LESSON 4

Components of Special and Inclusive Education

TOPICS

1. Childfind
2. Assessment
3. Placement
4. Accommodations and Curricular Modification
5. Parent Involvement

LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:
• Evaluate an instrument for special learners;
• Propose modifications in the present curriculum of the DepEd; and
• Discuss the importance of parental involvement in inclusive
education

• define diversity;
TOPIC 1: Childfind
• explain

Children with special needs can often benefit from a number of therapies and, generally, the sooner they
receive treatment, the better the outcomes will be. But, how do you know if a child needs help? The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires each state to implement early identification
policies to locate and refer children who may have a disability to that state’s early intervention (EI)
program. Although IDEA is a federal law, each state sets its own EI policies and implements its own
programs, much like Medicaid. Not all states will call it early intervention or EI, but states generally use
similar terms meaning early identification and service for children with disabilities. While certain
elements of EI remain consistent between the states, parents and educators should contact their state’s
education agency to learn about state-specific policies and procedures.

Components of the Child Find Program

There are two methods for identifying and referring a child to EI. The first is a referral, usually by an
educator or a parent. The second is the Child Find program. Mandated by IDEA, Child Find continuously
searches for and evaluates children who may have a disability with the use of Child Find activities, which
can vary widely from school district to school district. For example, one district might hold periodic
conferences to train staff on policies, while another may hold playgroups, during which parents are asked
to complete a developmental milestone questionnaire.

At least seven main elements are included in a Child Find program:

 Definition of Target Population: The state defines the criteria that determine which children are
eligible for help. Some states expand the target population to include at-risk children, not just
those who have disabilities or developmental delays.
 Public Awareness: The state raises public awareness about children who need help and the
services available to them, targeting parents, caregivers, educators, school staff, physicians and
others.
 Referral and Intake: A child is referred for services; specific procedures vary, depending on the
state.
 Screening and Identification: The child is screened for possible disabilities or developmental
delays.
 Eligibility Determination: Results of the screening are compared to the state’s eligibility
guidelines, which must be consistent with federal regulations.
 Tracking: The state tracks and follows up with children who are receiving services.
 Interagency Coordination: Some states have multiple agencies that share responsibilities
mandated by IDEA. Resources must be coordinated to ensure availability of services.

TOPIC 2: Assessment

Introduction to Assessment and Overview

An assessment in special education is the process used to determine a child’s specific learning strengths
and needs, and to determine whether or not a child is eligible for special education services. Assessment
in special education is a process that involves collecting information about a student for the purpose of
making decisions. Assessment, also known as evaluation, can be seen as a problem-solving process
(Swanson & Watson, 1989) that involves many ways of collecting information about the student.
 According to Gearheart and Gearheart (1990; cited in Pierangelo and Giuliani, 2006), assessment is “a
process that involves the systematic collection and interpretation of a wide variety of information on
which to base instructional/intervention decisions and, when appropriate, classification and placement
decisions. Assessment is primarily a problem-solving process”.

Importance of Assessment

The importance of assessment should never be underestimated. In special education, you will work with
many professionals from different fields. You are part of a team, often referred to as a multidisciplinary
team that tries to determine what, if any, disability is present in a student. The team’s role is crucial
because it helps determine the extent and direction of a child’s personal journey through the special
education experience (Pierangelo and Giuliani, 2006). Consequently, the skills you must possess in order
to offer a child the most global, accurate, and practical evaluation should be fully understood. The
development of these skills should include a good working knowledge of the following components of the
assessment process in order to determine the presence of a suspected disability:

 Collection: The process of tracing and gathering information from the many sources of background
information on a child such as school records, observation, parent intakes, and teacher reports
 Analysis: The processing and understanding of patterns in a child’s educational, social, developmental,
environmental, medical, and emotional history
 Evaluation: The evaluation of a child’s academic, intellectual, psychological, emotional, perceptual,
language, cognitive, and medical development in order to determine areas of strength and weakness
 Determination: The determination of the presence of a suspected disability and the knowledge of the
criteria that constitute each category
 Recommendation: The recommendations concerning educational placement and program that need to
be made to the school, teachers, and parents
Purpose of Assessment

Assessment in educational settings serves five primary purposes:

 screening and identification: to screen children and identify those who may be experiencing delays or
learning problems
 eligibility and diagnosis: to determine whether a child has a disability and is eligible for special education
services, and to diagnose the specific nature of the student's problems or disability
 IEP development and placement: to provide detailed information so that an Individualized Education
Program (IEP) may be developed and appropriate decisions may be made about the child's educational
placement
 instructional planning: to develop and plan instruction appropriate to the child's special needs
 Evaluation: to evaluate student progress. (Pierangelo and Giuliani, 2006)
The Difference Between Testing and Assessment
 There is sometimes confusion regarding the terms "assessment" and "testing." While they are related,
they are not synonymous. Testing is the administration of specifically designed and often standardized
educational and psychological measures of behavior and is a part of the assessment process. Testing is
just one piece of the assessment process. Assessment encompasses many different methods of
evaluation, one of which is using tests.

