Developing Standards-Based Individualized Education Program Objectives for Students with Significant Needs

Abstract

Cristina has seen many changes in her years of teaching students with significant needs. Her very first classroom was a “life skills” class in a cluster setting at an elementary school 11 years ago. She worked diligently to help her students become more independent, with the goal of placement in their neighborhood school's general education classroom. Cristina is familiar with the academic demands of the school curriculum in the age of accountability, and she is very aware of the intense educational needs of her students. During the most recent district special education meeting, her director discussed the necessity for all individualized education program (IEP) objectives to be based on the general education curriculum. Thinking about the individual needs of her students, Cristina wonders if perhaps inclusion has gone one step too far. How is she going to teach IEP objectives in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies when some of her students are unable to speak, write, or use cause-and-effect software?

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agran

Alper

Wehmeyer

(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, 123–133.

Browder

Flowers

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Karvonen

Spooner

Algozzine

(2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (4), 211–223.

Browder

Spooner

F. H.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Flowers

Algozzine

Karvonen

(2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternative assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28 (4), 165–181.

Browder

D. M.

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Courtade-Little

Snell

M. E.

(2006). General curriculum access. In Snell

M. E.

Brown

(Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 489–525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Browder

D. M.

Cooper-Duffy

(2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and requirements for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.”. The Journal of Special Education, 37 (3), 157–163.

Burns

(2006). IEP-2005: Writing and implementing individualized educational programs (IEPs). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Byrnes

(2004). Alternate assessment FAQs (and answers). TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36 (6), 58–63.

Cushing

L. S.

Clark

N. M.

Carter

E. W.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2005). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive needs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38 (2), 6–13.

Downing

J. E.

(1999). Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities. Baltimore: PHB.

10.

Etscheidt

S. K.

(2006). Progress monitoring: Legal issues and recommendations for IEP teams. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38 (3), 56–60.

11.

Flowers

Ahlgrim-Delzell

Browder

Spooner

(2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30 (2), 81–92.

12.

Flowers

Browder

Ahlgrim-Delzell

(2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201–215.

13.

Thurlow

M. L.

(2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial and Special Education, 23 (4), 195–202.

14.

White

(1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form versus function. In Sailor

Wilcox

Brown

(Eds.) Methods of instruction for severely handicapped learners (pp. 47–69). Baltimore: PHB.