Federal special education law (Individuals With Disabilities Education Act) guarantees, but does not define, access to the general education curriculum for all students with disabilities. In-depth qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with special educators (n = 33) about their academic decision making for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Findings revealed a distinct path to decision making about academic access, including a context of aloneness, the influence of professionalism, and perceived barriers. As traditional ways of educating students with significant cognitive disabilities are challenged by new expectations, this research provides a glimpse of how teachers struggle to interpret policy and enact access. Understanding access as a conceptual path enables policy, research, and professional development aimed at increasing access to focus on specific points in the decision-making process.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 122–133.
2.
AyresK. M.DouglasK. H.LowreyK. A.SieversC. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21.
3.
BooteD. N. (2006). Teachers’ professional discretion and the curricula. Teachers & Teaching, 12, 461–478.
4.
BrodkinE. (2012). Reflections on street-level bureaucracy: Past, present, and future. Public Administration Review, 72, 940–949. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x
5.
BrowderD. M. (2012). Finding the balance: A response to Hunt and McDonnell. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 157–159.
6.
BrowderD. M.FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211–223.
7.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
8.
BrowderD. M.TrelaK.JimenezB. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206–219.
9.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
10.
CopelandS. R.KeefeE. B. (2007). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
CourtadeG.SpoonerF.BrowderD.JimenezB. (2012). Seven reasons to promote standards-based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3–13.
12.
DymondS. K.RenzagliaA.GilsonC. L.SlagorM. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1–15.
13.
EtscheidtS. (2011). Complacency with access and the aggregate? Affirming an individual determination of educational benefit under the individuals with disabilities education act. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20, 1–13.
14.
EvansT. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work, and the (exaggerated) death of discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 34, 871–895. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch106
15.
EvansT. (2010). Professional discretion in welfare services: Beyond street-level bureaucracy. Surrey, UK: Ashgate.
16.
EvansT. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 368–386. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
17.
GiangrecoM. (2011). Educating students with severe disabilities: Foundational concepts and practices. In SnellM.BrownF. (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed., pp. 1–30). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
18.
GoldsteinJ.BehuniakP. (2012). Assessing students with significant cognitive disabilities on academic content. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 117–127. doi:10.1177/0022466910379156
19.
HillH. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13, 265–282.
20.
HudsonM. E.BrowderD.WakemanS. (2013). Helping students with moderate and severe intellectual disability access grade-level text. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(3), 14–23.
21.
HuntP.McDonnellJ.CrockettM. A. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 139–152.
22.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Public Law 108-446. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
23.
JimenezB. A.BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.DibiaseW. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317.
24.
JimenezB. A.LoY.-y.SaundersA. F. (2014). The additive effects of scripted lessons plus guided notes on science quiz scores of students with intellectual disability and autism. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 231–244. doi:10.1177/0022466912437937
25.
JorgensenC. M.McSheehanM.SonnenmeierR. M. (2007). Presumed competence reflected in the educational programs of students with IDD before and after the Beyond Access professional development intervention. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 32, 248–262.
26.
LipskyM. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service (30th anniversary expanded edition). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
27.
LowreyK. A.DrasgowE.RenzagliaA.ChezanL. (2007). Impact of alternate assessment on curricula for students with severe disabilities purpose driven or process driven?Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 244–253.
28.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
29.
Maynard-MoodyS.MushenoM. (2012). Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-level workers as agents and pragmatists. Public Administration Review, 72, S16–S22.
30.
MeyersM.GlaserB.DonaldK. (1998). On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers implementing policy reforms?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 1–22.
31.
MeyersM. K.VorsangerS. (2003). Street level bureaucrats and the implementation of public policy. In PetersB. G.PierreJ. (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 245–256). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
32.
MilesM.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
RestorffD.SharpeM.AberyB.RodriguezM.KimN. K. (2012). Teacher perceptions of alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards: Results from a three state survey. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 185–198. doi:10.2511/027494812804153570
35.
RiccucciN. M. (2005). How management matters street level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
36.
RitchieJ.SpencerL. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (Eds.), The qualitative researchers companion (pp. 305–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
RyndakD. L.MooreM. A.OrlandoA.DelanoM. (2008–2009). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 199–213.
38.
SoukupJ. H.WehmeyerM. L.BashinskiS. M.BovairdJ. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120.
39.
SpoonerF.BrowderD. M. (2006). Why teach the general curriculum? In BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 1–14). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
40.
SpoonerF.DymondS. K.SmithA.KennedyC. H. (2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283.
41.
TimberlakeM. T. (2014). Weighing costs and benefits: Teacher interpretation and implementation of access to the general education curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 83–99. doi:10.1177/1540796914544547
42.
VinzantJ. C.CrothersL. (1998). Street level leadership, discretion and legitimacy in front line public service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
43.
VoeltzL. M.EvansI. M.FreedlandK.DonellonS. (1982). Teacher decision making in the selection of educational programming priorities for severely handicapped children. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 179–198.
44.
WehmeyerM. L.SandsD.KnowltonH. E.KozleskiE. B. (2002). Providing access to the general curriculum: Teaching students with mental retardation. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