Role of the Education Professional in the Special Education Process

The professional involved in special education in today’s schools plays a very critical role in the overall
education of students with all types of disabilities. The special educator’s position is unique in that he or
she can play many different roles in the educational environment. Whatever their role, special educators
encounter a variety of situations that require practical decisions and relevant suggestions. No matter
which type of professional you become in the field of special education, it is always necessary to fully
understand the assessment process and to be able to clearly communicate vital information to
professionals, parents, and students (Pierangelo and Giuliani, 2006).

Assessment and Federal Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Public Law 105-476, lists 13 separate categories of
disabilities under which children may be eligible for special education and related services. These are:

 autism: a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social
interaction, generally evident before age 3
 deafness: a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic
information, with or without amplification

 deaf-blindness: simultaneous hearing and visual impairments

 hearing impairment: an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating

 mental retardation: significantly sub average general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with
deficits in adaptive behavior
 multiple disabilities: the manifestation of two or more disabilities (such as mental retardation-
blindness), the combination of which requires special accommodation for maximal learning
 orthopedic impairment: physical disabilities, including congenital impairments, impairments caused by
disease, and impairments from other causes
 other health impairment: having limited strength, vitality, or alertness due to chronic or acute health
problems
 serious emotional disturbance: a disability where a child of typical intelligence has difficulty, over time
and to a marked degree, building satisfactory interpersonal relationships; responds inappropriately
behaviorally or emotionally under normal circumstances; demonstrates a pervasive mood of
unhappiness; or has a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears
 specific learning disability: a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability
to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations
 speech or language impairment: a communication disorder such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a
language impairment, or a voice impairment
 traumatic brain injury: an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in
total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both
 visual impairment: a visual difficulty (including blindness) that, even with correction, adversely affects a
child educational performance

TOPIC 3: Placement
Educational Placements of Students with Disabilities

Part B of IDEA and its implementing regulations require "that, to the maximum extent appropriate,
children with disabilities, including children in public and private institutions and other care facilities,
should be educated with children who are not disabled; and that special classes, separate schooling, or
other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when
the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily" (34 CFR 300.550). The Part B
regulations further specify that "a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of
children with disabilities for special education and related services" (34 CFR 300.551).

Each year, OSEP collects data from States and Outlying Areas on the number of students with disabilities
served in each of six different educational environments: regular class, resource room, separate class,
public or private separate school, public or private residential facility, and homebound/hospital
placements. The data are collected by age group for students age 3 through 21 and by disability for
students age 6 through 21.

 Regular class includes students who receive the majority of their education program in a regular
classroom and receive special education and related services outside the regular classroom for
less than 21 percent of the school day. It includes children placed in a regular class and receiving
special education within the regular class, as well as children placed in a regular class and receiving
special education outside the regular class.
 Resource room includes students who receive special education and related services outside the
regular classroom for at least 21 percent but not more than 60 percent of the school day. This
may include students placed in resource rooms with part-time instruction in a regular class.
 Separate class includes students who receive special education and related services outside the
regular classroom for more than 60 percent of the school day. Students may be placed in self-
contained special classrooms with part-time instruction in regular classes or placed in self-
contained classes full-time on a regular school campus.
 Separate school includes students who receive special education and related services in separate
day schools for students with disabilities for more than 50 percent of the school day.
  Residential facility includes students who receive education in a public or private residential
facility, at public expense, for more than 50 percent of the school day.
 Homebound/hospital environment includes students placed in and receiving special education in
hospital or homebound programs.

During the last five years, the percentage of regular classroom placements reported by States increased
by almost 10 percentage points (see figure 1.1). The use of resource rooms has decreased and all other
placement settings have remained stable. The increase in the number of students placed in regular
classrooms may be attributed to changes in placements in California, Indiana, New York, and Minnesota.
The number of students in California reportedly served in regular classes increased almost 100 percent
from 1991-92 to 1992-93, with similarly large decreases in resource room placements. State officials in
California believe the shift is due primarily to improved data collection and reporting that better conforms
to OSEP data collection requirements. Indiana, Minnesota, and New York all reported similar shifts in
placement data and also attributed the shifts to improved data collection and reporting procedures that
more accurately reflect Federal guidelines.

