Supporting and teaching students with disabilities to learn rigorous, standards-based curriculum in secondary school is a complex and difficult issue for educators. This article presents an overview of issues surrounding standards-based curricula and individualized education for youth with disabilities in secondary school settings. Specifically examined are (a) the complex needs of students with disabilities in learning rigorous standards-based curricula, (b) the needs of educators to effectively teach this population standards-based curricula, and (c) the contextual factors that impact teaching and learning standards-based curricula in secondary schools. Also, some exemplary and promising practices that enable students and schools to meet the goals set out by current legislation are described, and recommendations are made for practitioners.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfordB. (1997, September). Leadership for increasing the participation and success of students in high school advanced courses: Implications for rural educational settings. The many faces of rural education: Proceedings of the Annual NREA Convention, USA, 89.
2.
American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF) and Center on Education Policy (CEP). (2002). Twenty-five years of educating children with disabilities: The good news and the work ahead. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BalcazarF. E.KeysC. B. (1997). A comprehensive model to identify, train, and place Hispanic youths with disabilities who have dropped out of high school. Final report to the U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. Chicago: University of Illinois, Institute on Disability and Human Development.
4.
BellB.GilbertJ. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press and Taylor & Francis.
5.
BerlinerD.BiddleB. (1996). Standards amidst uncertainty and inequality. The School Administrator, 53(5), 42–47.
6.
BlackorbyJ.WagnerM. (1996). Longitudinal postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.
7.
BoydV.HordS. M. (1994, April). Principals and the new paradigm: Schools as learning communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
8.
BroussardC. A.JosephA. L. (1998). Tracking: A form of educational neglect?Social Work in Education (20)2, 110–20.
9.
Brydon-MillerM. (1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53, 657–666.
10.
BurgstahlerS. (2002). The role of technology in preparing youth with disabilities for postsecondary education and employment. A white paper developed for the Post-Outcomes Network of the National Center on Secondary Education and Transition (NCSET) at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Retrieved October 22, 2002, from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/Publications/Pdfs/role_of_technology.pdf.
11.
CarlsonE.SchrollK.KleinS. (2001, August 8). The study of personnel needs in special education. Paper presented at OSEP briefing, Washington, DC.
12.
CaweltiG. (1997). Effects of high school restructuring: Ten schools at work. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
13.
Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform. (1996). Standards-based school reform and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Author.
14.
ClapperA.T.BremerC.KachgalM. M. (March, 2002). Never too late: Approaches to reading instruction for secondary students with disabilities. Research to Practice Brief, (1)1, 1–2. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
15.
CobbB.LehmannJ.TochtermanS.BomottiS. (2000). Students with disabilities in transition: A review of four reforms. In JohnsonD.EmanuelE. (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 3–19). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Transition Network, Institute of Community Integration.
16.
Council for Exceptional Children. (1998). State-wide assessment programs: Including students with disabilities. Research Connections in Special Education, 2, 1–8.
17.
CunninghamC.NobelS. (1998, March). EASI street to science and math for K-12 students. Paper presented at the SCUN conference, Los Angeles, CA.
18.
DanielP.StallionB. (1996). Implementing school-based professional development in Kentucky. Journal of Staff Development, 17, 30–32.
19.
Darling-HammondL.McLaughlinM. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In McLaughlinM.ObermanI. (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices (pp. 202–218). New York: Teachers College Press.
20.
DefurS. (2002). Education reform, high stakes assessment, and students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203–211.
21.
Department of Education. (1995). Research in the education of individuals with disabilities. Innovation and development in special education, directory of current projects. Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Department of Education. (1996, October). What is a school wide program? Improving America's schools: A newsletter on issues in school reform. Washington, DC: Author.
DowrickP. W.SkougeJ. (2001, Winter). Creating futures: Potential of video empowerment in postsecondary education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 21(1), 49–64. Retrieved July 17, 2002, from http://www.cds.hawaii.edu/dsq/pdf/dsq2001Winter.pdf.
27.
EichensteinR. (1994). Project Achieve part I: Qualitative findings 1993–94. New York: City Board of Education.
28.
EricksonR. N.ThurlowM. (1997). State special education outcomes, 1997: A report on state activities during educational reform. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
29.
FisherD.RoachV.KearnsJ. (1998, March). Statewide assessment systems: Who's in and who's out?CISP Issue Brief, 3(1).
