The passage of No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act has strengthened the conditions for instructional accountability for all learners. The standards–based approach promulgated by curriculum and state assessments is central to the accountability of conditions in today's schools; however, national and state data continue to document a performance gap between students with learning disabilities (LD) and their nondisabled peers. Building on 5 years of experience in developing and testing the Blending Assessment with Instruction Program in mathematics, we present three basic principles that are essential to ensuring that students with LD achieve curriculum standards: (1) instruction must be aligned with curriculum standards, (2) teachers’ content knowledge is essential to translating curriculum standards into aligned instruction, and (3) instructional methodology should receive greater attention during teacher preparation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BallD. L., HillH. C., & BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decideAmerican Educator, 29(3), 14–22, 43–46.
2.
BaroodyA. J. (2003). The development of adaptive expertise and flexibility: Then integration of conceptual and procedural knowledge. In BaroodyA. J. & DowkerA. (Eds.), The development of arithmetic concepts and skills: Constructing adaptive expertise studies (pp. 1–34). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
3.
BaxterJ. A., WoodwardJ., & OlsonD. (2001). Effects of reform–based mathematics instruction on low–achievers in five third grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 529–547.
4.
BishopA. G., BrownellM. T., & SindelarP. T. (2005). Lessons from special education research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(3), 35–48.
5.
BoalerJ. (2008). When politics took the place of inquiry: A response to the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's review of instructional practices. Educational Researcher, 37, 588–594.
6.
BrownellM. T., BishopA. G., MalikD., & LangleyL. (2007). Expectations for the profession. In MeyenE. & BuiY. (Eds.), Exceptional children in today's schools. Denver : Love Publishing.
7.
BrownellM. T., HirschE., & SeoS. (2004). Meeting the demand for highly qualified special education teachers at a time of severe shortages: What should policymakers considerJournal of Special Education, 38, 56–61.
8.
BrownellM. T., SindelarP. T., KielyM. T., & DanielsonL. C. (2009, April). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Paper presented at the Annual Council of Exceptional Children Convention & Expo, Seattle, WA.
DeshlerD. D., SchumakerJ. B., BulgrenJ. A., LenzB. K., JantzenJ.–E., AdamsG., . (2001). Making learning easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 82–85.
11.
ElliottJ. L., & ThurlowM. L. (2000). Educational accountability: What is it? In ElliottJ. L. & ThurlowM. L. (Eds.), Improving test performance of students with disabilities... on district and state assessments (pp. 10–34). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.
12.
EnglishF. W. (2000). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and auditing the curriculum (Millennium ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press.
13.
Darling–HammondL., & HaselkornD. (2009). Reforming teaching: Are we missing the boatEducation Week, 28(27), 36.
14.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.
15.
GrahamK. J., LiY., & Curran BuckJ. (2000). Characteristics of mathematics teacher preparation programs in the United States: An exploratory study. The Mathematics Educator, 5(1/2), 5–31.
16.
HillH. C., RowanB., & BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371–406.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). Mathematic achievement of fourth and fifth Graders in 2007. In TIMSS 2007 results. Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://nces.ed.gov/timss/results07_math07.asp
19.
JitendraA. K., DiPipiC. M., & Perron–JonesN. (2002). An exploratory study of schema–based word–problem–solving instruction for middle school students with learning disabilities: An emphasis on conceptual and procedural understanding. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 23–38.
20.
KrashenS. (2005). The hard work hypothesis: Is doing your homework enough to overcome the effects of povertyMulticultural Education, 12(4), 16–19.
MaL. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
23.
MacciniP., & GagnonJ. C. (2002). Perceptions and applications of NCTM standards by special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325–344.
24.
MalloyC. E. (2004). Equity in mathematics education is about access. In RubensteinR. N. & BrightG. W. (Eds.), Perspectives on the teaching of mathematics: Sixty–sixth yearbook (pp. 1–14). Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
25.
MastropieriM. A., ScruggsT. E., & ShiahS. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6, 89–98.
26.
MillerS. P., & HudsonP. J. (2006). Helping students with disabilities understand what mathematics means. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(1), 28–35.
27.
MontagueM., & Van GarderenD. (2008). Effective mathematics instruction. In MorrisR. J. & MatherN. (Eds.), Evidence–based interventions for students with learning and behavioral challenges (pp. 236–257). New York : Routledge.
28.
Moyer–PackenhamP. S. (2004). Five questions principals should ask about their math programs. Principal, 84(2), 12–16, 18.
National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Education Progress. (2004). The nation's report card. Retrieved December, 7, 2006, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard
31.
National Council of Teacher of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA : Author.
32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA : National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
33.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundation for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education.
34.
No Child Left Behind Act of2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301, et seq. (2007).
35.
Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students. (2008). Biennial Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Title III State Formula Grant Program, School Years 2004–06. Washington, DC. Retrieved April 9th from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/accountability/
36.
ParmarR. S., & CawleyJ. F. (1997). Preparing teachers to teach mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 188–197.
37.
RosenshineB. (1997). Advances in research on instruction. In LloydJ. W., KameenuiE. J., & ChardD. (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 197–221). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
38.
RosenshineB., & StevensR. (1986). Teaching function. In WittrockM. C. (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American education research association (pp. 376–391). New York : Macmillian.
39.
ScruggsT., MarshakL., MastropieriM., & MillsS. (2009). How to differentiate without differentiating: Curriculum enhancements in inclusive content area classrooms. Paper presented at the annual Council of Exceptional Children Convention and Expo, Seattle, WA.
40.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
41.
StrosniderR., & GartlandD. (2009). General education secondary teacher candidates competent to teach all students. Paper presented at the annual Council of Exceptional Children Convention and Expo, Seattle, WA.
42.
SwansonH. L., HoskynM., & LeeC. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta–analysis of treatment outcomes. New York : Guilford.
43.
TaylorJ. A. (2005). Poverty and student achievement. Multicultural Education, 12(4), 53–55.
44.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education. (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary's annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC : Author.