In 1992-93, 39.8 percent of students with disabilities age 6 through 21 were served in regular classroom
placements under Part B and Chapter 1 (SOP). An additional 31.7 percent were served in resource rooms,
and 23.5 percent were served in separate classes in regular school buildings. Fully 95 percent of students
with disabilities were served in regular school buildings. Of those students served in separate facilities,
3.7 percent were served in separate day schools for students with disabilities, 0.8 percent were served in
residential facilities, and 0.5 percent were served in homebound/hospital settings.

Placement Patterns by Age Group

Educational placements for students with disabilities vary a great deal by age group. Students age 6
through 11 are most likely to be served in regular classroom settings. As shown in figure 1.2, almost 50
percent of students with disabilities age 6 through Figure 1.1 Percentage of Students Age 6 through 11
are served in regular classroom placements, compared to 30 percent for students age 12 through 17, and
23 percent for students age 18 through 21. These percentages may occur because overall, the
environments and curriculums used in elementary schools are less complex. In elementary school
students tend to stay in one classroom with one teacher for most of the day. Therefore, adaptive
equipment has to be moved less frequently and guidance on inclusive practices can focus on fewer
environments and variations in instructional practices. The relatively large percentage of students age 18
through 21 served in separate classes and schools may reflect placements in specialized vocational
programs or other transition programs located outside the regular school building.

Students with specific learning disabilities, other health impairments, orthopedic impairments, and
serious emotional disturbance were generally served in regular schools, regular classes, resource rooms,
and separate classes. Students with mental retardation continued to be served primarily in resource
rooms and separate classrooms.

Students with hearing or visual impairments were served in a wide variety of settings. Twenty-nine
percent of students with hearing impairments and 45 percent of students with visual impairments were
served in regular classrooms. Twenty-three percent of students with hearing impairments and 15 percent
of students with visual impairments were served in separate schools, residential facilities, and
homebound/hospital settings.

Students with multiple disabilities, autism, deaf-blindness, and traumatic brain injury were typically
served in more restrictive settings than other students with disabilities. Separate class and separate day
school placements were most common for students with multiple disabilities, autism, and traumatic brain
injury. The majority of students with deaf-blindness were served in separate classes, separate schools, or
residential facilities.
Findings Related to Inclusive School Practices

Providing individualized and appropriate education for all children and youth with disabilities in general
education classrooms requires substantial commitment and support from a variety of levels. Recognizing
this reality, OSEP has funded a number of projects over the last decade that have focused on specific
research issues (such as promoting academic achievement of students with learning disabilities, and
promoting physical and social integration of students with severe disabilities), demonstration projects
that assist LEAs in implementing inclusive schooling practices, institutes (such as the California Research
Institute and the Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices) to help schools include students with
significant disabilities in general education classrooms, or State capacity-building activities that promote
inclusive schooling (for example, 29 States have received Statewide Systems Change Project Grants). From
these and other efforts, several conditions have been identified as supporting inclusive schooling
practices. They are described below.

 Commitment to using a team of professionals with various levels of expertise to plan and
implement the IEPs of children and youth with disabilities (Rainforth, York, and MacDonald, 1992).
 Leadership demonstrated by individuals within school buildings, districts, and at the State level
that helps educators build a vision of inclusive services and supports actions to achieve realization
of that vision (Janney, Snell, Beers, and Raynes, 1995; Salisbury, 1991).
 Active involvement and support from families of children with disabilities for inclusive education
(Nesbit, 1992).
 Ongoing and vigilant support and training of the front-line general and special education teachers
as the general education curriculum is adapted to ensure IEPs are implemented for the children
and youth with disabilities (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Phillips, and Karns, 1995).

Positive learning results are attainable for students with disabilities served in inclusive contexts. These,
and other benefits, can be attained when staff perceive themselves and their students as adequately
supported, and when programs provide the supports necessary for students with disabilities to learn
effectively and efficiently. Many of these supports require redeployment of existing resources, rather than
procurement of new services and personnel. Given these parameters, table 1.8 gives an overview of some
of the trends and findings that have been reported in the literature. Most are grounded in the work of
research and demonstration projects funded by OSEP.

