, whichcharacterize the field’s diverse thinking todayabout what constitutes a free appropriate publiceducation. Then we examine selected researchfindings, debates, and commentaries, organizedaround four key components of inclusive educa-tion: instructional context, curriculum content;assessment and accountability; and long-termoutcomes for students. Finally, we offer someoverall observations about the state of extantresearch and implications for future research,policy, and practice for students with extensivesupport needs to be involved and progress in thegeneral curriculum in general-education contexts.

Key Concepts Related to the General

Curriculum

Although IDEA mandates that students withdisabilities have ‘‘involvement and progress in thegeneral curriculum’’ (Assistance to States, 2006),much of the literature to date has interpreted‘‘involvement’’ as ‘‘access to the general curricu-lum,’’ with ongoing discussions about whatconstitutes that access (Spooner, Dymond, Smith,& Kennedy, 2006). And although IDEA regula-tions define the general curriculum as ‘‘the samecurriculum as for nondisabled children’’ (Assis-tance to States, 2006), Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson,and Slagor (2007) reported 12 different definitionsof ‘‘access to the general curriculum’’ in theliterature, each differentially representing sevenvariables that were not mutually exclusive. These

variables were access to: (a) information, materials,and the classroom where instruction is delivered;(b) learning; (c) a curriculum aligned with general-education state learning standards; (d) academics;(e) the general-education core curriculum; (f) allexperiences included in general education; and (g)curriculum that extends beyond academics toinclude life skills. In addition to differing defini-tions of access to the general curriculum, theliterature also presents differing perceptions onwhat comprises meaningful assessment, meaning-ful participation in general-education accountabil-ity systems, and meaningful long-term studentoutcomes (McLaughlin, 2010; Sailor, 2008/09;Wehmeyer, 2006).

Shurr and Bouck stated, ‘‘The intention ofaccess to the general curriculum [in federallegislation] . . . was to facilitate high expectationsfor students with disabilities and help elevate thepoor post-school outcomes of students, includingthose with the most severe intellectual disability(IDEA, 2004)’’ (2013, p. 77). They argued that thisintent has led to a ‘‘shifting philosophy in thefield and legislation’’ which is causing tensionamong those holding different views about how,what, and where to teach students with extensivesupport needs, as well as what process to use andwhat outcomes are both desired and expected forstudents with extensive support needs. We agree,and we would contend that this tension is leadingto important discussions and debates in the field,which inevitably will: (a) move the field forwardin terms of curriculum, instruction, and assess-ment; (b) lead to increased expectations for theperformance of students with extensive supportneeds; and (c) result in better long-term outcomes.For this progress to happen, however, we contendthat the field must articulate what is currentlyknown, identify what is not known and what hasnot been studied (e.g., the use of general-education instructional strategies with studentswith extensive support needs), and consider theimplications of these for research, practice, andpolicy. Questions that can guide this inquiryinclude: How should we use inclusive general-education contexts for instruction, and whatshould instruction look like in those contexts?What curriculum content should be taught, andwhat curriculum content should we suspend?What assessment processes should be used tomeasure meaningful progress, and how are thosewho are responsible for instruction held account-able for collecting and using these data to

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


maximize student outcomes? Finally, what out-comes can we anticipate based on the interplay ofinstructional context, curriculum content, andassessment and accountability?

Instructional Context

The research related to where to teach students withextensive support needs is couched in discussionsabout instructional context, which delineates theconditions of student participation and learning inK–12 education. It consists of the coordination ofand interactions among: (a) the settings ofinstruction, including places, times, class compo-sitions, and immersion levels; (b) practices ofinstruction, including those used with all studentsand particular students in a class, natural andarranged peer supports, curriculum and lessonadaptations, provision of specialized intervention,and provision of disability-specific access devices;and (c) the goals, interrelationships, and expertiseamong educational-team members and otheradults who collaborate on instruction. In thissection we examine the extant research, debate,and commentary related to students with extensivesupport needs in each of these three areas andidentify implications for research, policy, andpractice. We recognize that instructional contextalso subsumes the content of instruction; howev-er, because curriculum content so critically defineslearning outcomes within the instructional con-text, we discuss curriculum in the next section.

Settings of InstructionGeneral-education settings are complex environ-ments comprised of numerous variables thatpotentially impact instruction. These variablesinclude the location of instruction (e.g., grade-level class, playground, field-trip sites); the subjectmatter; the age and grade level of the students; andthe heterogeneity or homogeneity of the studentsin a class, in terms of ability levels, languages, andcultures. Additionally, because many studentswith extensive support needs experience alterna-tive instructional arrangements even when there issome involvement in general education (P. Smith,2007), amounts of time in general-educationsettings could be an important determinant ofthe outcomes of instruction (Ryndak, Morrison, &Sommertstein, 1999).

Research exists related to whether general-education settings provide a more effective context

than special-education settings for students withextensive support needs to acquire skills anddevelop peer relationships. Reviews of the limitedavailable research (Copeland & Cosbey, 2008/09;Jackson et al., 2008/09) and commentary (Weh-meyer, 2006) point to an advantage for general-education settings, and there is evidence that self-contained settings might impede or restrictlearning and peer relationships (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Beckstead, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994; Jacksonet al., 2008/09; Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, &Morrison, 1995; Ryndak et al., 1999).

However, the majority of studies on studentswith extensive support needs in general-educationsettings do not compare educational contexts;rather, they employ the general-education settingas a backdrop for examining various instructionalmethods. Hence, the setting is an invariant featureof a study rather than a moderating or mediatingvariable in its own right. Research of this type has,for example, been conducted across ages andgrades in general-education settings focusing onscience (Agran, Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer,2006), math (McDonnell, Mathot-Bucker, Thor-son, & Fister, 2001), geography (Agran et al.,2006), physical education (McDonnell et al.,2001), drama (Ferguson, Meyer, Jeanchild, Juni-per, & Zingo, 1992), and history (McDonnell etal., 2001). These studies contribute to ourknowledge base about the role of setting, becausethey demonstrate that students with extensivesupport needs at differing age and grade levelsacquire general-curriculum content when providedspecific forms of instruction across many types ofgeneral-education settings. These studies, however,do not address in definitive ways questions aboutthe setting per se as a factor affecting instruction.

Practices of InstructionThe identification and development of effectivepractices in general-education settings (e.g., in-structional methods, materials, peer supports, useof specialized adaptations, interventions, andaccess devices) have been vibrant areas of inquiryand commentary in our field for over a decade. Asubstantial part of this literature is not interven-tion research, per se; rather, it comprises how-topapers directed at practitioners. These writingsoften emphasize four broad themes to assistpractitioners: (a) encouraging independence(Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2001); (b) adaptingand augmenting materials and instruction to teachskills and provide curriculum access (Hedeen &

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 31

Ayres, 2002); (c) enhancing peer relationships tosupport learning (Carter & Kennedy, 2006); and(d) supplementing existing class-wide learningopportunities with additional opportunities con-figured to the ecology of the classroom (Downing& Eichinger, 2003).

Extant research on instructional practices ingeneral-education settings reflects these fourthemes. With respect to the theme of encouragingindependence, practices that show promise in-clude: (a) interventions that encourage self-man-agement and self-monitoring (Hughes et al., 2002;Koegel, Harrower, & Koegel, 1999); (b) interven-tions that teach schedule following and utilizepictorial instruction (K. E. Brown & Mirenda,2006; Massey & Wheeler, 2000); and (c) interven-tions that rely on communication augmentationand computer-based or video-based instructionaltechnologies (see, e.g., Hunt, Soto, Maier, Muller,& Goetz, 2002; Thiemann & Goldstein, 2001).Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley (2000) employedsurvey methods to learn from practitioners, familymembers, and university faculty about theirperceptions of effective inclusive practices. Theirfindings identified several practices perceived asuseful that related to the foregoing themes,including augmenting existing general-educationroutines with instruction and materials that blendwith the general-education context, and usinginstructional methods that facilitate supportivepeer relationships. Research on the effectiveness ofembedded instruction, for example augmentingnaturally occurring routines of instruction andusing peers in instruction (see, e.g., J. M. Jameson,McDonnell, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2008; Jime-nez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Johnson,McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004), alsoinforms knowledge of effective inclusive practices.

