Beyond Access: Ensuring Progress in the General Education Curriculum for Students with Severe Disabilities
Beyond Access: Ensuring Progress in the General Education Curriculum for Students with Severe Disabilities
复制标题
超越入学机会：确保严重残疾学生的通识教育课程取得进展
DOI：
10.1177/154079690603100405
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Wehmeyer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Wehmeyer
在2000年9月和11月，我在一个由美国教育部特殊教育项目办公室（OSEP）召集的关于残疾学生进入、参与和进步普通教育课程的专家战略小组中任职，作为该机构综合规划过程的一部分。在这个小组的其他成员是托马斯吉尔霍尔，在费城公共利益法律中心，宾夕法尼亚州联邦教育的前秘书，工作人员律师，而且，许多RPSD的读者会知道（如果他们不知道，他们应该知道），1972年PARC诉宾夕法尼亚州联邦案的首席律师，这是一个里程碑式的案例，它实际上为FAPE作为残疾学生权利的原则奠定了优先地位，该解决方案为公法94-142提供了大部分结构（美国参议院，1975年）。在OSEP会议之前的两年里，我和我的同事一直在从事研究和模型开发活动，探索如何最好地促进Baccess进入普通课程[为严重残疾的学生]。[我想顺便指出的是，1997年的修正案使用了普通课程一词，[而2004年的修正案将其改为普通教育课程。[虽然我用的是较新的术语，但我更喜欢较早的术语。在我看来，普通课程是指每个人都应该知道的内容。普通教育课程[给我的印象是，它促使我们回到普通教育和特殊教育的双重体系，回到特殊教育课程的概念，即在某种程度上不同于普通教育课程。[] 1997年重新授权的《残疾人教育法》（IDEA）中规定的普通课程在OSEP小组会议期间仍然是一个相对较新的概念，至少对于严重残疾的学生来说，这是新法中相对被忽视的一个组成部分。IDEA的最终条例（1997）从1999年3月12日起才发布，当时该领域正在整理一般课程的含义，我当时认为，条例中有一些简洁的定义，只是作为与其他学生相同的课程，虽然我后来开始欣赏这个定义的简单优雅和包容性]和Baccess[该课程，以及考虑如何促进这种访问。正如卡特和肯尼迪在本期中指出的那样，这是对残疾学生教育期望的根本转变。我当时的关注是，总的来说，似乎只有有限的认识，这些规定和要求实际上适用于所有学生，包括严重残疾的学生。我们在OSEP小组开会时进行的一项调查（最终以Agran，Alper和Wehmeyer的名义发表，2002年）表明，与严重残疾学生一起工作的教师，我们可以说，对Baccess[要求]持怀疑态度，因为他们适用于他们所教的学生。当然，正如布劳德、斯普纳、韦克曼、特雷拉和贝克（Browder，Spooner，Wakeman，Trela，and Baker，2006）所指出的，在学校改革努力中要求学生承担责任的标准并没有考虑到严重残疾的学生。此外，我们这些正在寻找获得更多机会的方法的人开始不安地意识到，建立模型以促进严重残疾学生获得普通课程的研究基础至少在普通课程[意味着核心内容]时是如此令人尴尬地缺乏。我认为，Browder等人只找到了10项专注于向严重残疾学生教授科学的研究，这证实了他们的观察，即Bevidence受到该领域对功能技能的关注的限制[（Browder等人，2006年）。老实说，当我们开始这方面的工作时，我同样感到惊讶，因为我们如何处理所有的信件和重印请求。Wehmeyer，1200 Sunnyside Ave.，房间3136，堪萨斯大学，劳伦斯，KS 66045-7534。电子邮件：wehmeyer@ku.edu Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2006，Vol. 31，No. 4，322-326 copyright 2006 by TASH
In September and November of 2000, I served on an BExpert Strategy Panel[ on BStudents with Disabilities’ Access to, Participation in, and Progress in the General Education Curriculum[ convened by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), as part of that agency’s comprehensive planning process. Among the other members of this panel was Thomas Gilhool, staff attorney at the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, a former Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, as many RPSD readers will know (and should know if they do not), lead attorney in PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1972, a landmark case that literally set the precedence for the doctrine of FAPE as a right for students with disabilities, the settlement from which provided much of the structure for Public Law 94-142 (U.S. Senate, 1975). For 2 years prior to the OSEP meeting, my colleagues and I had been engaged in research and model development activities exploring how best to promote Baccess to the general curriculum[ for students with severe disabilities. [I would note, parenthetically, that the 1997 amendments used the term Bgeneral curriculum,[ while the 2004 amendments changed that to Bgeneral education curriculum.[ Although I use the more current term, I prefer the earlier term. The Bgeneral curriculum[ refers, in my mind, to a curriculum with content everyone should know. The Bgeneral education curriculum[ strikes me as inviting a return to our dual system of general education and special education and a return to the notion of a Bspecial education curriculum[ that is, in some way, different from the Bgeneral education curriculum.[] The Baccess to the general curriculum[ mandates in the 1997 reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were still a relatively new concept at the time of the OSEP panel meetings and, at least for students with severe disabilities, a relatively ignored component of the new law. The Final Regulations for IDEA (1997) had only been out since March 12, 1999, and the field was just then sorting through what was meant by the Bgeneral curriculum[ [somewhat pithily defined in the regulations, I thought at the time, simply as the same curriculum as every other student, although I have since come to appreciate the simple elegance and inclusiveness of that definition] and by Baccess[ to that curriculum, as well as considering how to promote such access. It was, as Carter and Kennedy noted in this issue, a fundamental shift in educational expectations for students with disabilities. My concern then was that, by and large, there seemed to be only limited recognition that these regulations and requirements actually applied to all students, including students with severe disabilities. A survey we were conducting about the time the OSEP panel met (eventually published as Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002) was suggesting that teachers who worked with students with severe disabilities were, shall we say, skeptical about the Baccess[ requirements as they applied to the students they taught. Certainly, as Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, and Baker (2006) note, the standards that were established against which to hold students accountable in school reform efforts did not take into consideration students with severe disabilities. Further, those of us looking at ways to achieve greater access were coming to the uncomfortable realization that the research foundation upon which to build models to promote access to the general curriculum for students with severe disabilitiesVat least when Bgeneral curriculum[ meant core contentVwas rather embarrassingly lacking. That Browder et al. located only 10 studies focused on teaching science to students with severe disabilities confirms, I think, their observation that the Bevidence is constrained by the field’s focus on functional skills[ (Browder et al., 2006). I was, quite honestly, just as surprised when we began our work in this area by how Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Michael L. Wehmeyer, 1200 Sunnyside Ave., Room 3136, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7534. Email: wehmeyer@ku.edu Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2006, Vol. 31, No. 4, 322–326 copyright 2006 by TASH