Factors Affecting Attainment of Positive Results

Research has shown that several factors affect the school environment. The National Center on
Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI) (Lipsky and Gardner, 1994) found that successful
inclusion programs had strong leadership, collaboration, and supports for students; refocused use of
assessments and funding; and effective parental and family support.Two of the factors, strong leadership
and collaboration, can take different forms. For example, the perceived availability of administrative,
technical, and collegial support affected how the teachers rated their experiences in inclusive settings
(Wolery, Werts, Caldwell, Snyder, and Lisowski, 1995; Karasoff, Alwell, and Halvorsen, 1992).Other factors
that affect the school environment are student and classroom accommodations (Hamilton, Welkowitz,
Mandeville, Prue and Fox, 1995; Peters, 1990), building a sense of community in the classroom (Salisbury,
Gallucci, Polombaro, and Peck, in press) and involvement of and support provided to parents (Nisbet,
1992).
 TABLE 1.8 Positive Learning and Social Results Using Inclusive School Practices

Skill Area: Academic/learning

Results:

 Higher quality IEPs compared to those in special classes (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Curtis, &
Goetz, 1994).
 Higher levels of engaged time in general education compared to students in special
education (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Curtis, & Goetz, 1994).
 Higher levels of engaged time for elementary students with and without disabilities in
classrooms in which there are students with more significant disabilities (Hollowood,
Salisbury, Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1994).
 Disruptions to classroom learning time not associated with students with significant
disabilities (Hollowood, Salisbury, Rainforth, & Palombaro, 1994).
 Students with disabilities learn targeted skills in general education classrooms (Wolery,
Werts, Caldwell, & Snyder, 1994; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz 1994).
 No decline in academic or behavioral performance of nondisabled classmates on
standardized test and report card measures (Sharpe, York, & Knight, 1994).

Skill Area: Social

Results:

 High school students report that interactions with students with disabilities produced
positive attitudes, increased responsiveness to needs of people, and increased appreciation
for diversity (Helmstetter, Peck, & Giangreco, 1994).
 Students with disabilities in general education settings are alone less often and display
more social contact than students in special classes (Hunt, Farron-Davis, Curtis, & Goetz,
1994; Kennedy & Itkonen, 1994; Romer & Haring, 1994).
 Demonstrated gains in social competence for students in inclusive settings compared to
that of students in segregated placements (Cole & Meyer, 1991).
 Social acceptance and opportunity for interactions not uniquely associated with child's level
of functioning (Evans, Salisbury, Palombaro, Berryman, Hollowood, 1992).
 Regular class participation is an important factor in determining the composition and
stability of social networks for high school students with disabilities (Kennedy & Itkonen,
1994).

Implications for the Future

Despite advances in understanding the conditions associated with positive social and academic results
for students with disabilities in general education classrooms, substantial gaps continue to exist in our
knowledge of inclusive schooling. Substantial gaps also continue to exist between what is known and
what occurs in many public schools.
In addition to these and other areas of clear research need, continued efforts are needed to ensure that
the findings and innovations from research projects become widely adopted and used in the majority of
the nation's schools. Support should continue for projects such as those described below:

 demonstration projects to build a cadre of model schools that engage in inclusive schooling
practices;
 outreach projects to assist schools in addressing particular problems they face when
implementing inclusive schooling practices;
 State-level projects for addressing policy barriers to inclusive schooling and for identifying and
addressing State needs related to inclusion;
 State and regional projects to address the training and support needs of teachers employed in
schools engaged in inclusive schooling; and
 systematic projects designed to synthesize the existing knowledge on inclusive schooling and to
evaluate means for ensuring its utilization in schools and representing diverse demographic
characteristics.

TOPIC 4: Accommodations and Curricular Modification

For many students with disabilities—and for many without—the key to success in the classroom
lies in having appropriate adaptations, accommodations, and modifications made to the instruction and
other classroom activities. Some adaptations are as simple as moving a distractible student to the front
of the class or away from the pencil sharpener or the window. Other modifications may involve changing
the way that material is presented or the way that students respond to show their learning.

Adaptations, accommodations, and modifications need to be individualized for students, based upon their
needs and their personal learning styles and interests. This allows students to access the general
curriculum and other learning materials and activities and to demonstrate what they have learned. As
they experience success in the classroom, motivation and learning increase, and overall student outcomes
improve.