Organizing both planning and instructionaround the principles for universal design forlearning (UDL; Curry, 2003) could be especiallyinfluential for increasing the extent to whichstudents with extensive support needs are involvedand make progress in the general curriculum ingeneral-education contexts. As observed by Spoon-er et al. (2006), when practices that reflect UDLprinciples are coupled with other recent innova-tions (e.g., self-determination, teaching standards),they provide the foundation for students withextensive support needs to access the generalcurriculum. We believe that expansions in the useof practices that reflect UDL principles, coupledwith differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 1999),

can significantly alter educational services for allstudents, from attempting to remediate andameliorate the effects of disability to creatingcurriculum transparency and access for all stu-dents, including those with extensive supportneeds (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006; McLaugh-lin, 2010). Evidence of UDL’s potential isapparent in research studies that combine lessonaccommodations and material adaptations withvarious strategies of systematic instruction withstudents who have extensive support needs ingeneral-education settings (Copeland, Hughes,Agran, Wehmeyer, & Fowler, 2002; McDonnellet al., 2001)

Educational Teams and CollaborationEffective services for students with extensivesupport needs in general-education settings be-come more likely when collaborative teams ofteachers, paraeducators, parents, administrators,and related service providers work toward com-mon goals. Collaborative practices can: (a) reducethe isolation of special educators and relatedservice providers by fostering relationships withgeneral-education teachers; (b) establish a com-mon set of values and practices concerning theworth and feasibility of serving all students ingeneral-education settings; (c) reconfigure teacherroles and service-provision processes such thatthey are centered on instruction in general-education settings; (d) utilize adult supportprocesses (e.g., classroom paraprofessionals, relat-ed services personnel) with discretion, such thatstudents are not overly supported and naturalsupports can operate unhindered; and (e) create ashared and accountable focus around studentlearning outcomes in the general curriculum(Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012; Hunt, Soto,Maier, & Doering, 2003; Jackson et al., 2000;McDonnell & Hunt, in press; Ryndak et al., inpress; Snell & Janney, 2000).

The practitioner literature is replete withinformation on how special educators can becomebetter collaborators with their general-educationcounterparts (see, e.g., Musti-Rao, Hawkins, &Tan, 2011), and teacher-preparation literaturereflects a focus on preparing teachers for effectivecollaboration (see, e.g., Bradley & Monda-Amaya,2005; McKenzie, 2009; Pugach & Blanton, 2011).Research findings over the last several decadessuggest that one of the most significant advancesthat a team of practitioners can make is to shift itsorientation from an expertise-centered service-

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


provision model to a problem-focused one (Snell& Janney, 2000). This shift in focus has beenreflected in different models for how IEP teamsshould operate, specifically the evolution frommultidisciplinary teams that placed a premium ondiscipline expertise and isolated services to trans-disciplinary teams that emphasize shared knowl-edge and role release for integrated services (see,e.g., Crosby, 1976; Giangreco, 1986).

Implications for Future Research, Policy,and PracticeThe extant research related to the instructionalcontext provides strong evidence that studentswith extensive support needs: (a) can acquire skillsand content knowledge in general-educationsettings when provided appropriate supports andinstruction; (b) are responsive to both UDL-basedadaptations and rigorous instruction when ingeneral-education settings; and (c) are best servedwhen collaborative educational teams approachtheir education in general-education settings withthe intent of finding solutions to potential barriersto access and learning. There are a number of areasin which additional research is needed with respectto instructional contexts. For instance, it is criticalthat we better understand the processes, outcomes,and impact of extended versus short periods oftime in general- and special-education settings onstudents’ skill acquisition and retention. The needfor such research is critical in light of the highpercentage of intervention studies in whichstudents with extensive support needs are actuallyexposed to the general curriculum in general-education contexts for only limited times (see, e.g.,Dymond & Russell, 2004). The evidence furthersuggests that when students with extensive supportneeds are in self-contained settings, they are verylikely not working on the general curriculumassociated with their grade-level peers (see, e.g.,Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007).Hence, the long-term consequences of restrictedimmersion in general-education contexts couldinclude significantly fewer opportunities for prac-tice and retention of grade-level general-curricu-lum content and inadequate opportunities toacquire foundational skills that could promotelearning of more complex general-curriculumcontent.

There also is a need for research that promotesa better understanding of how evidence-basedtechniques that have been well researched in

special education (e.g., systematic instructionalstrategies such as task analytic instruction, timedelay) can be embedded within ongoing instruc-tional activities in general-education settings.Specific questions that need to be addressedinclude: What methods of instruction are nowbeing used by general-education teachers thatcould be examined as potentially evidence-basedpractices for students with extensive supportneeds? What is the potential of practices basedon the principles of UDL to promote access andlearning for students with extensive support needs,and how can these practices be augmented viamore intense and direct instruction? Finally, canintense, discrete trial instruction be efficaciouslydelivered in short bursts and achieve acceptableresults over the long run when contrasted withprolonged and extended periods of pulloutinstruction?

Curriculum Content

Currently, two types of curriculum content (i.e.,what to teach) are being addressed in the researchfor students with extensive support needs: (a) thegeneral curriculum, and (b) alternate curriculum.Research on instruction in these two types ofcurriculum content for students with extensivesupport needs in K–12 general-education classes isreviewed in this section, along with debate andcommentary on their relative importance. Finally,we present implications for future research, policy,and practice.

K–12 General CurriculumAs noted earlier, IDEA (2004) mandates that allstudents, including those with extensive supportneeds, ‘‘be involved and make progress in thegeneral curriculum.’’ Concurrently, the nation hasbeen engaged in a standards-based reform move-ment (Thurlow, 2000), which has led to theorganization of the general curriculum around asingle set of Common Core State Standards(CCSSs; Common Core State Standards Initia-tive, 2012) for English language arts and formathematics, on which progress will be measuredfor all students. These CCSSs have adopted by 45states and the District of Columbia, even thoughAgran, Alper, and Wehmeyer (2002) found thatteachers question the appropriateness of thegeneral curriculum for students with extensivesupport needs, even with the use of ‘‘substantial

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 33

supports and accommodations.’’ The CCSSInitiative expects students with extensive supportneeds to engage in learning opportunities anddemonstrate knowledge that ‘‘retain the rigor andhigh expectations of the Common Core StateStandards’’ (Common Core State Standards Ini-tiative, n.d., p. 2). To do so will require a changein how educational teams determine the curricu-lum content presented to students with extensivesupport needs, with an increased emphasis on thegeneral curriculum (Carter & Kennedy, 2006).Discussions have ensued to define the ‘‘generalcurriculum’’ (Browder et al., 2007; Ryndak &Billingsley, 2004; Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rinck-er, & Agran, 2003), and researchers have becomemore systematic in studying instruction onacademic content that addresses the CCSSs(Browder et al., 2007).

Collectively this research indicates that stu-dents with extensive support needs are able toacquire content in English language arts (Browder& Spooner, 2006; Mims, Lee, Browder, Zakas, &Flynn, 2012), literacy (Allor, Mathes, Roberts,Jones, & Champlin, 2010; Bailey, Angell, &Stoner, 2011), math (Browder, Spooner, Ahl-grim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Browder,Trela, et al., 2012), science (Browder, Trela, et al.,2012; Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, &DiBiase, 2011), and social studies (Schenning,Knight, & Spooner, 2013). Much of this research,however, was not conducted in general-educationcontexts.

The research addressing instruction of stu-dents with extensive support needs on the generalcurriculum within general-education contexts ismore limited. In a comprehensive review ofresearch related to reading instruction and stu-dents with extensive support needs, only 11% of128 studies were conducted in general-educationclassrooms (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahl-grim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006). In addition,these studies focused mainly on sight-word andpicture identification, and lacked attention toinstruction on phonics and phonemic awareness,both important components of reading instruc-tion. In a 2008 meta-analysis on teaching math-ematics to students with significant cognitivedisabilities, Browder et al. (2008) found that of68 identified studies, most addressed numbers,computation, and measurement almost exclusivelyfocused on money skills. In addition, only 35% ofthese studies were conducted in general-educationclassrooms.

Of the limited number of studies related toinstruction in the general curriculum in general-education contexts, much of the instruction takesplace as systematic instructional trials in segregatedcontexts before students participate in the targetedcontent instruction in general-education settings.For example, in a study by B. Smith, Spooner, andWood (2013) related to acquisition, maintenance,and generalization of terms and applications formiddle-school science, three students receivedpretraining in the use of iPads for explicitinstruction in self-contained settings, then engagedin short intervention sessions on the iPads duringroutine activities in their general-education scienceclass. In other studies, systematic instruction wasdelivered in special-education classrooms or re-source rooms before students received ongoingembedded instruction in general-education ele-mentary math (Browder, Jimenez, et al., 2012) andmiddle-school science (Jimenez et al., 2012;Knight, Spooner, Browder, Smith, & Wood,2013).

There is also limited research that demon-strates students’ progress in the general curriculumin general-education contexts. For example, in astudy on the effect of a literacy programimplemented with the principles of UDL, studentswith extensive support needs accessed the programduring independent work time in a 90-minutereading block in the general-education classroomand made significant gains in passage comprehen-sion (Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Smith, 2012).Other studies conducted in general-educationcontexts show increased participation and engage-ment in general-curriculum activities for studentswith extensive support needs (Dymond et al.,2006; Soukup et al., 2007); however, the focus ofthese studies was not acquisition and use of thegeneral-curriculum content.

