This article reanalyzes the principle of partial participation, which was introduced in 1982 to support educational programming for students with the most severe and profound disabilities. The article presents four “error patterns” in how the concept has been used, some reasons why such error patterns have occurred, and strategies for avoiding these errors.
BaldwinV. I. (1976). Curriculum concerns. In ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! (pp. 64–73). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
2.
BarrettB. (1979). Communitization and the measured message of normal behavior. In YorkR.EdgarE. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped. (Vol. IV, pp. 301–318). Columbus, OH: Special Press.
3.
BaumgartD.BrownL.PumpianI.NisbetJ.FordA.SweetM.MessinaR.SchroederJ. (1982). Principle of partial participation and individualized adaptions in education programs for severely handicapped students. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7(2), 17–27.
4.
BaumgartD.JohnsonJ.HelmstetterE. (1990). Augmentative and alternative communication systems for persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Company.
5.
BelmoreK.BrownL. (1978). A job skill inventory strategy designed for severely handicapped potential workers. In HaringN.BrickerD. (Eds.) Teaching the severely handicapped, Vol. III (pp. 223–262). Columbus, OH: Special Press.
6.
BrownF.HelmstetterE.GuessD. (1986). Current best practices with students with profound disability: Are there any? Unpublished manuscript, University Center at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY.
7.
BrownL.BranstonM.Hamre-NietupskiS.PumpianI.CertoN.GruenewaldL. (1979a). A strategy for developing chronological age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
8.
BrownL.Branston-McLeanM.BaumgartD.VincentL.FalveyM.SchroderJ. (1979b). Using the characteristics of current and subsequent least restrictive environments in the development of content for severely handicapped students. AAESPH Review, 4, 407–424.
9.
BrownL.FalveyM.VincentL.KayeN.JohnsonF.Ferrara-ParrishP.GruenewaldL. (1980). Strategies for generating comprehensive, longitudinal, and chronological age-appropriate individualized education programs for adolescent and young adult severely handicapped students. Journal of Special Education, 14, 199–215.
10.
BrownL.NietupskiJ.Hamre-NietupskiS. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In. ThomasM. A. (Ed.), Hey. don't forget about me! (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
11.
CohenM.GrossP.HaringN. G. (1976). Developmental pinpoints. In HaringN.BrownL. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 1, pp. 35–110). New York: Grune 8#x38; Stratton.
12.
DowningJ. (1988). Active versus passive programming: A critique of IEP objectives for students with the most severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 197–201.
13.
FalveyM. A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (2nd Ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
14.
FalveyM.BrownL.LyonS.BaumgartD.SchroederJ. (1978). Strategies for using cues and correction procedures. In SailorW.WilcoxB.BrownL. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 109–135). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
15.
FergusonD. L. (in press). Teacher work groups: Getting a little help from your friends. Teaching Exceptional Children.
16.
FergusonD. L.FlanneryK. B.ParkerR. (1988). The elementary/secondary system: Supportive education for students with severe handicaps. Module 6a: Program and teacher development system. Eugene, OR: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon.
17.
FergusonD. L.JeanchildL. (1992). It's not a matter of method: Thinking about how to implement curricular decisions. In StainbackS.StainbackW. (Eds.), Adapting the regular class curriculum: Enhancing student success in inclusive classrooms (pp. 159–174). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
FergusonD. L.JuniperL. (1990). A data-based programming approach for students with the most severe disabilities: An applied case study report. Eugene, OR: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon (submitted).
19.
FergusonD. L.ParkerR. (1988). The elementary/secondary system: Supportive education for students with severe handicaps. Module 3: The classroom management information system. Eugene, OR: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon.
20.
FergusonD. L.WilcoxB. (1987). The elementary secondary system: Supportive education for students with severe handicaps. Module 1: The activity-based IEP. Eugene, OR: Specialized Training Program, University of Oregon.
21.
FordA.BrownL.PumpianI.BaumgartD.NisbetJ.SchroederJ.LoomisR. (1984). Strategies for developing individualized recreation and leisure programs for severely handicapped students. In CertoN.HaringN.YorkR. (Eds.), Public school integration of severely handicapped students (pp. 245–276). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Company.
22.
FordA.SchnorR.MeyerL.DavernL.BlackJ.DempseyP. (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23.
FredericksH. D.Piazza-TemplemanT. (1990). A generic in-service training model. In KaiserA.McWhorterC. M. (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with persons with severe disabilities (pp. 301–317). Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Company.
24.
GoodladJ. I. (1990). The occupation of teaching in schools. In GoodladJ. I.SoderR.SirotnikK. A. (Eds.), The moral dimensions of teaching (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
25.
GuessD.HelmstetterE. (1986). Skill cluster instruction and the individualized curriculum sequencing model. In HornerR. H.MeyerL. H.FredericksH. D. (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 221–248). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
26.
GuessD.Mulligan-AultM.RobertsS.StruthJ.Siegel-CauseyE.ThompsonB.BronickiG. J.GuyB. (1988). Implications of biobehavioral states for the education and treatment of students with the most profoundly handicapped conditions. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 163–174.
27.
GuessD.ThompsonB. (1991). Preparation of personnel to educate students with severe and multiple disabilities: A time for change. In MeyerL.PeckC.BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities (pp. 391–398). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
28.
Hamre-NietupskiS.NietupskiJ.BatesP.MaurerS. (1982). Implementing a community-based educational model for moderately/severely handicapped students: Common problems and suggested solutions. The Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7(4), 38–43.
29.
HaringN.BrickerD. (1978). Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 3). Columbus, OH: Special Press.
30.
HaringN.BrownL. (1976). Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. 1). New York: Grune 8#x38; Stratton.
31.
HelmstetterE.BaumgartD.CurryC.DonaldsonB.LynchV.PeckC. (1987). The Inland Northwest Consortium for severely handicapped/deaf-blind inservice training: Final report. Pullman: Washington State University.
32.
MeyerL.JanneyR. (1989). User-friendly measures of meaningful outcomes: Evaluating behavioral interventions, The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 263–270.
33.
MeyerL. H. (1991). Advocacy, research and typical practices: A call for the reduction of discrepancies between what is and what ought to be and how to get there. In MeyerL. H.PeckC. A.BrownL. (Eds.), Critical issues in the levels of people with severe disabilities (pp. 629–649). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
34.
SailorW.AndersonJ.HalvorsenA.DoeringK.FillerJ.GoetzL. (1989). The comprehensive local school: Regular education for all children with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
35.
ShaneH. C. (1979). Approaches to communication training with the severely handicapped. In YorkR.EdgarE. (Eds.), Teaching the severely handicapped (Vol. IV, pp. 155–179). Columbus, OH: Special Press.
36.
SwitzkyH.RotatoriA.MillerT.FreagonS. (1979). The developmental model and its implications for assessment and instruction for the severely/profoundly handicapped. Mental Retardation, 17, 167–170.
