The Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices (CISP) was a 5-year federally-funded project focused on building the capacity of state and local systems to deliver inclusive educational services. A policy framework was developed to guide its training and technical assistance efforts across multiple states and districts. The framework incorporates standards-based reform within an inclusive schooling perspective. This article describes the six components of this policy framework and the various ways in which it was applied. Based on its utility in this context, the authors suggest ways in which this tool can be used by practitioners and policymakers at the district and school level.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105–17 (1997). Available at: http://www.ideapractices.org/law/IDEAMAIN.HTM. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 419 315).
2.
BoyerE. L. (1983). High school: A report on secondary education in America. New York: Harper and Row.
3.
Center for Policy Research. (1996, June). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities (Issue Brief). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
4.
Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. (1996, December). A framework for evaluating state and local policies for inclusion (Issue Brief). Pittsburgh: Allegheny-Singer Research Institute.
5.
DaileyD.Zantal-WienerK.RoachV. (2000). Reforming high school learning: The effect of the standards movement on secondary students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 444 273).
6.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act as Amended by the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103–382 (1994). Available at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/toc.html.U.S. Department of Education, Washington DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 792).
7.
Final Regulations for the Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, P.L. 105–17. (1999). Available at: http://www.ideapractices.org/lawandregs.htm. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Author.
8.
FordA.DavernL.SchnorrR. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities. Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–222.
9.
Goals 2000: Education America Act. (1994). P.L. 103–227. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 389 130).
10.
LinderT. W. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A functional approach to working with young children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
11.
LipskyD.GartnerA. (1989). Beyond separate education. Quality education for all. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
12.
MarzanoR. J.KendallJ. S. (1996). The fall and rise of standards-based education. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education and Aurora, C: Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 398 643).
13.
McGregorG.HalvorsenA.FisherD.PumpianI.BhaermanB.SalisburyC. (1998, November). Professional development for all personnel in inclusive schools (Issue Brief), 3(3). Pittsburgh: Allegheny-Singer Research Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 405).
14.
McGregorG.VogelsbergR. T. (1998). Inclusive schooling practices. Pedagogical and research foundations. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
15.
MorganD. P. (1982). Parent participation in the IEP process: Does it enhance appropriate education?Exceptional Education Quarterly, 46, 616–623.
16.
National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) (1992). Winner's all. A call for inclusive schools. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
NoletV.McLaughlinM. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum. Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.*
20.
PugachM. C. (1987). The national education reports and special education: Implications for teacher preparation. Exceptional Children, 53, 308–314.
21.
PugachM. C.JohnsonL. J. (1995). Collaborative practitioners. Collaborative schools. Denver: Love.*
22.
PugachM. C.Sapon-ShevinM. (1987). New agendas for special education policy: What the national reports haven't said. Exceptional Children, 53, 295–299.
23.
PurnellS.ClaycombC. (2001). Implementing reform. What Success For All teaches us about including students with disabilities in comprehensive school restructuring. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
24.
RainforthB.YorkJ. (2000). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities; Integrating therapy and educational services. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
25.
RoachV. (1995). Winning ways; Creating inclusive schools, classrooms, and communities. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education.
26.
RoachV.DaileyD.GoertzM. (1998). State accountability systems and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research and the Impact of General and Special Education Reform.
27.
SalisburyC.DunstC. J. (2000). School, family, and community partnerships. In RainforthB.YorkJ. (Eds.), Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities; Integrating therapy and educational services (pp. 57–87). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.*
28.
SalisburyC.StriekerT.RoachV.McGregorG. (2001). Pathways to inclusive practices; Systems oriented, policy linked, and research based strategies that work. Chicago: Erikson Institute/Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. Available at: http://www.edc.org/urban.
29.
SizerT. R. (1984). Horace's compromise; The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.*
30.
SmithA. C. (1997). Systemic education reform and school inclusion: A view from a Washington office window. Education and Treatment of Children, 20 (1), 7–20.
31.
SmithM.O'DayJ. (1990). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). Philadelphia: Falmer Press.
32.
StriekerT.SalisburyC.RoachV. (2001). Determining policy support for inclusive schools. Chicago: Erikson Institute/Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices. Available at: http://www.edc.org/urban.
33.
ThurlowM. (2001, June). Students with disabilities in standards-based reform. A framing paper for The National Summit on the Shared Implementation of IDEA. Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
34.
ThurlowM. L.ElliottJ. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities. Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.*
35.
TomlinsonC. (1999). The differentiated classroom. Responding to the needs of all learners. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 429 944).
36.
YsseldykeJ. (Ed.) (1987). The national education reports and special education. Exceptional Children, 53, 295–329.