While research findings indicate that studentswith extensive support needs who are involved inthe general curriculum can and do make progresson that content, tensions still exist in the fieldrelated to whether or not instruction in thestandards-based general curriculum is appropriatefor them (Ayers et al., 2011; Courtade et al., 2012).When reviewing for curriculum content, Shurrand Bouck (2013) found that of 5,812 articles in10 journals related to special education, only 2%focused on any curricular area (i.e., functional lifeskills, cognitive-academics, communication, inter-actions, sensorimotor skills, other, mixed areas).Of this subset of articles, 43% focused on

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


functional life skills and 19% focused on thecognitive-academic domain, focusing on cognitivedevelopment or academic subjects (e.g., math,science, English language arts). The authors noted,however, that there had been a sharp increase instudies focusing on the cognitive-academic do-main in the years 2006–2010.

K–12 Alternate-Curriculum ContentAs mentioned previously, alternate-curriculumcontent typically is defined as content neededfor participation in life during and after exitingschool, and content considered foundationalacross life in and out of school. Currently,researchers, practitioners, and advocates are ques-tioning whether: (a) the general curriculum isreplacing this alternate-curriculum content as thefocus for instruction (Ayers et al., 2011; Bouck,2009; Courtade et al., 2012); (b) the generalcurriculum includes this alternate-curriculum con-tent (Ayres, 2012; Hunt, McDonnell, & Crockett,2012); and (c) instruction on this alternate-curriculum content can and should be embeddedwithin instruction on the general curriculum(Browder et al., 2004; Collins, Hager, & Galloway,2011; Restorff & Abery, 2013). There is limitedresearch related to instruction on ‘‘functionalskills’’ embedded in general-education contexts,but the findings indicate that instruction onalternate-curriculum content can be embeddedwithin instruction on general-curriculum content,resulting in students’ acquiring and maintainingthe targeted content (Collins et al., 2011; Falkens-tine, Collins, Schuster, & Kleinert, 2009). Themajority of research on alternate-curriculum con-tent, however, has been on ‘‘functional skills’’ andhas been conducted in self-contained settings.

Ecological approach to determining func-tional activities for curriculum content. Themajority of research support for determiningalternate-curriculum content comes from thesecond wave of research, which occurred prior tothe focus on student involvement and progress inthe general curriculum. This body of researchsupports the use of the ecological approach toidentify activities that naturally occur in thecontexts in which a student spends time and todetermine curriculum content (i.e., what to teach)that facilitates the student’s participation andengagement in those activities. This approach toteaching ‘‘functional’’ curriculum ensured thatcontent was individualized to meet each student’sneeds, and facilitated students’ partial participa-

tion and maximized independence across con-texts. Several models have been developed toaccomplish this. For instance, Clayton, Burdge,Denham, Kleinert, and Kearns (2006) proposed afour-step process to assist teachers in aligninginstruction to standards and IEP objectives thatcould include functional skills needed during classroutines. Similarly, Ryndak (2003) outlined aprocess that blends alternate- and general-curricu-lum content during instruction in general-educa-tion contexts. Once IEP objectives have beendeveloped, parents and other educational-teammembers can use an IEP matrix (aka a curriculummatrix or activities matrix) to determine when andwhere the student’s IEP objectives will beaddressed across the school day.

Research findings are beginning to indicatethat effective instruction on at least some‘‘functional’’ content can occur during general-education instructional and noninstructional ac-tivities (Ryndak et al., 1999). Research does notexist, however, to determine whether all ecologi-cally identified ‘‘functional’’ content can beaddressed in this way, and discussions areoccurring about the role of instruction on‘‘functional’’ activities for students with extensivesupport needs in today’s educational services(Hunt et al., 2012). Several concerns are beingraised, including: (a) whether students withextensive support needs can acquire sufficientskills during their educational experiences toparticipate in the ‘‘functional’’ activities thatnaturally occur across the contexts they experiencein life, if the main content for instruction is thegeneral curriculum; (b) if not, what role theecological approach and ‘‘functional’’ activitiesplay in the education of students with extensivesupport needs; and (c) whether the purpose ofeducational services for students with extensivesupport needs should be to maximize progress onthe general curriculum or to maximize engage-ment and independence in life, both during andafter exiting school (Ayers et al., 2011, 2012;Bouck, 2012; Browder, 2012; Courtade et al.,2012; Hunt et al., 2012).

Foundational knowledge and skills. Findingsfrom the second wave of research also supportcurriculum content based on a student’s need forand performance on foundational knowledge andskills (Downing & Peckham-Hardin, 2007; Fisher& Meyer, 2002). By definition, this contentcomprises knowledge and skills required acrosscontexts and activities, such as communication,

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 35

mobility, behavior, and social interactions (Ford,Davern, & Schnorr, 2001). Similar to concernsrelated to the use of an ecological approach todetermine curriculum content, concerns are beingraised related to functional content, including: (a)the extent to which students with extensivesupport needs can acquire foundational knowl-edge and skills if the main content for theirinstruction is the general curriculum; (b) ifstudents cannot acquire that knowledge in thatway, what role foundational knowledge and skillsplay in the education of students with extensivesupport needs; and (c) whether the purpose ofeducational services for students with extensivesupport needs should be to maximize progress onthe general curriculum or to maximize use offoundational knowledge and skills across contexts(Ayers, 2012; Hunt et al., 2012).

Self-determination, which includes self-regu-lation and self-management, is a practice recog-nized as an integral part of student transition topostsecondary life (Wehmeyer, Bersani, & Gagne,2000) and is essential for students with extensivesupport needs to: (a) receive and benefit frominstruction, (b) experience better learning oppor-tunities in general-education contexts, and (c) beprepared for life after high school (Wehmeyer,Yeager, Bolding, Agran, & Hughes, 2003). As such,it should be considered among foundationalknowledge and skills. Research findings indicatethat instruction in self-determination can positive-ly impact students with extensive support needsrelative to following directions and being on task,which also have implications for their involve-ment and progress in the general curriculum(Agran, Alper, Cavin, Sinclair, & Wehmeyer,2005). However, in a review of self-determinationinterventions for students with extensive supportneeds, Wood, Fowler, Uphold, and Test (2005)found that this research is limited, with only 21studies in the 18 years prior to 2005.

More recently, Agran, Wehmeyer, Cavin, andPalmer (2010) found that when students receivedinstruction in a self-regulated problem-solvingprocess (i.e., Self-Determined Learning Model ofInstruction), they were better equipped to regulateand evaluate their own learning in the generalcurriculum in general-education contexts. Further-more, research findings indicate that time spent ingeneral-education contexts strengthens self-deter-mination for students with extensive supportneeds (Hughes, Agran, Cosgriff, & Washington,2013). However, research on the relationship

between self-determination and other foundation-al knowledge and skills for students with extensivesupport needs, and their acquisition and use of thegeneral curriculum in general-education contexts,is limited.

Implications for Future Research, Policy,and PracticeThe extant research related to instruction on thegeneral curriculum and alternate curriculum forstudents with extensive support needs providesstrong evidence that students can acquire contentin both types of curriculum in both self-containedspecial-education and general-education contexts.The research also provides strong evidence that theinstructional strategies previously demonstrated tobe effective when teaching alternate-curriculumcontent in self-contained special-education con-texts also can be effective when teaching thegeneral curriculum in general-education contexts.Furthermore, the research demonstrates that usingthese instructional strategies to teach both types ofcontent can be effective when embedded ingeneral-education instructional activities in gener-al-education contexts. However, some in the fieldwarn that an overpowering emphasis on thegeneral curriculum could overshadow instructionon functional and foundational skills, potentiallynot serving students well who have extensivesupport needs (Ayers et al., 2011; Courtade et al.,2012).

Research is needed on the extent to which: (a)students with extensive support needs can acquirethe full spectrum of grade-level general curricu-lum; (b) individualized instructional strategies,supports, and services to meet the needs ofstudents with extensive support needs can beembedded within general-education contexts sothat effective instruction can address both types ofcurriculum; and (c) students with extensivesupport needs can use acquired general-curriculumcontent in natural situations during and afterexiting school. Similarly, policies need to continueto emphasize enabling students with extensivesupport needs to be involved and make progress inthe general curriculum, while supporting instruc-tion on alternate-curriculum content required foreach student’s participation and maximized inde-pendence in current and future environments. Thecombination of such research and policy changeswould further the understanding that studentswith extensive support needs are part of and can

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


succeed in general education, as well as theunderstanding that the supports and services eachstudent needs to succeed in general education alsoare part of general education. Concurrently,practices in schools for state licensure, in person-nel-preparation programs, and during professionaldevelopment for sustainable school reform needto be evaluated and revised to ensure thatpersonnel have and implement expertise thatsupports effective instruction for all students,including those with extensive support needs, ingrade-level-appropriate general-education contexts.

