No abstract

No abstract

Teachers of students with moderate and severe disabilities must possess the skills and knowledge to address a unique set of needs and challenges. These may include, but are not limited to, management of challenging behaviors, performance of health-related procedures, use of assistive technology, and instruction using evidence-based strategies. This article describes the process undertaken by a higher education consortium of faculty with expertise in low incidence disabilities from across institutions of higher education in Kentucky to address the challenge of supporting 1st year teachers (i.e., interns) when assigned mentors and administrators who do not have expertise in this area. This consortium addressed this challenge by creating two documents: (a) an alignment of state standards to professional standards and (b) an addendum to the state internship materials. The intent of this article is to share the development process with others who may wish to design similar documents to address state and national standards for teacher interns.

No abstract

T he worlds of special and general education continue to draw closer in support of higher order learning for all students. The evolution of state accountability measures, in conjunction with the national standards movement and the need for all students to achieve at higher levels, draws one's thinking to how educators can work together to achieve these goals. In the past, special educators were left to toil alone in resource rooms with those students labeled "needy" or "disabled." Little attention was given to the connection between their work in the special education program and that of their peers moving rapidly through the general curriculum in the general education classroom. Thus, students needing remediation or special education were quickly left behind and at a distinct disadvantage when they returned to the general education classroom. As mainstreaming grew in popularity, the physical integration of special education students into general education improved, though little change was seen in how instruction was delivered. Students were still presented the same curriculum, and teachers still taught the same way. What had changed was the special education teacher working in the corner of the classroom to modify or explain the content being covered in class. This has slowly started to change with the advent of various federal and state legislation targeting improved outcomes for students with disabilities.The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA '97) established a number of new provisions designed to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Several of these provisions attempted to align federal special education policy with educational reform policies in other federal legislation (e.g., Title 1) as well as state policies. For instance, the law now requires that students with disabilities participate in state and local assessments or an alternate assessment and that states report on both participation in the assessment as well as the performance of students with disabilities on the assessments. These new assessments and accountability provisions signal a clear presumption that students with disabilities should have access to the general curriculum and to the same opportunity to learn challenging and important content that is offered all students. (McLaughlin, 1999) The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act places more emphasis than ever on providing students with new ways to fully access the general curriculum. This places a great deal of importance on the areas of curriculum and instruction. It also recognizes the need for special and general education staff to work together to offer high-quality support and instruction. The role of the digital curriculum and accompanying technology is beginning to bring new perspectives to how students can be engaged and have more control over their own learning.