Investigating the Alignment Between English Language Arts Curricula Developed for Students With Significant Intellectual Disability and the CCSS

Abstract

Federal law requires all students, including those with significant intellectual disability, to make progress toward grade-level general education standards. The alignment between standards, curriculum, and instruction is vital for ensuring equitable opportunities to learn. Commercially available curricula attempt to support teachers and students by aligning instructional materials to standards, but few studies exist to verify this alignment. Those that have been conducted for general education curriculum have not been promising. This study uses the Links for Academic Learning protocol to evaluate the alignment of curricula designed for students with significant intellectual disability (SWSID) that mark themselves as aligned to grade-level standards. Findings related to the alignment between the standards, lesson objectives, and lesson content are reported. The researchers discuss implications related to the adoption and use of curricula specifically designed for SWSID and the need for additional research in this area.

Alternate Curricula as a Barrier to Inclusive Education for Students With Intellectual Disabilities

“…As alternate assessments and achievement standards have been developed, there has been a proliferation of prepackaged curricular materials designed for implementation in self-contained special education settings (Taub et al, 2019). Special education teachers are increasingly encouraged or mandated to use these prepackaged curricular materials that purport alignment with the standards (Taub et al, 2019). One of the largest companies marketing alternate materials, n2y, markets the Unique Learning System (ULS), a curriculum estimated to be used in approximately 60 000 classrooms in the United States (n2y, 2019a).…”

“…In fact, most special educators appear to interpret this access to include significant adaptation and an emphasis on life skills within the curriculum (Dymond et al, 2007;Timberlake, 2014), while a few place emphasis on both the setting (general education class) and the same materials as students without disabilities (Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013). Further, there is evidence special education teachers serving students with IDs are often not provided with the same materials as those used in general education classes (Taub et al, 2019).…”

“…General education curricular reforms in recent years have played a role in moving instruction from rote practice to an emphasis on developing conceptual understandings, using language to articulate learning, and identifying connections across the curriculum (Alberti, 2012;Swedish National Agency for Education, 2018;Yilmaz & Topal, 2014). These pedagogical practices stand in contrast to those in self-contained settings for students with IDs in which the expansion of "alternate curriculum" has maintained focus on concrete understandings, isolated skills, and self-care tasks (Östlund, 2015;Taub et al, 2019. This division between the emphases of learning goals and teaching materials for each population of students solidifies the misconception of special education as a practice incongruous with general education settings. Pedagogical practices that promote access to general education settings for students with IDs include universal design for learning (UDL), project-based learning (PBL), embedded instruction, culturally responsive teaching, and formative assessment strategies.…”

Opportunities to Learn for Students With Extensive Support Needs: A Context of Research-Supported Practices for All in General Education Classes

“…In reality, however, there might be significant gaps in the alignment of these curricula, even for students with no identified specialized support needs. For students with ESN, such gaps are even larger (Blank & Smithson, 2014; Taub et al, 2017).…”

“…To address this gap in teacher knowledge, districts and schools often adopt boxed curricula that claim to be aligned to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) or other state standards. When studying the efficacy of such claims, Taub et al (2017) found that the three most widely used curricula written specifically for students with ESN are not always well-aligned to the CCSS, which significantly limits OTL for these students. Furthermore, Taub et al purport that adopting curricula that specifically have been developed for students with ESN almost guarantees that these students will be educated in segregated self-contained contexts because their planned curriculum is not aligned to the intended general education curriculum.…”