Assessment and Accountability

Assessment processes need to be configured to thespecific needs of the learner and need to employobservable measures designed to have a directrelationship to both content (i.e., what was taught)and context (i.e., where it was taught). Browder(1991) emphasized two principles that shouldguide how assessments are designed and conduct-ed for students with severe disabilities: individual-ization and applied behavior analytic strategies.However, over the last decade, the proliferationof standards-based and alternate assessment pro-tocols have altered the assessment landscape,requiring teachers to rely more on testing proto-cols that are standardized across learners and tofocus on learner outcomes that are aligned withthose of general-education students. In contrast tothe ‘‘functional’’-skills emphasis of the previousera, the expectation today is that students withextensive support needs will demonstrate progressin age- and grade-appropriate curriculum (Weh-meyer, 2006) and that their IEP goals will bealigned with state content standards (Grisham-Brown & Kearns, 2001). In this section, we applywhat we know about both traditional andemerging assessment practices to age- and grade-appropriate outcomes and examine how thesepractices can be used with students who haveextensive support needs in general-educationcontexts. We use the concepts of formative andsummative assessment to organize this discussion,thereby distinguishing these distinctive applica-tions of fundamental assessment processes.

Formative Assessment ProcessesFormative assessment is used to guide the develop-ment, evolution, and revision of instruction inrelation to student learning. Formal instruments

may be used initially to assess the overall needsand skills of a learner, but formative assessmentrelies largely on contextualized, informal assess-ment of performance, coupled with teacherjudgments of ongoing student performance (Jack-son et al., 2000; Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson, Xue,& Atkins-Burnett, 2001). Focusing in particular onthe practicing teacher, we discuss in this sectionthree approaches to formative assessment: (a)Choosing Outcomes and Accommodations for Children(COACH; Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson,2011), a formal assessment instrument; (b) mea-surement tools based on ecological and appliedbehavior analysis; and (c) curriculum-based assess-ment.

First, because it has established a level ofinstructional validity (Giangreco, Cloninger, Den-nis, & Edelman, 1993) and is designed to promoteinvolvement and progress in the general curricu-lum in general-education settings, COACH (Gian-greco et al., 2011) remains the best publishedinstrument available when doing long-range for-mative assessments with students who haveextensive support needs. The recent revision(Giangreco et al., 2011) provides a ‘‘greateremphasis on access to the general curriculum’’(p. xii) while retaining its reputation as being opento addressing the needs of the family.

Second, the principles of assessment describedby Browder (1991) remain useful for teachersregardless of instructional context. When alignedwith class routines and the state curriculumstandards of a student’s age- and grade-appropriategeneral-education class, checklists, ecological as-sessments, discrete trial probes, and task analyticmeasures provide a sound basis for assessingprogress. Additionally, inventories related totypical peers provide a peer-referenced means toassess student performance in lesson- and routine-related activities within the general-education class(Jackson & Panyan, 2002). The key to makingthese processes work is the extent to which theyare comprehensive, context-grounded in thegeneral-education setting, and embedded withinthe curriculum (Meisels et al., 2001).

Finally, curriculum-based assessment (Deno,1985) provides a useful approach for assessingstudent progress in relation to the generalcurriculum (Jackson et al., 2000). Although theterm has come to mean different things todifferent professionals (cf. Browder, 1991; Yeo,2010), the essential idea is that measures are

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 37

developed based on the curriculum taught andstandardized in their application across students.

Summative Assessment ProcessesSummative assessment is used to evaluate studentgrowth as a consequence of instruction, particu-larly after relatively long periods of time havepassed. Summative assessment is not limited tostandardized assessments, because its primarypurpose is to show whether growth has occurredby whatever means possible; nevertheless, sum-mative assessment is more likely to rely onachievement tests for ascertaining degrees ofprogress. Again, focusing on the practicing teach-er, we discuss in this section two approaches tosummative assessment: (a) portfolio assessmentand (b) standards-based alternate assessment.

A portfolio is a purposefully selected collec-tion of a student’s work assembled over time,documenting progress and achievements viamultiple sources of evidence collected in authenticsettings (MacIsaac & Jackson, 1994). Sequentialsamples of work and videos of engagement ininstruction and activities can offer demonstrationsof progress across the general curriculum forstudents with extensive support needs who mighthave difficulty responding on tests and worksheetsthat are typically used. When used as measures ofstudent growth, portfolios also can promotegreater self-responsibility (i.e., internal locus ofcontrol; Ezell & Klein, 2003).

Standards-based assessment emerged in theUnited States during the 1990s, as states andschool districts attempted to define what allstudents need ‘‘to know and be able to do’’(Kleinert & Thurlow, 2001, p. 2). The onset ofstandards-based assessment with general-educationstudents raised concerns regarding the exclusion ofstudents with disabilities (Kearns, Kleinert, &Kennedy, 1999). In response to these concerns,IDEA (1997, 2004) mandated that students withdisabilities were to have both involvement in thegeneral curriculum and participation in state anddistrict assessments. When students are perceivedby educators as unable to participate in the‘‘accountability landscape’’ afforded by large-scaletesting (Kleinert & Thurlow, 2001, p. 8), alternateassessment procedures are employed by the states,and most students with extensive support needsparticipate in these assessments (Kearns, Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, Kleinert, & Thomas, 2011).Theoretically, alternate-assessment content shouldbe congruent and aligned with a state’s content

standards. Whether particular alternate assessmentprocedures are useful indicators of long-termgrowth and progress in the general curriculumremains uncertain at this time. Nevertheless,although the findings are somewhat equivocal,there is evidence that when IEP objectives arealigned with an alternate assessment’s academicexpectations, subsequent alternate-assessment pro-ficiency ratings are higher (Karvonen & Huynh,2007). More importantly for our purposes, therealso is evidence that both exposure to the generalcurriculum and time in general-education contextsare factors that positively impact student perfor-mance on alternate assessments (Roach & Elliott,2006).

Implications for Future Research, Policy,and PracticeThe extant research and recommended practicesrelated to assessment for students with extensivesupport needs on general-curriculum content ininclusive general-education contexts indicate twopaths that presently diverge. First, there arenumerous tried-and-true techniques that, whereonce recommended for alternate-curriculum con-tent and used in self-contained settings, are nowequally applicable in general-education settings.We find it troubling that practical and authenticassessment processes, which are useful to teacherswhen routinely conducting formative and sum-mative assessments of students, are not on theradar of many researchers or commentatorspresently publishing in today’s literature and arenot evident in the federal initiatives on standards-based assessments. Rather, it is the second path,alternate assessment in relation to Common CoreState Standards, that currently is present in theliterature. Alternate assessment activities are quite‘‘distant’’ from the real-time requirements of day-to-day instruction, in which measurement mayoccur in a context that includes various ongoingadaptations and supports.

Curriculum-based assessment, defined as mea-sures directly reflecting critical skills that are beingtaught within the general curriculum and whichare standardized across students, provides onepotential solution to the gap between appliedbehavior analytic measures and alternate assess-ment processes. We note, however, that there arerisks in using some of the generally acceptedmeasures of curriculum-based assessment. Forexample, in a meta-analysis of that literature,

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


Yeo (2010) reported notable correlations betweenselected curriculum-based measures in reading andrelated state achievement-test results, but he alsoreported that studies including students withdisabilities or English language learners were atvariance with this finding.

These discussions of assessment and thegeneral curriculum directly relate to accountabilityissues faced by teachers and administrators asstates increasingly look to legislation to governeducational practices. It seems to us that apresently underused framework for enhancingaccountability and simultaneously reducing theisolation of students with extensive support needsis a federal initiative that begins to expect schooldistricts to include students with extensive supportneeds in response-to-intervention processes. How-ever, to make this work, Tier III of response tointervention must be conceptualized as a general-education process that supplements access to thegeneral curriculum rather than as a special-education placement option (cf. Fuchs, Stecker,& Fuchs, 2008; Hoover, 2013).

Long-Term Outcomes for Students

The extant research indicates that providingspecial education and related services in general-education contexts for students with extensivesupport needs can result in positive short-termoutcomes (see McDonnell & Hunt, in press;Spooner, McKissick, Hudson, & Browder, inpress). Limited research exists, however, relatedto the long-term impact of services in general-education contexts either across school years orinto adult life (Carter & Hughes, 2007; Ryndak,Alper, Hughes, & McDonnell, 2012). Regardless,findings from this limited research providesupport for benefits of ongoing access to general-education contexts and content.