FullanM. (1992, June). Teachers as critical consumers of research. Paper commissioned by OECD for Seminar on Producers and Consumers of Research, Washington, DC.
32.
GajarA.GoodmanL.McAfeeJ. (1993). Secondary schools and beyond: Transition of individuals with mild disabilities. New York: Macmillan.
33.
GamoranA.PorterA. C.SmithsonJ.WhiteP. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–338.
34.
GeeK. (2002, Summer). Teacher preparation: In support of access to the general curriculum. The Special Edge, 15(3), 3.
35.
GerstenR. (1998). Recent advances in instructional research for students with learning disabilities: An overview. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 162–170.
36.
GerstenR.BakerS. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66, 454–470.
37.
Graduation rates remain stagnant for disabled. (1977). Special Education Report, 23(1), 1–2.
38.
GrossmanP.StodolskyS. S. (1995). Content as context: The role of school subjects in secondary school teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(8), 5–11, 23.
39.
HallinanM. T. (1996). Track mobility in secondary school. Social Forces, 74, 983–1002.
40.
HasaziS. B.FurneyK. S.DeStefanoL. (1999). Implementing the IDEA transition mandates. Exceptional Children, 65, 555–566.
41.
HatchT. (1998). How comprehensive can comprehensive reform be?Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 518–522.
42.
Hawaii State Improvement Grant. (1998). Application for special education: State program improvement grants program (FDA 84.323A). Unpublished, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center on Disability Studies.
JohnsonD. R.StoddenR. A.ThurlowM. L.EmanuelE. J.LueckingR.MackM. (2002). Current challenges facing secondary education and transition services for youth with disabilities: What research tells us. Exceptional Children68, 519–531.
47.
JonesM. (March, 2002). Providing a quality accommodated experience in preparation for and during postsecondary school. Information Brief (1)1. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.
48.
JorgensenC. (1997). Developing inclusive curriculum right from the start: Practices strategies and examples from the high school classroom. In StainbackS.StainbackW. (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators (pp. 221–236). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
49.
JorgensenC. (1998). Restructuring high schools for all students. Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 49–70). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
50.
JorgensenC.FisherD.SaxC.SkoglundK. (1997). Innovative scheduling, new roles for teachers, and heterogeneous grouping: The organizational factors related to student success in inclusive, restructuring schools. In JorgensenC. (Ed.), Restructuring high schools for all students: Taking inclusion to the next level (pp. 49–70). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
51.
KohlerP. D. (1998). Implementing a transition perspective of education: A comprehensive approach to planning and delivering secondary education and transition services. In RuschF. R.ChadseyJ. G. (Eds.), Beyond high school: Transition from school to work (pp. 179–205). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
52.
LeeV.SmithI. (1994, Fall). High school restructuring and student achievement: A new study finds strong links. Issues in Restructuring School, 7, 97–113.
53.
LovelessT. (1994). The influence of subject areas on middle school tracking policies. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 10, 147–175.
54.
MacArthurC. A.SchwartzS.GrahamS.MolloyD.HarrisK. (1996). Integration of strategy instruction into whole language classroom: A case study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 168–176.
McDonnellJ. J.HardmanM. L.McDonnellA. P.Kiefer-O'DonnellR. (1995). An introduction to persons with severe disabilities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
57.
McDonnellL.McLaughlinM.MorisonP. (Eds.). (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
58.
McGregorG.HalvorsenA.FisherD.PumpianI.BhaermanB.SalisburyC. (1998, November). Professional development for “all” personnel in inclusive schools. CISP Brief, 3(3).
59.
McLeskeyJ.HenryD.HodgesD. (1998). Inclusion: Where is it happening?TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(1), 4–10.
60.
McNeilJ. (2000, June-July). U.S. Census Bureau: Employment, earnings and disability, tables B2-B5. Paper prepared for the annual conference of the Western Economic Assoc. International, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
61.
MeierD. (1995). How our schools could be. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 369–373.
62.
MonroeB. (1996). Teaching extended class periods. Social Education, 60(2), 77–79.
63.
MurphyD. M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 469–493.
64.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1999, February). Linkage of the IEP to the general education curriculum. In Quick Turn Around (QTA). Washington, DC: Department of Education.
NicholsJ. D. (2000). Scheduling reform: A longitudinal exploration of high school block scheduling structures. International Journal of Educational Reform (9)2, 134–147.
