Investigating the Alignment Between English Language Arts Curricula Developed for Students With Significant Intellectual Disability and the CCSS

Abstract

Federal law requires all students, including those with significant intellectual disability, to make progress toward grade-level general education standards. The alignment between standards, curriculum, and instruction is vital for ensuring equitable opportunities to learn. Commercially available curricula attempt to support teachers and students by aligning instructional materials to standards, but few studies exist to verify this alignment. Those that have been conducted for general education curriculum have not been promising. This study uses the Links for Academic Learning protocol to evaluate the alignment of curricula designed for students with significant intellectual disability (SWSID) that mark themselves as aligned to grade-level standards. Findings related to the alignment between the standards, lesson objectives, and lesson content are reported. The researchers discuss implications related to the adoption and use of curricula specifically designed for SWSID and the need for additional research in this area.

Keywords

alignment CCSS curriculum English Language Arts low-incidence disabilities exceptionalities instruction to promote inclusion

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AbleNet Inc. (2013). MEville to WEville 2.0. Roseville, MN: Ablenet Inc.

Apitz

Ruppar

Roessler

Pickett

K. J.

(2017). Planning lessons for students with significant disabilities in high school English classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49, 168–174.

Attainment Company. (2013). Teaching to standards: English language arts. Verona, WI: Attainment Company.

Blank

R. K.

(2012). Closing the opportunity gap for students with disabilities: Analyzing alignment of instruction and standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics (Kansas EAG State Consortium SEC Special Education Project Report). Retrieved from http://hub.mspnet.org/media/data/2012_Summary_Project_Report_KS_EAG_SEC_Spec_Ed_final_2_20_13.pdf?media_000000008080.pdf

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English Language Arts & Literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (nd). Standards in your state. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1. 580 U.S. (2017).

Erickson

K. A.

Geist

L. A.

(2016). The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 32, 187–197.

Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, Stat. 1177 (2015).

10.

Flowers

Wakeman

Browder

Karvonen

(2007). Links for academic learning: An alignment protocol for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Charlotte: University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Retrieved from https://nceo.umn.edu/docs/OnlinePubs/AlignmentManual.pdf

11.

Frattura

Capper

C. A.

(2006). Segregated programs versus integrated comprehensive service delivery for all learners: Assessing the differences. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 355–364.

12.

Hess

(2007). District of Columbia public schools’ comprehensive assessment system. Retrieved from http://www.naacpartners.org/publications/resourceDocuments/17170.pdf

13.

Hunt

McDonnell

Crockett

M. 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.

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. 1400 (2004).

15.

Kurth

J. A.

Morningstar

M. E.

Kozleski

E. B.

(2014). The persistence of highly restrictive special education placements for students with low-incidence disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 39, 227–239. doi:10.1177/1540796914555580

16.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. (2015). Dear colleague letter: Significant guidance on Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-fape-11-17-2015.pdf

17.

Polikoff

M. S.

(2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1185–1211. doi:10.31102/0013189X11405038

18.

Porter

Smithson

(2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

19.

Soukup

J. H.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Bashinski

S. M.

Bovaird

J. A.

(2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120. doi:10.1177/001440290707400106

20.

Taub

D. T.

McCord

J. A.

Ryndak

D. L.

(2017). Opportunities to learn for students with extensive support needs: A context of research-supported practices for all in general education classes. Journal of Special Education, 51, 127–137.

21.

Towles-Reeves

Kearns

Kleinert

(2009). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. Journal of Special Education, 42, 241–254.

22.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.

23.

Webb

N. L.

(1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Council of Chief State School Officers and National Institute for Science Education Research Monograph No. 6). Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison.