As school communities begin to serve students with significant disabilities in general education classrooms, there is a need to recognize and employ curriculum orientations and practices that interface with the purposes and principles of inclusive education. this article begins by offering reconstructionism---or the process of critique and reformulation of practice---as a useful orientation for viewing the design of curriculum in inclusive schools. sound theoretical foundations and the use of learner-centered, process-oriented, and communication-based instructional approaches are proposed as promising practices for designing a curriculum that is responsive to the needs of diverse learners. following this discussion, implications for future research are articulated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbott, J. (1995). Children need communities---communities need children. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 6--10.
2.
Ackerman, D., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Integrating thinking and learning skills across the curriculum. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 77--95). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3.
Apple, M., & Beane, J. (1995). Democratic schools.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
4.
Banks, J., & McGee Banks, C. (1989). Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
Bean, J. (1990). Rethinking the middle school curriculum. Middle School Journal, 5, 1--5.
6.
Beck, L. (1994). Reclaiming educational administration as a caring profession.New York: Teachers College Press.
7.
Berman, S. (1990). Educating for social responsibility. Educational Leadership, 48(3), 75--80.
8.
Brameld, T. (1956). Toward a reconstructed philosophy of education.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9.
Brown, L., Branston, M., Baumgart, D., Vincent, L., Falvey, M., & Schroeder, J. (1979). Utilizing the characteristics of current and subsequent environments as factors in the development of curricular content for severely handicapped students. AAESPH Review, 4, 407--424.
10.
Chittenden, E. (1991). Authentic assessment, evaluation, and documentation. In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 22--31). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
11.
Choate, J. S., & Evans, S. (1992). Authentic assessment of special learners: Problem or promise?Preventing School Failure, 37(1), 6--9.
12.
Christ, G. M. (1995). Curriculums with real-world connections. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 32--35.
13.
Clark, G. (1994). Is functional curriculum approach compatible with an inclusive education model?Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(2), 36--37.
14.
Curwin, R., & Mendler, A. (1988). Discipline with dignity.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
15.
Davidson, N. (1994). Cooperative and collaborative learning: An integrated perspective. In J. Thousand, R. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 13--30). Baltimore: Brookes.
16.
Davydov, V. V. (1995). The influence of L. S. Vygotsky on education theory, research, and practices. Educational Researcher, 24(3), 12--21.
17.
Diez, M., & Moon, J. (1992). What do we want students to know? … and other important questions. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 38--41.
18.
Drew, N. (1987). Learning the skills of peacemaking.Rolling Hills Estates, CA: Jalmar.
19.
Elkind, D. (1987). Multi-age grouping. Young Children, 45(11), 2.
20.
Falvey, M. A. (1989). Community based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps.Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
Ford, A., & Black, J. (1989). Community-referenced curriculum for students with moderate and severe disabilities. In D. Biklen, D. Ferguson, & A. Ford (Eds.), Schooling and disability (pp. 141--167). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities.Baltimore: Brookes.
23.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Phillips, N. B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518--537.
24.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.New York: HarperCollins.
25.
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C., Dennis, R., & Edelman, S. (1994). Problem solving methods to facilitate inclusion education. In J. Thousand, R. Villa, & A. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity and collaborative learning: A practical guide to empowering students and teachers (pp. 321--346). Baltimore: Brookes.
26.
Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom.New York: Harper & Row.
27.
Goldman, J., & Gardner, H. (1989). Multiple paths to educational effectiveness. In D. K. Lipskey & A. Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all (pp. 121--139). Baltimore: Brookes.
28.
Gollnick, D. M. (1980). Multicultural education. Viewpoints in Teaching and Learning, 56, 1--17.
29.
Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1987). Looking into classrooms (4th ed.). New York: Harper & Row.
30.
Grant, C., & Sleeter, C. (1989). Race, class, gender, exceptionality, and educational reform. In J. Banks & C. McGee Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 46--66). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
