Twelve characteristics are offered as being important for an appropriate program for severely/profoundly handicapped (SPH) individuals: age appropriate curriculum, specific objectives, functional activities, consistent cue hierarchy, regular data collection, periodic IEP revision, detailed classroom schedule, instruction outside the classroom, integrated therapy, small group instruction, interaction with non-handicapped, and family involvement. The above characteristics provide educators with criteria for judging the appropriateness of programs that presently exist for SPH students.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownL., Branston-McLeanM.B., BaumgartD., VincentL., FalveyM., & SchroederJ.Using the characteristics of current and subsequent least restrictive environments in the development of curricular content for severely handicapped students. AAESPH Review, 1979, 4, 407–424.
2.
BrownL., BranstonM., Hamre-NietupskiS., JohnsonF., WilcoxB., & GruenwaldL.A rationale for comprehensive longitudinal interactions between severely handicapped students and nonhandicapped students and other citizens. AAESPH Review, 1979, 4, 3–14.
3.
BrownL., WilcoxB., SontagE., VincentB., DoddN., & GruenwaldL.Toward the realization of the least restrictive environments for severely handicapped students. AAESPH Review, 1977, 2, 195–201.
4.
BurtonT., & HirshorenA.The education of severely and profoundly retarded children: Are we sacrificing the child to the concept?Exceptional Children, 1979, 45, 598–603.
5.
CertoN., BrownL., BelmoreK., & CrownerT.A review of secondary-level educational service delivery models for severely handicapped students. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational Programming for the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped. Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
6.
KnapczykD.Task analytic assessment of severe learning programs. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1975, 10, 24–27.
7.
NirjeB.The normalization principle and its human management implications. In KugelR. & WolfensbergerW. (Eds.), Changing patterns of residential services for the mentally retarded. Washington, D.C.: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1969.
8.
SontagE., BurkeP., & YorkR.Considerations for serving the severely handicapped in public schools. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 1973, 8, 25–26.
9.
SontagE. (Ed.) Educational Programming for the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped. Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
10.
SontagE., CertoN., & ButtonJ.On a distinction between the education of the severely and profoundly handicapped and a doctrine of limitations. Exceptional Children, 1979, 45, 604–614.
11.
SternatS., MessinaR., NietupskiJ., LyonS., & BrownL.Occupational and physical therapy services for severely handicapped students: Toward a naturalized public school service delivery model. In SontagE. (Ed.), Educational Programming for the Severely and Profoundly Handicapped. Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children, 1977.
12.
ThompsonP.R.Wednesday morning keynote address (Untitled). In MooreJ. & EnglemanV. (Eds.), The severely multiply handicapped: What are the issues? Proceedings from the Regional Topical Conference, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 6-8, 1974, pp. 70–76.
13.
TurnbullA.Parents and Professionals. In SnellM. (Ed.), Systematic Instruction for the Moderately and Severely Handicapped. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1978.