It is not always obvious what adaptations, accommodations, or modifications would be beneficial for a
particular student, or how changes to the curriculum, its presentation, the classroom setting, or student
evaluation might be made. This Resources You Can Use is intended to help teachers and others find
information that can guide them in making appropriate changes in the classroom based on what their
students need. All of the resources are rich with suggestions and techniques that can help teachers and,
ultimately, students. We have included a description of each resource so that readers can select the ones
that are most relevant to their needs and their students. Contact information for book publishers is
provided at the end of this document, so that readers can easily obtain those resources of interest to
them.

Introduction

Modifying existing general curriculum has been an effective way to create more accessible learning
environments to support all students and their teachers in various educational contexts. There are many
terms in use regarding changes made to curriculum, such as enhancements, accommodations,
overlapping, and adaptations. We differentiate curriculum modification from curriculum enhancement for
the purposes of this paper. In this way, we can clarify the definition and nature of curriculum modification
to emphasize its effectiveness in improving education for all children, and to provide vivid examples and
useful resources which will enrich actual classroom practices for diverse learners. Although both ideas,
enhancement and modification, become pivotal when we consider improving accessibilities of general
curricula in relation to individual students’ needs, the approach, design, and methods that result from
each idea may differ significantly.

Curriculum enhancement is most likely to be built around existing general curriculum and to involve
teachers’ alterations of curriculum. Frequently, teachers will enhance curriculum with additions of
instructional strategies. Frequently enhancements are created to evaluate and teach adequate
background knowledge in preparation for a new task. Additionally, teachers may incorporate a variety of
instructional materials and procedures to meet students’ needs, including the use of co-teaching and/or
instructional collaboration.

Curriculum modification differs from curriculum enhancement in that modification is a more extreme
alteration to the curriculum than that of an enhancement. Modifications involve combinations of altered
content, conceptual difficulty, educational goals, and instructional method versus building scaffolding and
bridges between existing curriculum and people involved in the educational process. Such differentiation
between curriculum modification and curriculum enhancement is based on ranging degrees in which our
educational approach becomes distinct from or maintains the similarities to existing general curriculum.
In other words, educational practices in which student and teacher interactions differ from those designed
in existing general curriculum are present to a greater extent when curriculum is modified than when
enhanced.

There are numerous ways curriculum modifications are put into practice for different purposes and
outcomes on various levels (such as individual, classroom, and school-wide). Due to a flexible nature and
countless applications, curriculum modification often remains an ambiguous concept and is understood
as an umbrella term to include multifarious aspects of everyday teaching practices. We have refined our
definition of curriculum modification based on understandings of its nature and potentialities. The
discussion below introduces a way to understand the concept and some concrete practices of curriculum
modification through to presenting how we have defined curriculum modification, how components can
be categorized, what research says about its effectiveness, and how such empirical evidence can be
applied to general education settings. We provide, in the final section, a list of useful web resources and
related literature for the reader.
Curriculum Modification

It is important to note that no single definition of curriculum modification exists. Many researchers offer
many definitions from various fields of discipline. In other words, the practice of curriculum modification
has been discussed in different languages by many researchers from various specialty areas in education.
For instance, in addition to the most frequently used terms, accommodation and adaptation, some use
terms such as alteration, differentiation, change, revision, enhancement, compacting, integration, and
scaffolding to discuss teaching events involving curriculum modification. Another issue is that discussions
regarding curriculum modification are often interwoven with ideas of strategy use for intended
educational purposes. This creates a situation in which we face the difficulty of separating literature
focusing on teaching strategies from those focusing on curriculum modification.

Our challenge is to clarify these ambiguities and to refine the definition of curriculum modification. In this
review, we define curriculum modification as modified content, instruction, and/or learning outcomes to
meet diverse student needs. In other words, curriculum modification is not limited to instructional
modification or content modification but includes a continuum of a wide range of modified educational
components. Similarly, Comfort (1990) defines curriculum modification as “the adapting or interpreting
of a school’s formal curriculum by teachers into learning objectives and units of learning activities judged
most reasonable for an individual learner or particular group of learners” (p. 397). Curriculum modification
involves change to a range of educational components in a curriculum such as content knowledge, the
method of instruction, and students’ learning outcomes, through the alteration of materials and programs
(Comfort, 1990; King-Sears, 2001; MacMackin & Elaine, 1997; Reisberg, 1990).