Long-Term Outcomes Related toContexts AccessedEarly research on long-term outcomes of studentswith extensive support needs who received servicesin general-education contexts for several yearsprimarily addressed school-based outcomes. Forinstance, in their study of perceptions of parentswhose children with extensive support needs hadmoved from self-contained to general-educationcontexts, Ryndak et al. (1995) found that parentsconsistently perceived their children as accessing,

participating in, and being more independent inmore inclusive contexts both at school and in thecommunity. These perceptions were consistentwith findings of a 7-year qualitative study thatfollowed a young adult with extensive supportneeds as she transitioned from 15 years in self-contained classes to general-education classes,where she remained through age 21 (Ryndak etal., 1999). These researchers found that access tomultiple secondary and college general-educationclasses and other contexts each school day led tothe student accessing, participating in, and beingmore independent in additional contexts in thesecondary school, college, and community.

When considering adult outcomes for allstudents with disabilities, the National Longitudi-nal Transition Study and the National Longitudi-nal Transition Study-2 provide the most extensivedata available. Findings from these studies suggestthat participation in general-education contextsand content has a positive impact on students’adult outcomes (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, &Newman, 1993; Wagner, Newman, Cameto,Levine, & Garza, 2006). However, the limitationsof the data used in these studies (i.e., data reportedto the U.S. Department of Education by disabilitycategory) make it difficult to disaggregate findingsrelated specifically to students and adults consid-ered to have extensive support needs. In addition,because of the nature of data collection, limiteddata are available on the quality of the servicesprovided across contexts, making it impossible todraw valid conclusions about the impact ofeducational contexts on the reported outcomesfor adults with extensive support needs, as well asother aspects of context discussed in the previoussection.

To address the lack of meaningful nationaldata and other difficulties associated with con-ducting large-N studies with individuals who haveextensive support needs (see Ryndak et al., 2012),other research methodologies have been used andsome research exists indicating long-term benefitsrelated to contexts accessed by adults withextensive support needs who received services ingeneral-education contexts. For instance, usingquantitative methodologies in a correlationalstudy with 104 adults with severe disabilities,White and Weiner (2004) examined the relation-ship between their educational placement andinvolvement in community-based instruction ontheir adult employment outcomes. They foundthat one of the strongest predictors of paid

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 39

employment in the community for adults withsevere disabilities was the degree to which theyreceived services in general-education contextsduring their school years. Similarly, using qualita-tive methodologies, Ryndak, Ward, Alper, Mont-gomery, and Storch (2010) examined the impactof receiving services in general-education contextsversus self-contained contexts on two studentswith extensive support needs who attended thesame self-contained class when they were 15 yearsof age. At that time, these students were describedas the ‘‘highest and lowest functioning students’’in their self-contained class. The student describedas ‘‘lowest functioning’’ proceeded to be includedfor the entire school day from age 15 through 21,while the student described as ‘‘highest function-ing’’ remained in self-contained classes. This studydescribes how, 3 years after exiting school, the‘‘lowest functioning’’ student educated in general-education contexts had exceeded all documentedexpectations for meaningful adult outcomes bybeing employed in a competitive position in thecommunity, living independently with weeklysupport, and participating with an extensive socialsupport network. In contrast, the ‘‘highest func-tioning’’ student did not meet documentedexpectations for meaningful adult outcomes andwas working at a sheltered workshop, living withfamily members, and relying only on familymembers for social support.

Long-Term Outcomes Related to GeneralEducation and Alternate-CurriculumContentThere is little research on the long-term applica-tion of content learned in the general educationand alternate curriculum by students and adultswith extensive support needs who received specialeducation and related services in general-educationcontexts across several school years. The fewstudies that do address this issue do so in atangential manner. For instance, in their qualita-tive study on one student with extensive supportneeds, Ryndak et al. (1999) found that afterreceiving services in secondary and college gener-al-education contexts, and addressing both gener-al-education and alternate-curriculum content, thestudent began to use newly acquired content innovel activities across contexts. Similarly, in thework by Ryndak et al. (2010), the student whoconsistently received services in general-educationcontexts from age 15 to 21 proceeded to use

acquired literacy and math skills in novel activitiesat work, in the community, and at home. Noother studies were found addressing the long-termuse of general-education and alternate-curriculumcontent by people with extensive support needs,or addressing the interaction of the content withthe context where it was learned.

Implications for Future Research, Policy,and PracticeMost of the extant research on long-term out-comes was not designed to examine in detail therelationship among: (a) students with extensivesupport needs receiving services in general-educa-tion contexts; (b) their involvement and progressin the general curriculum; (c) their instruction ongeneral-education and alternate-curriculum con-tent; (d) their adult outcomes after exiting school;and (e) their use of general-education andalternate-curriculum content in those postschoolcontexts. Although there is some research focusedon these areas indicating that services in general-education contexts have a positive impact onpostschool outcomes for students with extensivesupport needs (Ryndak et al., 1999; Ryndak et al.,2010; White & Weiner, 2004), the limited amountof research restricts the confidence with whichstatements can be made related to whether youngadults lead more successful lives relative toemployment, community living and access, andfriendships and social networks, as a function of:(a) being involved in the general curriculum or (b)receiving services in general-education contexts. Inaddition, there are many limitations to thesestudies, including the following:

1. Primary dependent variables tend to focus onemployment outcomes.

2. Measures of the characteristics of educationalservices in general-education contexts are broadand do not address the range, intensity, or qualityof instruction received in these contexts and howthese variables impact long-term outcomes.

3. Measures of student and family characteristics arebroad and often do not address variables thatmight influence student acquisition and use ofgeneral- and alternate-curriculum content acrosscontexts during and after exiting school, access toresources during and after exiting school, or accessto contexts during and after exiting school.

4. Characteristics of the students’ communitiesfrequently are not controlled for or examined.

5. The type, intensity, and quality of communityservices and supports available during and after

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


exiting school rarely are controlled for or exam-ined.

6. Measures of school and postschool experiencesoften are based on student and parent reports orrecords rather than direct observation.

Clearly more research is needed on the impactof services in general-education contexts on bothgeneral-education and alternate-curriculum con-tent and on the long-term outcomes of studentswith extensive support needs. We suggest a needfor national longitudinal studies that systematical-ly track the breadth, intensity, and quality ofservices for students with extensive support needsin general-education contexts, on general-educa-tion and alternate-curriculum content, throughouttheir school years, and into adulthood.

To support such research, federal policiesrelated to funding of research on education andlong-term outcomes will need to support researchtargeted specifically at students and adults. Inaddition, until research findings indicate other-wise, we contend that federal, state, and districtpolicies should be modified to require theplacement of students with extensive supportneeds in general-education contexts in which theyreceive services that reflect evidence-based practic-es (Hunt et al., 2003; Ryndak et al., in press)delivered by highly qualified team members,including members with specialized expertise inmeeting the needs of students with extensivesupport needs. Such policy changes would neces-sitate change in both educational practice andpersonnel-preparation programs.

Conclusion

We have examined research, debate, and com-mentary on the involvement and progress ofstudents with extensive support needs in thegeneral curriculum, with the goal of characterizingour current knowledge, areas of debate anduncertainty, and lingering questions for futureresearch on inclusive education. In what we arecalling the third wave of inquiry, legislativemandates, the learning capabilities of the students,the potentials of the instructional context, andresearch on student outcomes lend support forproviding instruction on the general curriculumfor students with extensive support needs ininclusive general-education settings.

There also is evidence that schools canimplement services consistent with these findingswhen there are supports at multiple levels (e.g.,

district, school, education teams) for the necessarychanges in service models and practices (Ryndak,Reardon, Benner, & Ward, 2007); nevertheless,there is little doubt that sustainability of changerequires more than just leadership commitment orprofessional development (Sindelar, Shearer, Yen-dol-Hoppey, & Liebert, 2006). The dilemma ofrealizing more services for all students taughttogether in general-education settings is the sameas the dilemma faced in all educational reformefforts; that is, research and inquiry can generateanswers to questions about quality teachingpractices, but the transfer and solidification ofevidence-based practices into school practices canbe perceived as insurmountable.

We believe that a resource for the future liesin what is being called implementation science, whichseeks to inquire into ‘‘how innovations areadopted and maintained’’ so that affecting changemoves from hoping it will happen to causing it tohappen (Cook & Odom, 2013, p. 140). Imple-mentation science applies the same rigorous toolsthat are used to advance the science of instructionto the task of understanding and implementingsystems-change efforts. We suggest that there is anurgent need to change our educational systems,and that this urgency has been influenced by thefederal mandates for involvement and progress inthe general curriculum for all students. In closing,we note that the counterparts of services ingeneral-education settings (i.e., resource rooms,self-contained classes, separate schools) remain thestalwarts of the special-education system forstudents with extensive support needs, regardlessof the lack of research indicating that studentstaught in these settings become fully participatingcitizens who contribute to and are valued by oursociety. The time for systemic school reform thatunifies the systems so that all students receiveinstruction and services in a single educationalcontext is now.

