Providing Access to Education for Children with Disabilities - Essay Example

Discussion Paper 2: Access to curriculum for with intellectual disabilities Discuss how you would approach curriculum development for a student with intellectual or severe disabilities while still promoting access to the general curriculum. This discussion covers teacher side issues relating to providing students with learning disabilities access to the curriculum. Specific methods used to developing an individualized curriculum are mentioned, and the discussion includes incorporating individualized functional skills in educational programming while providing access to the general curriculum. Also, the issue of how to approach assessment in regard to skills, which may need to be targeted for instruction, is also addressed. Students with intellectual or learning disabilities have “a significant discrepancy between their academic achievement and their intellectual ability” (UW, 2009). They are characterized as having a low IQ (Snell et al., 2009), and tend to exhibit challenging behaviours (Bouras & Holt, 2007: 62). The low abilities may be in a specific area such as literacy, speaking, reasoning or numeracy or a combination of areas and may also be present along with other forms of disability. Nonetheless, there is an argument for providing such students with the same access to the curriculum as given to other students. Inclusion does not simply mean physical inclusion however. It is about giving them special support so they can be provided with a curriculum for learning as well. The advantages of inclusive education are “increased interaction with peers, increased communication and social skills, and increased inclusion in future environments” (Demchak et al., 1997: 2). Access to the general curriculum for students is dependent on both teacher and student variables (Lee et al., 2009) but we shall focus on the teacher side. Providing students with disabilities access to the general curriculum is also a requirement of recent legislation and education policies (Carter & Kennedy, 2006). This is to ensure that they can also benefit from the learning and social opportunities it provides. The provision should concentrate on the development of their motor, social, cognitive, and language skills. This effort contributes to the quality of life for both the students and their carers. Developing key literacy and numeracy skills should be an important focus of the provision. In terms of developing their literacy skills, their quality of life is enhanced through shared literature and greater dependence as readers (Browder et al., 2009). Alfassi et al. (2009) showed that useful methods included holding shared dialogues to train students to ask questions about the text, summarizing the reading, and clarifying difficult words. They thus advocated reciprocal teaching strategies characterized by adjusting the support according to the students’ difficulties and peer teaching. Their study found that “strategy instruction is indeed superior to traditional remedial methods of skill acquisition in fostering reading literacy comprehension”. Thus, literacy is not out of the reach of intellectually disabled students, and it is the strategy that should be modified accordingly. Individualised attention then needs to be a key feature of the education process because these students have very specific needs that must be met. This compares better for access to the curriculum than providing whole-group instruction (Soukup et al., 2007). The majority of these students will need at least some kind of modification and accommodation (Mitchell, 2004: 318) tailored for them. In this regard, assistive computer technology has great potential to help but still the curriculum itself also needs to be adapted. The writer believes in focusing more on helping them to learn how to learn and more self-regulation opportunities. More able students are able to learn these things for themselves but special needs students need to be taught these functional skills. Thus, the curriculum content can remain similar, but the curriculum process is adjusted. Other functional skills that could help students with learning disabilities cope more independently include various social and communication skills. These skills will prove more useful for these particular students, and could even be more critical to survival, than many academically focused skills. Overall, the teacher needs to strike a balance between functional and academic skills (PASA, 2009), but the inclusion of specific functional life activities in the curriculum of students with learning disabilities is paramount. They could easily be incorporated into teaching the general curriculum through creative approaches. As an example, they can be taught how to shop while teaching them basic skills of numeracy for working out the total cost and change. To show that students with intellectual disabilities are able to acquire academic skills in general when aligned to the general curriculum, Agran et al. (2006) investigated the effects of a Self-Determined Model of Instruction on students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. “The students were instructed to engage in a self-regulated problem solving strategy … all students were able to acquire and maintain target academic skills to mastery levels.” Moreover, the students also developed positive perceptions. In addition, parents of the students should also be encouraged