Although some may distinguish instruction from curriculum and argue that mere instructional
modification should not be considered as curriculum modification, defining curriculum modification
requires us to understand curriculum as a broad concept which involves various educational components
and people involved in educational processes. After all, content, instruction, input and output inseparably
construct daily teaching and learning. We also conceive school curriculum as a framework for guiding
teachers (Comfort, 1990). In short, the way that we interpret curriculum influences our understanding of
curriculum modification. Reisburg (1990) lists examples of the modifications of content, such as teaching
learning strategies, simplifying concepts or reading levels, teaching different sets of knowledge and skills
needed by students, and setting up specific objectives and examples of modifications to instructional
methods including reducing distractions, altering the pace of lessons, presenting smaller amounts of work,
clarifying directions, and changing input and response modes. All of these teaching events should be
considered as examples of curriculum modification.

For the purpose of this report, we have adopted the categorization of curriculum modification suggested
by King-Sears (2001). King-Sears identified four types of curriculum modification: (a) accommodation, (b)
adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d) overlapping curricula on a continuum. This
categorization represents the relation between modified curriculum and general curriculum in terms of
differences and similarities in educational input including content knowledge and conceptual difficulty,
educational output including educational goals, and methods of instruction. The extent to which a
modified curriculum differs from the general curriculum becomes greater as educational practice moves
from accommodation to overlapping curricula. For instance, in accommodation, the only educational
components which may differ from general curriculum are instructional method and educational goals,
whereas, in overlapping curricula, all components—input, output, and instructional methods that
students receive—can be totally different from those designed in general curriculum.

As conceptualized along this continuum, curriculum modification that King-Sears suggests contains a wide
range of educational practices and shares the essence of the aforementioned definition of curriculum
modification: modified content, instruction, and/or learning outcomes for diverse student needs.
Modifications identified by King-Sears, for example, range from an educational practice of simply
providing an audio book to some students who have reading difficulties during reading lessons to an
educational practice of having some special needs students work on individual (IEP) goals, such as
following directions, while they engage in general science lessons. Moreover, these four types of
curriculum modification, according to King-Sears, are extensions of curriculum enhancement within the
process for teachers to determine the degree of accessibility of their classroom for students with
disabilities. In other words, curriculum modification, in King-Sears’ view, is a suggested step to take when
curriculum enhancement alone is not effective to achieve objectives for inclusion.

King-Sears’ clear categorization and analysis of the components of curriculum modification is valuable for
educators to capture the essence of curriculum modification. As stated above, her categorization consists
of a wide range of educational practices. Since curriculum modification is practiced in numerous ways, it
is important to broaden the definition rather than limiting it to particular events.

Components and Features

As noted above, the components of curriculum modification are well categorized by King-Sears (2001)
into four types: (a) accommodation, (b) adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d) overlapping
curricula. Switlick (1997) explains that the purpose of modifying curriculum is “to enable an individual to
compensate for intellectual, physical, or behavioral challenges” and to create learning environments
which “allow the individual to use existing skill repertoires while promoting the acquisition of new skills
and knowledge” (p. 236). We need to understand that these are the purposes which underlie the four
types of curriculum modification identified by King-Sears.

In the following section, brief explanations of each type of curriculum modification with examples from
actual classrooms are presented. Actual educational practices reflecting modified curriculum vary in many
ways, as modification occurs in various educational settings across diverse subject areas, students,
assignments, assessments, evaluations, and so on. Presenting examples for all educational situations is
beyond the scope of this paper. Therefore, we selected a range of examples across four types of
curriculum modification with a special focus on the examples from integrated general classrooms. For
instance, the section regarding accommodation involves an example of using assistive technology in
writing class for students with learning disabilities and an example of using audio books for English
Language Learners in a reading lesson. Likewise, various settings (math, language arts, social studies, and
science) and learners (students with moderate to severe disabilities as well as students identified as gifted
and talented) appear in the examples presented across the four types of curriculum modification.
Following the description and examples of each curriculum modification type is a table illustrating
comparisons among four types of curriculum modification in relation to components modified and the
extent to which modified curricula differ from the general curriculum. The table helps us visually recognize
that, as we move forward from accommodation to overlapping curricula, focused components shift from
instruction-oriented to content-oriented and that educational practices reflecting modified curriculum
become more distant from educational practices based on general curriculum.

Accommodation

The term accommodation is used to mean a modification to the delivery of instruction or method of
student performance and does not change the content or conceptual difficulty of the curriculum (see
Table 1). Both teachers and students can play a role in the changes to instructional methods in order to
achieve the same intended instructional outcomes suggested in general curriculum. Examples of
accommodation are countless. Some include incorporating different types of teaching devices and
techniques (such as use of audio or other formats as an alternative to print), technology, graphic
organizers, and pictorial representation; and changing the amount of input, time-frame for learning, and
levels of support for individual students’ needs.