NormanK.CaseauD.StefanichG. P. (1998). Teaching students with disabilities in inclusive science classrooms: Survey results. Science Education, 82(2), 127–46.
70.
OakesJ. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
71.
OakesJ.WellsA. (1998). Detracking for high student achievement. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 38–41.
OgawaR. T.MalenB. (1991). Towards rigor in reviews of multivocal literatures: Applying the exploratory case study method. Review of Educational Research, 61, 265–286.
74.
PedrozaA.MuellerG.WhitleyJ. (1999, April). Reconstructing special education services in middle school: Success for all. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
75.
QuenemoenR. F.LehrC. A.ThurlowM. L.MassanariC. B. (2001, March). Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations. Discussion paper at the National Capacity Building Institute, Honolulu, HI.
76.
RoachV.CarusoM. B. (1997, February). Policy and practice: Observations and recommendations to promote inclusive practices. Education and Treatment of Children20(1), 105–121.
77.
SchererM. (February, 2001). How and why standards can improve student achievement: A conversation with Robert J. Marzano. NASSP Bulletin85, 622.
78.
SebastianJ. P.Mathot-BucknerC. (1998, March). Including students with severe disabilities in rural middle and high school: Perceptions of classroom teachers. In Coming together: Preparing for rural special education in the 21st century (pp. 308–315). Conference proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (18), Charleston, SC.
79.
SkriticT. (1991). Students with special educational needs: Artifacts of the traditional curriculum. In AinscowM. (Ed.), Effective schools for all (pp. 87–99). London: Fulton Publishing.
80.
SmithD.S.McLeskeyJ.TylerN.SaundersS. (2002). The supply and demand of special education teachers: The nature of the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Unpublished manuscript, Gainesville: University of Florida.
81.
SpinelliC. G. (1998). Teacher education reform: Promoting interactive teaching strategies and authentic assessment for instructing and increasing diverse population of students. Unpublished manuscript, Monmouth University, West Long Branch, NJ.
82.
StoddenR. A. (1995). Broadcasting exemplary practices in secondary education. United States Department of Education Personnel Preparation Grant Proposal. Honolulu: University of Hawaii at Manoa.
83.
StoddenR. A.JonesM. A.ChangK. B. T. (2002). Services, supports and accommodations for individuals with disabilities: An analysis across secondary education, postsecondary education and employment. Retrieved October 22, 2002, from http://www.ncset.hawaii.edu/Publications/Pdfs/services_supports.pdf.
84.
SzymanskiE.Hanley-MaxwellC.ParkerR. M. (1990). Transdisciplinary service delivery. In RuschF. R. (Ed.), Supported employment: Models, methods, and issues (pp. 199–214). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
85.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. L. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.
86.
ThurlowM. L. (2002, January). Accommodations for students with disabilities in high school. Issue Brief (1)1. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center Secondary Education and Transition. Tomlinson, C. A. (February, 2001). Standards and the art of teaching: Crafting high-quality classrooms. Retrieved October 22, 2002, from www.nassp.org/news/bltn_hi_qlty_clsrm201.htm.
87.
VaughnS.SchummJ.BrickJ. (1998). Using a rating scale to design and evaluate inclusion programs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 30, 41–45.
88.
VernonD. S.DeshlerD. D.SchumakerJ. B. (1993). The cooperative strategies series: The teamwork strategy. Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
89.
WagnerT. (1998). Change as collaborative inquiry: A constructivist methodology for reinventing schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 512–517.
90.
WaldripB. G.GiddingsG. J. (1996, April). Multicultural learning environments: Influence of culture on science learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, St. Louis, MO.
91.
WaldronN.McLeskeyJ. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 395–405.
92.
WehmanP. (1992). Models and approaches to transition planning. In WehmanP. (Ed.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (pp. 71–80). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
93.
WheelockA. (1992). Crossing the tracks: How “untracking” can save America's schools. New York: New Press.
WhiteG. W.NaryD. E.FroehlichA. K. (in press). Consumers as collaborators in research and action. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community.
96.
WhyteW. F. (1991). Participatory action research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
97.
WinfieldG.WoodwardM. (1992, January 31). Where are equity and diversity in Bush's Proposal 2000?Education Week, 32–41.
98.
ZigmondN.JenkinsJ.FuchsL.DenoS.FuchsD.BakerJ.JenkinsL.CouthinoM. (1995, March). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 531–540.