by teachers to play a role in their child’s development. The importance of this was shown in a study by Kurani et al. (2009). Children with higher parental involvement showed greater improvements than those with lower parental involvement during a pilot study at The Jai Vakeel School for Children in Need of Special Care in Mumbai. Providing inclusive programmes for students with disabilities also raises issues of quality of education. Cushing et al. (2009) examined how this could be measured and devised the Program Quality Measurement Tool (PQMT). This helps to compare the programme “against best practice indicators, identify programmatic strengths and needs, and assess improvements in educational service delivery over time.” As regards assessment, the PASS theory of cognitive processing combined with the CAS assessment tool have proven useful (Wong et al., 2008: 145). This is designed especially for improving the planning, attention and information processing strategies in reading, but similar curricula have been developed for other areas of development such as numeracy. The assessment tool does not depend exclusively on eliciting and measuring specific behaviour (ibid: 158). Instead, appropriate methods of assessment for students with disabilities are for example, self-assessment. This makes them reflect on their progress, and empowers them to appreciate their own learning. This could take the form of maintaining a journal for example. In conclusion, the writer feels that an individualized curriculum is essential so that support can be adjusted according to their needs. Further, that this must be focused on core areas such as literacy and numeracy, and incorporate functional skills such as learning how to learn (information literacy) and social and communication skills to cope better in life. It should therefore also allow for greater social interaction (social constructivism). Furthermore, reciprocal teaching strategies and opportunities for self-regulation can allow these students to acquire the skills they need most. Similarly, self-assessment can prove useful for making them reflect on their progress and appreciate their own learning. References Agran, Martin; Cavin, Michael; Wehmeyer, Michael & Palmer, Susan. (2006). Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities in the general curriculum: the effects of the self-determined learning model of instruction. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 230-241. Alfassi, Miriam; Weiss, Itzhak & Lifshitz, Hefziba. (2009). The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering the reading literacy of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 24, Issue 3, pp. 291-305. Browder, Diane et al. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 269-282. Bouras, Nick & Holt, Geraldine. (2007). Psychiatric and behavioural disorders in intellectual and developmental disabilities. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press. Carter, Erik W. & Kennedy, Craig H. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Vo. 31, Issues 4, pp. 284-292. Cushing, Lisa S.; Carter, Erik W.; Clark, Nitasha; Wallis, Terry & Kennedy, Craig H. (2009). Evaluating inclusive educational practices for students with severe disabilites using the program quality measurement tool. The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 42, No. 195. Demchak, MaryAnn. (1997). Teaching students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings. American Association on Mental Retardation. Kurani, D.; Nerurka, A.; Miranda, L.; Jawadwala, F. & Prabhulkar, D. (2009). Impact of parents’ involvement and engagement in a learning readiness programme for children with severe and profound intellectual disability and complex needs in India. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 269-289. Lee, Suk-Hyang; Soukup, Jane H.; Little, Todd D. & Wehmeyer, Michael L. (2009). Student and teacher variables contributing to access to the general education curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 29-44. Mitchell, David R. (2004). Special educational needs and inclusive education: inclusive education. Taylor & Francis. PASA. 2009. Curricular priorities: balancing functional and academic curriculum. Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment. Retrieved 22 May 2010 from http://136.142.68.180/CurrBalance.jsp. Snell, Martha E. et al. (2009). Characteristics and needs to people with intellectual disability who have higher IQs. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 47, No. 3, pp. 220-233. Soukup, Jane H.; Wehmeyer, Michael L.; Bashinski, Susan M. & Bovaird, James A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, Vol. 74, No. 1, pp. 101-120. Academic Research Library. UW. (2009). Academic accommodations for students with learning disabilities. University of Washington. Retrieved 22 May 2010 from http://www.washington.edu/doit/Brochures/Academics/accomm_ld.html. Wong, Bernice Y. L.; Graham, Lorraine; Hoskyn, Maureen & Berman, Jeanette. (2008). The ABCs of learning disabilities. 2nd edition. Academic Press. Recommended further reading: Renzaglia,A., Karvonen,M., Drasgow, E., & Stoxen, c. (2003). Promoting a lifetime if inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 18(3), 140. 
 Wehmeyer, M., Lance, D. & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Mental Retardation: A Muli-Level Model. Weatling, D.C.F.,L. (2004). Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. (Chapter 1). Read More