Among these examples, using assistive/adaptive technologies typically exemplify an accommodation to

general curriculum. Bray, Brown, and Green (2004) define assistive/adaptive technologies as “content-
free technologies” (p. 34) which does not address curriculum or promote specific learning but rather helps
students’ overcome inaccessibility due to individual differences. In an actual classroom, a student with
physical disabilities may use computer input devices, such as a trackball mouse which requires less hand
movement or an alternate keyboard with extra-large keys, to complete his/her writing task. In this case,
the content and difficulty level of tasks remain the same as the tasks in which other students in the class
engage. An accommodation through the use of assistive/adaptive technologies allows students to
complete their tasks required in general curriculum which would be difficult to complete otherwise.

Another example of accommodation is making audio versions of books available for students who are
English Language Learners (ELLs) and students with print disabilities when they engage in reading sessions
focusing on reading comprehension skills. Instead of providing the traditional written or printed form of
text, teachers can have these students work individually or in a small group to read an assigned book with
auditory support. Again, through this type of accommodation, students with diverse needs can acquire
the same content knowledge as other students and move on to the next stage of learning with them. In
the case of ELLs, students can comprehend the text with audio support and then participate in the follow-
up activities with other classmates based on their understanding of what was read. Frequently, teachers
regard ELL students’ developing language proficiency as a disadvantage which causes a necessary lag-
behind (Valdes, 2002). As a result, teachers may provide curriculum modification with more content-
focused alteration, which simplifies the content, may change the standards and goals, does not provide
enough cognitive challenge and academic stimulus, and does not help students’ acquisition of the English
language. Although it is important to understand that acquiring a second language, especially academic
language, is not a quick fix and takes many years of instruction (Cummins, 2000), teachers also need to
know that ELLs, like other general students, should receive an appropriate cognitive challenge with
appropriate conceptual difficulties and a sense of belonging to their class regardless of their developing
language proficiencies (Igoa, 1995). When used with students with appropriate language proficiency
levels, an accommodation to general curriculum can be a powerful tool to support ELL students’ unique
linguistic, academic, and social needs.

Switlick (1997) has listed other examples of accommodations, such as requiring completion of every other
word problem on a math worksheet or providing for oral performance instead of written. As we see in
these examples, accommodation is not a change of educational input designed in general curriculum, such
as content knowledge and the conceptual difficulty of the subjects. Rather, accommodation is a
modification of instructional methods intended to meet individual student’s needs of acquiring necessary
input from lessons. The information that students receive remains the same. However, an
accommodation to curriculum modifies the way that students acquire and/or respond to the information.

Another important point to add is that the intended goals of accommodated curriculum may change from
those of general curriculum depending on educational contexts. For instance, using an audio book in a
reading comprehension lesson creates an opportunity for students to use their listening skills in addition
to reading or decoding skills. If the students were English-speaking children with reading difficulty who
had already established English listening skills, the intended goals of curriculum would remain the same
as those in general curriculum. However, if the students were ELLs who were still in the process of
developing their listening skills, teachers could indicate an additional goal for them (which is the
development of listening skills). Thus, accommodation has a flexibility of adjusting intended educational
goals based on context.
 TOPIC 5: Parent Involvement

Why is parent involvement so important?

When teachers and parents work together to support the learning and social/emotional needs of
students, that students do better in school. Not only does it help students learn and achieve academically,
it helps students develop positive peer relationships as well. We have a shared responsibility in educating
students.

Involving parents and the community is an important principle of quality, both in and out of the
classroom. It is even more relevant in the case of inclusive education, which is much broader than
formal education and should not only take place within the four walls of a classroom. Parents’
collaboration is not only of benefit for children: there are also possible gains for all parties, for instance:
• Parents increase interaction with their children, become more responsive and sensitive to their needs
and more confident in their parenting skills.

• Educators acquire a better understanding of families’ culture and diversity, feel more comfortable at
work and improve their morale.

• Schools, by involving parents and the community, tend to establish better reputations in the
community. Creating a climate and sustaining a culture of collaboration is a challenge for schools. But it
is one that pays large dividends through time.

However, the recognition that family engagement in education benefits children does not make
clear how the involvement becomes a positive force. The first step for families to become involved in a
collaborative way with schools is to promote a social and educational atmosphere where parents and
partners feel welcomed, respected, trusted, heard and needed.
 Cultural factors and traditions strongly influence the relationship between schools and the
community. In many places throughout the globe, schools are the centre of community life and are used
to encourage and achieve social participation. Such cultural environments will ease the process: parents,
schools and community leaders know how to work together and find creative solutions for improving
learning, responding to economic crisis and disease outbreaks, or assisting populations affected by
disasters caused by natural hazards.