References

Agran, M., Alper, S., Cavin, M., Sinclair, T., &Wehmeyer, M. (2005). Using self-monitoringto increase following-direction skills of stu-dents with moderate to severe disabilities ingeneral education. Education and Training inDevelopmental Disabilities, 40, 3–13.

Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002).Access to the general curriculum for studentswith significant disabilities: What it means to

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 41

teachers. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities,2002, 37, 123–133.

Agran, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer,S. (2006). Participation of students withmoderate to severe disabilities in the generalcurriculum: The effects of the self-determinedlearning model of instruction. Journal of theAssociation for Persons With Severe Handicaps,31, 230–241.

Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M., Cavin, M., & Palmer,S. (2010). Promoting active engagement in thegeneral education classroom and access to thegeneral education curriculum for studentswith cognitive disabilities. Education andTraining in Autism and Developmental Disabil-ities, 45, 163–174.

Allor, J., Mathes, P., Roberts, K., Jones, F., &Champlin, T. (2010). Teaching students withmoderate intellectual disabilities to read: Anexperimental examination of a comprehensivereading intervention. Education and Training inAutism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 3–22.

Assistance to States for the Education of ChildrenWith Disabilities and Preschool Grants forChildren With Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540 (2006).

Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Gast, D.L. (1989). Review of comparative studies ininstruction of students with moderate andsevere handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55,346–356.

Ayres, K. (2012). Reconciling ecological educa-tional planning with access to the CommonCore: Putting the cart before the horse? Aresponse to Hunt and McDonnell. Research &Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37,153–156.

Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., &Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but Ican’t brush my teeth: What happens when thecurricular focus for students with severedisabilities shifts. Education and Training inAutism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.

Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., &Sievers, C. (2012). The question still remains:What happens when the curricular focus forstudents with severe disabilities shifts? A replyto Courtade, Spooner, Browder, and Jimenez(2012). Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 47, 14–22.

Bailey, R., Angell, M., & Stoner, J. (2011).Improving literacy skills in students withcomplex communication needs who useAugmentative/Alternative Communicationsystems. Education and Training in Autismand Developmental Disabilities, 46, 352–368.

Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels: Parents,educators, and inclusive education. Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press.

Billingsley, F. F., & Romer, L. T. (1983). Responseprompting and the transfer of stimuluscontrol: Methods, research, and a conceptualframework. Journal for the Association forPersons With Severe Handicaps, 8, 3–12.

Blatt, B. (1981). In and out of mental retardation:Essays on educability, disability, and humanpolicy. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

Bouck, E. C. (2009). No Child Left Behind, theIndividuals With Disabilities Education Actand functional curricula: A conflict of inter-est? Education and Training in DevelopmentalDisabilities, 44, 3–13.

Bouck, E. (2012). Secondary students with mod-erate/severe intellectual disability: Consider-ations of curriculum and post-schooloutcomes from the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2. Journal of Intellectual Dis-ability Research, 56, 1175–1186.

Bradley, J. F., & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (2005).Conflict resolution: Preparing preservice spe-cial educators to work in collaborative set-tings. Teacher Education and Special Education,28, 171–184.

Browder, D. (1991). Assessment of individuals withsevere handicaps (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:Brookes.

Browder, D. (2012). Finding the balance: Aresponse to Hunt and McDonnell. Research& Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,37, 157–159.

Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L,Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R.(2004). The alignment of alternate assessmentcontent with academic and functional curric-ula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211–232.

Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B. A., Spooner, F.,Saunders, A., Hudson, M., & Bethune, K. S.(2012). Early numeracy instruction for stu-dents with moderate and severe developmen-tal disabilities. Research and Practice for PersonsWith Severe Disabilities, 37, 308–320.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2006). Teachinglanguage arts, math, & science to students withsignificant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.,Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (2008). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to studentswith significant cognitive disabilities. Excep-tional Children, 74, 407–432.

Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R.,Jimenez, B. A., Knight, V., & Flowers, C.(2012). Teaching mathematics and sciencestandards to students with moderate andsevere developmental disabilities. Journal ofSpecial Education, 46, 26–35.

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Flowers, C., Rickel-man, R., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007).Creating access to the general curriculum withlinks to grade-level content for students withsignificant cognitive disabilities: An explica-tion of the concept. Journal of Special Educa-tion, 41, 2–16.

Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F.,Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006).Research on reading for students with signif-icant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Chil-dren, 72, 392–408.

Brown, K. E., & Mirenda, P. (2006). Contingencymapping: Use of a novel visual supportstrategy as an adjunct to functional equiva-lence training. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 8, 155–164.

Brown, L., McLean, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S.,Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L.(1979). A strategy for developing chronolog-ical age-appropriate and functional curricularcontent for severely handicapped adolescentsand young adults. Journal of Special Education,13, 81–90.

Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S.(1976). The criterion of ultimate functioningand public school services for severely hand-icapped students. In M. Thomas (Ed.), Hey,don’t forget about me: Education’s investment inthe severely, profoundly and multiply handicapped(pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Excep-tional Children.

Brown, L., Wilcox, B., Sontag, E., Vincent, B.,Dodd, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1977). Towardthe realization of the least restrictive educa-tion environments for severely handicappedstudents. American Association for the Education

of the Severely and Profoundly HandicappedReview, 2, 195–201.

Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2007). Includinghigh school students with severe disabilities:Perspectives of general and special educators,paraprofessionals, and administrators. Researchand Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,31, 174–185.

Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006).Promoting access to the general curriculumusing peer support strategies. Research andPractice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31,284–292.

Certo, N., Brown, L., Belmore, K., & Crowner, T.(1977). A review of secondary level educa-tional service delivery models for severelyhandicapped students in the Madison PublicSchools. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo(Eds.), Educational programming for the severelyand profoundly handicapped (pp. XX–XX).Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Chil-dren, Division on Mental Retardation.

Cipiani, E., & Spooner, F. (Eds.). (1994). Curric-ulum and instructional approaches for persons withsevere handicaps (pp. 289–321). Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Clayton, J., Burdge, M., Denham, A., Kleinert, H.,& Kearns, J. (2006). A four-step process foraccessing the general curriculum for studentswith significant cognitive disabilities. TeachingExceptional Children, 38, 20–27.

Collins, B., Evans, A., Creech-Galloway, C., Karl,J., & Miller, A. (2007). Comparison of theacquisition and maintenance of teachingfunctional core content sight words in specialand general education settings. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities,22, 220–233.

Collins, B. C., & Griffen, A. K. (1996). Teachingstudents with moderate disabilities to makesafe responses to product warning labels.Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 30–45.

Collins, B., Hager, K., & Galloway, C. (2011).Addition of functional content during corecontent instruction with students with mod-erate disabilities. Education and Training inAutism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 22–39.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.).Application to students with disabilities. Avail-able at http://www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-disabilities.pdf

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 43

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012.).Implementing the Common Core State Standards.Available at http://www.corestandards.org

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science inspecial education. Exceptional Children, 79,135–146.

Copeland, S. R., & Cosbey, J. (2008/09). Makingprogress in the general curriculum: Rethinkingeffective instructional practices. Research andPractice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33/34, 214–227.

Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Weh-meyer, M. L., & Fowler, S. E. (2002). Anintervention package to support high schoolstudents with mental retardation in generaleducation classes. American Journal on MentalRetardation, 107, 32–45.

Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., &Jimenez, B. (2012). Seven reasons to promotestandards-based instruction for students withsevere disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey,Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education andTraining in Autism and Developmental Disabil-ities, 47, 3–13.

Coyne, P., Pisha, B., Dalton, B., Zeph, L., &Smith, N. (2012). Literacy by design: AUniversal Design for Learning approach forstudents with significant intellectual disabili-ties. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 162–172.

Crosby, K. G. (1976). Essentials of active pro-gramming. Mental Retardation, 14(2), 3–9.

Curry, C. (2003). Universal design: Accessibilityfor all learners. Educational Leadership, 61, 55–60.

Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measure-ment: The emerging alternative. ExceptionalChildren, 52, 219–232.

Downing, J. E., & Eichinger, J. (2003). Creatinglearning opportunities for students with severedisabilities in inclusive classrooms. TeachingExceptional Children, 36, 26–31.

Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2001).Daily schedules: A helpful learning tool.Teaching Exceptional Children, 33, 62–68.

Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2007).Inclusive education: What makes it a goodeducation for students with moderate tosevere disabilities? Research and Practice forPersons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 16–30.

Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., &Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the

general curriculum for high school studentswith significant cognitive disabilities. Researchand Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,32, 1–15.

Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A.,Chun, E. J., Banks, R. A., Niswander, V., et al.(2006). Using a participatory action researchapproach to create a universally designedinclusive high school science course: A casestudy. Research and Practice for Persons WithSevere Disabilities, 31, 293–308.

Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). Impact ofgrade and disability on the instructionalcontext of inclusive classrooms. Educationand Training in Mental Retardation, 39, 127–140.

Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1975).

Ezell, D., & Klein, C. (2003). Impact of portfolioassessment on locus of control of studentswith and without disabilities. Education andTraining in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 220–228.

Falkenstine, K. J., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., &Kleinert, K. (2009). Presenting chained anddiscrete tasks as nontargeted informationwhen teaching discrete academic skillsthrough small group instruction. Educationand Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44,127–142.

Ferguson, D. L., Meyer, G., Jeanchild, L., Juniper,L., & Zingo, J. (1992). Figuring out what to dowith the grownups: How teachers makeinclusion ‘‘work’’ for students with disabili-ties. Journal of the Association for Persons WithSevere Handicaps, 17, 218–226.

Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001).Learners with significant disabilities: Curricu-lar relevance in an era of standards-basedreform. Remedial and Special Education, 22,214–222.

Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L. H., Davern, L.,Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (Eds.). (1989). TheSyracuse community-referenced curriculum guidefor students with moderate and severe disabilities.Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Fuchs, D., Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008).Tier 3: Why special education must be themost intensive tier in a standards-driven, NoChild Left Behind world. In D. Fuchs, L.Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response tointervention: A framework for reading educators

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


(pp. 71–104). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Giangreco, M. F. (1986). Effects of integratedtherapy: A pilot study. Journal of the Associa-tion for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 11, 205–208.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., Dennis, R. E.,& Edelman, S. W. (1993). National expertvalidation of COACH: Congruence withexemplary practice and suggestions for im-provement. Journal of the Association for PersonsWith Severe Handicaps, 18, 109–120.

Giangreco, M. F., Cloninger, C. J., & Iverson, V.S. (2011). Choosing outcomes and accommoda-tions for children: A guide to educational planningfor students with disabilities (3rd ed.). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C.(2012). Constructively responding to requestsfor paraprofessionals: We keep asking thewrong questions. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 33, 362–373.

Grisham-Brown, J., & Kearns, J. F. (2001).Creating standards-based individualized edu-cational programs. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F.Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuringoutcomes and supports for students with disabilities(pp. 17–28). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Haring, N. G., & Brown, L. J. (Eds.). (1976).Teaching the severely handicapped: Volume I. NewYork, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Haring, N. G., & Brown, L. J. (Eds.). (1977).Teaching the severely handicapped: Volume II.New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.

Hedeen, D. L., & Ayres, B. J. (2002). ‘‘You wantme to teach him to read?’’ Journal of DisabilityPolicy Studies, 13, 180–189.

Hoover, J. J. (2013). Linking assessment to instructionin multi-tiered models: A teacher’s guide to selectingreading, writing, and mathematics interventions.Boston, MA: Pearson.

Horner, R. H., & MacDonald, R. S. (1993).Comparison of single instance and generalcase instruction in teaching a generalizedvocational skill. Journal of the Association forPersons With Severe Handicaps, 7, 7–21.

Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., Agran, M., Weh-meyer, M. L., Rodi, M. S., & Presly, J. A.(2002). Using self-monitoring to improveperformance in general education high schoolclasses. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37,262–272.

Hughes, C., Cosgrif, J. C., Agran, M., &Washington, B. H. (2013). Student self-determination: A preliminary investigationof the role of participation in inclusivesettings. Education and Training in Autismand Developmental Disabilities, 48, 3–17.

Hunt, P., Farron-Davis, F., Beckstead, S., Curtis,D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluating the effectsof placement of students with severe disabil-ities in general education versus special classes.Journal of the Association for Persons With SevereHandicaps, 19, 200–214.

Hunt, P., McDonnell, J., & Crockett, M. A.(2012). Reconciling an ecological curriculumframework focusing on quality of life out-comes with the development and instructionof standards-based academic goals. Researchand Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities,37, 139–152.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003).Collaborative teaming to support students atrisk and students with severe disabilities ingeneral education classrooms. Exceptional Chil-dren, 69, 315–332.

Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Muller, E., & Goetz,L. (2002). Collaborative teaming to supportstudents with augmentative and alternativecommunication needs in general educationclassrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Com-munication, 18, 20–35.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1997).

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.[Reauthorization of the Individuals WithDisabilities Education Act.] (2004).

Jackson, L. B., & Panyan, M. V. (2002). Positivebehavioral support in the classroom: Principles andpractices. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000).Useful practices in inclusive education: Apreliminary view of what experts in moderateand severe disabilities are saying. Journal of theAssociation for Persons With Severe Handicaps,25, 129–141.

Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L.(2008/09). The dynamic relationship betweencontext, curriculum, and student learning: Acase for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for PersonsWith Severe Disabilities, 33/34, 175–195.

Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., &Riesen, T. (2008). Embedded, constant time

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 45

delay instruction by peers without disabilitiesin general education classrooms. Intellectualand Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346–363.

Jameson, M., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Riesen,T., & Shamby, P. (2007). A comparison ofone-to-one embedded instruction in thegeneral education classroom and one-to-onemassed practice instruction in the specialeducation classroom. Education & Treatmentof Children, 30, 23–44.

Jimenez, B. E., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., &DiBiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry scienceusing peer-mediated embedded instruction forstudents with moderate intellectual disability.Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317.

Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V. N.,& Hunter, K. (2004). The efficacy of embed-ded instruction for students with develop-mental disabilities enrolled in generaleducation classes. Journal of Positive BehaviorInterventions, 6, 214–227.

Karvonen, M., & Huynh, H. (2007). Relationshipbetween IEP characteristics and test scores onan alternate assessment for students withsignificant cognitive disabilities. Applied Mea-surement in Education, 20, 273–300.

Kearns, J. F., Kleinert, H. L., & Kennedy, S.(1999). We need not exclude anyone. Educa-tional Leadership, 56, 33–38.

Kearns, J. F., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H. L.,Kleinert, J. O., & Thomas, M. (2011).Characteristics of and implications for stu-dents participating in alternate assessmentsbased on alternate academic achievementstandards. Journal of Special Education, 45, 3–14.

Kleinert, H. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2001). Anintroduction to alternate assessment. In H. L.Kleinert & J. F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternateassessment: Measuring outcomes and supports forstudents with disabilities (pp. 1–15). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Knight, V. F., Spooner, F., Browder, D. M.,Smith, B. R., & Wood, C. L. (2013). Usinggraphic organizers and systematic instruc-tion to teach science concepts to studentswith autism spectrum disorder. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities.Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1088357612475301

Koegel, L. K., Harrower, J. K., & Koegel, R. L.(1999). Support for children with develop-mental disabilities in full inclusion classrooms

through self-management. Journal of PositiveBehavior Interventions, 1, 26–34.

MacIsaac, D., & Jackson, L. (1994). Assessmentprocesses and outcomes: Portfolio construc-tion. In L. B. Jackson & R. Caffarella (Eds.),Experiential learning: A new approach (pp. 63–72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Massey, N. G., & Wheeler, J. J. (2000). Acquisitionand generalization of activity schedules andtheir effects on task engagement in a youngchild with autism in an inclusive pre-schoolclassroom. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35,326–335.

McDonnell, J., & Ferguson, B. (1989). A compar-ison of time delay and increasing prompthierarchy strategies in teaching banking skillsto students with moderate handicaps. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 85–91.

McDonnell, J., & Hunt, P. (in press). Inclusiveeducation and meaningful school outcomes.In M. Agran, F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk,& D. L. Ryndak (Eds.), Critical issues in severedisabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S.,Riesen, T., Jameson, M., & Kercher, K. (2006).Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruc-tion in general education classes with smallgroup instruction in special education classes.Education and Training in Developmental Dis-abilities, 41, 125–138.

McDonnell, J., Mathot-Bucker, C., Thorson, N.,& Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusionof students with moderate and severe disabil-ities in junior high school general educationclasses: The effects of classwide peer tutoring,multi-element curriculum, and accommoda-tions. Education and Treatment of Children, 24,141–160.

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2006).Universal design and its applications ineducational environments. Remedial and Spe-cial Education, 27, 166–175.

McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpreta-tions of educational equity and students withdisabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 265–278.

Meisels, S. J., Bickel, D. D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y.,& Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’judgments: A validity study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kinder-garten to grade 3. American EducationalResearch Journal, 38, 73–95.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


Mims, P., Lee, A., Browder, D., Zakas, T., &Flynn, S. (2012). Effects of a treatmentpackage to facilitate English/language artslearning for middle school students withmoderate to severe disabilities. Education andTraining in Autism and Developmental Disabil-ities, 47, 414–425.

