Students with disabilities are increasingly educated in inclusive settings. Despite this shift, general education teachers typically do not receive adequate preparation for meeting their learning needs. Such deficiencies in preparation have lasting negative postsecondary consequences for students with disabilities. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), a framework of principles for curriculum development that seeks to provide all students with an opportunity to learn, is commonly cited as an educational approach that facilitates inclusive settings. Research suggests that UDL-based instruction fosters improved learning outcomes for students with and without disabilities. The purpose of this study is to examine the incorporation of UDL into preservice general education teacher preparation programs. An online survey was administered to general education faculty members in programs participating in Teacher Quality Enhancement (TQP) grants. TQP participants are expected to prepare educators to understand teaching practices and research that are consistent with UDL. The data collected indicate that UDL is being taught in a wider range of programs and states than previously documented. However, the depth of this penetration appears limited; the survey results suggest that awareness and instruction of the framework were modest for programs with TQP grants. Among faculty who do teach UDL, nearly all address all three UDL principles. At least two thirds provide instruction on seven of the nine associated guidelines. Several barriers to instruction were identified, including a lack of awareness andamong those aware of it-insufficient knowledge of the framework. Recommendations for future research are also discussed.

Indicator 14 obligates states to track, for a period of 1 year after leaving high school, the educational and employment outcomes of students with disabilities. The purpose of the indicator is to improve transition services that prepare this population for postschool adult living. For most students, the indicator's tracking period only permits the collection of data through the end of adolescence. As such, transition programs are using data from adolescents to prepare students for adulthood. Given the significant differences between adults and adolescents (e.g., neurological, behavioral, functional), this dilemma should be addressed to create more relevant and effective transition programming. Several changes are recommended, including the extension of the tracking period as well as the inclusion of additional outcome categories to monitor, bringing the indicator into alignment with the definition of transition services provided in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.