The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require that individualized education programs of students with disabilities include information about students engagement in and access to the general curriculum. The US Department of Education clearly intended this as a means to heighten expectations for students with disabilities and to align special education with school reform efforts. There are, however, a number of questions about how these mandates apply to the education of students with mental retardation. This article overviews access requirements, examines the intent and meaning of the language, and proposes a decision-making model to enable IEP teams to reach curriculum decisions that provide such access for students with mental retardation.
AgranM., AlperS., & WehmeyerM. L. (2000). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
Bulgren, J., & Lenz, K. (1996). Strategic instruction in the content areas. In D. Deshler, E. Ellis, & K. Lenz (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning dis- abilities (2nd Ed., pp. 409-473). Denver: Love Publishing.
4.
Committee on Appropriate Test Use (1999). High stakes. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
5.
Committee on Goals 2000 and the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
DeshlerD., EllisE. S., & LenzR. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd Ed.). Denver: Love Publishing.
8.
Doll, R. C. (1996). Curriculum improvement: Decision making and process (9th Ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
9.
ElliottJ. L., EricksonR. N., ThurlowM. L., & ShrinerJ. G. (2000). State-level accountability for the performance of students with disabilities: Five years of change?The Journal of Special Education, 34, 39-47.
10.
Federal Register (1999, March 12). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
11.
Feldman, R., Saletsky, R., Sullivan, J., & Theiss, A. (1983). Student locus of control and response to expectations about self and teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 27-32.
12.
FieldS, HoffmanA & SpeziaM (1999). Self-determination strategies for adolescents in transition. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
13.
FieldS., MartinJ., MillerR., WardM., & WehmeyerM. (1998). A practical guide to teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
KavaleK. A.FornessS. R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related services. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
15.
KnowltonE. (1998). Considerations in the design of personalized curricular supports for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 95-107.
16.
MoonM. S., HartD., KomissarC., & FriedlanderR. (1995). Making sports and recreation activities accessible: Assistive technology and other accom-modation strategies. In FlippoK. F., IngeK. J., & BarcusM. (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource for school, work, and community (pp. 223-244). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
17.
Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access.ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief, Fall, 1998.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
18.
Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Epstein, M. H., & Smith, T. E. C. (1989). Comprehensive curriculum for students with mild handicaps. Focus on Exceptional Children, 21(8), 1-12.
19.
RolisonM. A., & MedwayF. J. (1985). Teachers’ expectations and attributions for student achievement: Effects of label, performance pattern, and special education intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 561-573.
20.
Rosenthal-MalekA, BloomA. 1998. Beyond acquisition: Teaching generalization for students with developmental disabilities. In HiltonA & RinglabenR (Eds.), Best and promising practices in developmental disabilities (pp. 139-155). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
21.
Sands, D. J., Adams, L., & Stout, D. M. (1995). A statewide exploration of the nature and use of curriculum in special education. Exceptional Children, <b>62</b>, 68-83.
22.
SchunkD. (1994). Self-regulation of self-efficacy and attributions. In SchunkD. H. & ZimmermanB. J. (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 75-99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
Sykes, G., & Plastrik, P. (1993). Standards setting as educational reform. Eric Clearinghouse on Teacher Education, Trends and Issues Paper, No. 8. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
24.
Testimony of Richard Riley, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education: Hearings Before the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, House of Representatives, 104th Cong. (1995), http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/06-1995/idea-1.html.
25.
Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. (1998). Free appropriate public education: The law and children with disabilities (5th Ed.). Denver: Love Publishing.
26.
WehmeyerM. L. (1998). National survey of the use of assistive technology by adults with mental retardation.Mental Retardation, 36, 44-51.
27.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). Assistive technology and students with mental retardation: Utilization and barriers. Journal of Special Education Technology, **14**, 50-60.
28.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Promoting self-determination for students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes
29.
WehmeyerM. L., PalmerS., AgranM., MithaugD., & MartinJ. (2000). Promoting causal agency: The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Exceptional Children, <b>66</b>, 439-453.
30.
WhitmanT. L. (1990). Self-regulation and mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 94, 347-362.
31.
ZimmermanM. A.1990Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A structural model analysis of participation and empowermentJournal of Research in Personality2471-86