Musti-Rao, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Tan, C. (2011).A practitioner’s guide to consultation andproblem solving in inclusive settings. TeachingExceptional Children, 44, 18–26.

Neel, R. S., & Billingsley, F. F. (1989). Impact: Afunctional curriculum handbook for students withmoderate to severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD:Brookes.

Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., &Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricularresearch in severe disabilities from 1976 to1995. Journal of Special Education Research,31(1), 36–55.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Pugach, M. C., & Blanton, L. P. (2011). Preserviceteacher preparation across general and specialeducation: Interrogating the meaning ofcollaboration and its role in teacher educationreform. Teacher Education and Special Educa-tion, 34, 181–182.

Restorff, D., & Abery, B. (2013). Observations ofacademic instruction for students with signif-icant intellectual disability: Three states,thirty-nine classrooms, one view. Remedialand Special Education. Advance online publi-cation. doi:10.1177/0741932512474995

Roach, A. T., & Elliott, S. N. (2006). Theinfluence of access to general educationcurriculum on alternate assessment perfor-mance of students with significant cognitivedisabilities. Educational Evaluation and PolicyAnalysis, 28, 181–194.

Ryndak, D. L. (2003). The curriculum contentidentification process: Rationale and over-view. In D. L. Ryndak & S. Alper (Eds.),Curriculum and instruction for students withsignificant disabilities in inclusive settings (pp.86–115). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculumcontent for students with moderate and severedisabilities in inclusive settings. Boston, MA:Allyn & Bacon.

Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C., & McDon-nell, J. (2012). Documenting impact ofeducation contexts on long-term outcomes

for students with significant disabilities. Edu-cation and Training in Autism and Developmen-tal Disabilities, 47, 127–138.

Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2004). Access tothe general education curriculum. In C. H.Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), Including studentswith significant disabilities (pp. 33–53). Boston,MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. J., &Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents’ perceptionsafter inclusion of their children with moderateor severe disabilities. Journal of the Associationfor Persons With Severe Handicaps, 20, 147–157.

Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Morrison, A. P., &Williams, L. J. (1996). Parents’ perceptions ofeducational settings and services for childrenwith moderate or severe disabilities. Remedialand Special Education, 17, 106–118.

Ryndak, D. L., Lehr, D., Ward, T., & DeBevoise,H. (in press). Collaboration and teaming foreffective inclusive education: Literature base,description, and illustrations. In J. McLeskey,N. L. Waldron, F. Spooner, & R. Algozzine(Eds.), Handbook of research and practice foreffective inclusive schools. New York, NY:Routledge.

Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommerstein, L.(1999). Literacy prior to and after inclusion ingeneral education settings. Journal of theAssociation for Persons With Severe Handicaps,24, 5–22.

Ryndak, D. L., Reardon, R., Benner, S. R., &Ward, T. (2007). Transitioning to and sus-taining district-wide inclusive services: A 7-year study of a district’s ongoing journey andits accompanying complexities. Research andPractice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32,228–246.

Ryndak, D. L., Ward, T., Alper, S., Montgomery,J., & Storch, J. F. (2010). Long-term outcomesof services for two persons with significantdisabilities with differing educational experi-ences: A qualitative consideration of theimpact of educational experiences. Educationand Training in Autism and DevelopmentalDisabilities, 45, 323–338.

Sailor, W. (2008/09). Systems change or tinkersome more? Research and Practice for PersonsWith Severe Disabilities, 33/34, 249–257.

Schenning, H., Knight, V., & Spooner, F. (2013).Effects of structured inquiry and graphicorganizers on social studies comprehensionby students with autism spectrum disorders.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 47

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 526–540.

Shurr, J., & Bouck, E. (2013). Research oncurriculum for students with moderate andsevere intellectual disability: A systematicreview. Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 48, 76–87.

Sindelar, P T., Shearer, D. K., Yendol-Hoppey, D.,& Liebert, T. W. (2006). The sustainability ofinclusive school reform. Exceptional Children,72, 317–331.

Smith, B., Spooner, F., & Wood, C. (2013). Usingembedded computer-assisted explicit instruc-tion to teach science to students with autismspectrum disorder. Research in Autism SpectrumDisorders, 7, 433–443.

Smith, P. (2007). Have we made any progress?Including students with intellectual disabili-ties in regular classrooms. Intellectual andDevelopmental Disabilities, 45, 297–309.

Snell, M. (Ed.). (1987). Systematic instruction ofpersons with severe handicaps. Columbus, OH:Merrill.

Snell, M. E., & Janney, R. E. (2000). Teachers’problem-solving about children with moder-ate and severe disabilities in elementaryclassrooms. Exceptional Children, 66, 472–490.

Sontag, E., Burke, P., & York, R. (1973).Considerations for serving the severely hand-icapped in the public schools. Education andTraining of the Mentally Retarded, 8, 20–26.

Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M.,& Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom variablesand access to the general curriculum forstudents with disabilities. Exceptional Children,75, 101–120.

Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., &Kennedy, C. H. (2006). What we know andneed to know about accessing the generalcurriculum for students with significant cog-nitive disabilities. Research and Practice forPersons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.

Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B.,& DiBiase, W. (2011). Evaluating evidence-based practices in teaching science content tostudents with severe developmental disabili-ties. Research and Practice for Persons With SevereDisabilities, 36, 62–75.

Spooner, F., McKissick, B. R., Hudson, M., &Browder, D.M. (in press). Access to the generalcurriculum in general education classes. In M.Agran, F. Brown, C. Hughes, C. Quirk, & D. L.

Ryndak (Eds.), Critical issues in severe disabilities(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Thiemann, K. S., & Goldstein, H. (2001). Socialstories, written text cues, and video feedback:Effects on social communication of childrenwith autism. Journal of Applied BehaviorAnalysis, 34, 425–446.

Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Standards-based reformand students with disabilities: Reflections on adecade of change. Focus on Exceptional Chil-dren, 33, 1–15.

Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The differentiated class-room: Responding to the needs of all learners.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervisionand Curriculum Development.

Vincent, L. J., & Broome, K. (1977). A publicschool service delivery model for handicappedchildren between birth and five years of age.In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.),Educational programming for the severely andprofoundly handicapped. Reston, VA: Councilfor Exceptional Children, Division on MentalRetardation.

Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & New-man, L. (1993). What makes a difference?Influences on postschool outcomes of youth withdisabilities. The third comprehensive report from theNational Longitudinal Transition Study of Spe-cial Education Students. Menlo Park, CA: SRIInternational.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P.,& Garza, N. (2006). An overview of findingsfrom the Wave 2 of the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2. Menlo Park, CA: SRIInternational. Available at http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_08/nlts2_report_2006_08_complete.pdf

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuringprogress in the general curriculum for studentswith severe disabilities. Research and Practice forPersons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 322–326.

Wehmeyer, M., Bersani, H., & Gagne, R. (2000).Riding the third wave: Self-determination andself-advocacy in the 21st century. Focus onAutism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15,106–115.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., &Agran, M. (2003). Access to the generalcurriculum of middle-school students withmental retardation: An observational study.Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Yeager, D., Bolding, N., Agran,M., & Hughes, C. (2003). The effects of self-

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028


regulation strategies on goal attainment forstudents with developmental disabilities ingeneral education classrooms. Journal of Devel-opmental and Physical Disabilities, 15, 79–91.

White, J., & Weiner, J. S. (2004). Influence of leastrestrictive environment and community basedtraining on integrated employment outcomesfor transitioning students with severe disabil-ities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21,149–156.

Williams, W., & Gotts, E. A. (1977). Selectedconsiderations on developing curriculum forseverely handicapped students. In E. Sontag, J.Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.), Educational pro-gramming for the severely and profoundly handi-capped. Reston, VA: Council for ExceptionalChildren.

Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992).Teaching students with moderate to severe disabil-ities. New York, NY: Longman.

Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1997). Instruction-al methods with students who have significant

disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 31,61–79.

Wood, W. M., Fowler, C. H., Uphold, N., & Test,D. W. (2005). A review of self-determinationinterventions with individuals with severedisabilities. Research & Practice for Persons WithSevere Disabilities, 30, 121–146.

Yeo, S. (2010). Predicting performance on stateachievement tests using curriculum-basedmeasurement in reading: A multilevel meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 31,412–422.

Authors:Diane Ryndak (email: [email protected]),University of Florida, Department of SpecialEducation, Gainvesville, FL 32611-7050, USA;Lewis B. Jackson, University of NorthernColorado, Greeley, Colorado United States; andJulia M. White, University of Rochester, USA.

INCLUSION �AAIDD

2013, Vol. 1, No. 1, 28–49 DOI: 10.1352/2326-6988-1.1.028

D. Ryndak et al. 49

involvement and progress in the general curriculum for ... · ment; (b) lead to increased...

Documents