The levels of family involvement in children’s education might vary in accordance with the
participation opportunities that the education system makes available to them. In the case of children
with disabilities, the willingness of a family to engage in collaboration might be influenced by the type of
disability, as well as the family’s socio-economic status and the nature of the parent-child (or guardian-
child) relationship.

A number of scales have been used to evaluate the different types and degrees of collaboration
between schools, families and communities. It is useful to distinguish between the different types and
purposes of collaboration. While variances in approaches, dynamics and subsequent effectiveness and
sustainability have been studied by numerous researchers, the value of understanding such distinctions
is not merely academic. On the contrary: they have made it possible to systematize and analyze the
different ways or levels of involvement, which is useful to understanding the dynamics amongst
participants and helps in making collaboration a meaningful and sustained experience that is valued and
appreciated by all. One of the most popular scales (Figure 1) was developed with the idea of
encouraging an examination of why and how people participate throughout communities. The ladder
helps us to distinguish among forms of participation that are oriented by the idea of empowering
people, and others that remain at a symbolic level or are directly manipulative.

Providing support and regular training to parents, facilitating regular access to information and
consultation and creating a friendly institutional environment appear among the most frequent
recommendations for implementing good policies to engage parents and the community with inclusive
education.
 In its well-known Open File on Inclusive Education, UNESCO introduces a detailed list of possible
‘parent engagement’ options aimed at making the experience a two-way-street type of relationship:

• Families as activists: Frequently, families – particularly those organized into networks or

associations – play a lead role in moving education systems towards more inclusive approaches and
policies. Some of the actions in which parent groups can have an impact are identifying schools that are
willing to move forward, establishing links and partnerships with education authorities in support of
inclusive education, organizing seminars and workshops to introduce new thinking and new practice, and
supporting teacher development.

• Families as contributors to inclusive education: Under this option, the role of parents is
emphasized in supporting inclusion in the family and children’s learning and development at home. The
main idea is that families and communities should reinforce inclusive and learning experiences. • Schools,
families and the community as partners: There are many opportunities for partnerships and collaboration,
from exchanging information to family members supporting learning at home.

• Families supporting other families: This is particularly advised in the case of parents of children
with disabilities who live in poverty, isolated communities, or have culturally or linguistically diverse
backgrounds. In this case the support of parents of children with disabilities who are in a better social or
educational position can be extremely valuable.

• Family and community involvement in school governance and management: Includes the
participation of families in decision making and in supporting aspects of daily management of activities.

Recent research shows that empowering families and enabling them to participate in decision
making is an effective contribution to the process of change in the context of education. Instead of
‘involving’ families, or proposing specific tasks or set roles for parents, the idea of ‘engagement’ seeks the
active participation of parents within the process of improving education for all. Collaboration must be
both constructive and efficient and this is more likely to happen when all parties feel comfortable in the
process, the different roles are agreed and understood, and information is provided regularly in an open
and democratic way. Bear in mind also the need to provide regular opportunities for all participants to
clarify their expectations, understand the complexities of the process (accomplishments as well as
disappointments and drawbacks) and discuss how to improve the quality of the collaborative process.

Attachment 1

July 6, 2009
DO 72, s. 2009
Inclusive Education as Strategy for Increasing Participation Rate of Children

To: Undersecretaries
Assistant Secretaries
Bureau Directors
Regional Directors
Schools Division/City Superintendents
1. Special Education in the Philippines has only served 2% of the targeted 2.2 million children with
disabilities in the country who live without access to a basic human right: the right to education.
Most of these children live in rural and far flung areas whose parents need to be aware of
educational opportunities that these children could avail of.
2. The Department of Education (DepED) has organized the urgency to address this problem and
therefore, guarantees the right for these children to receive appropriate education within the
regular or inclusive classroom setting. Inclusive education embraces the philosophy of accepting
all children regardless of race, size, shape, color, ability or disability with support from school staff,
students, parents and the community.
3. A comprehensive inclusive program for children with special needs has the following components:
1. Child Find. This is locating where these children are through the family mapping survey,
advocacy campaigns and networking with local health workers. The children with special
needs who are not in school shall be listed using Enclosure No. 1. These children shall be
visited by Special Education (SPED) teachers and parents should be convinced to enroll
their children in SPED Centers or schools nearest their home.
2. Assessment. This is the continuous process of identifying the strengths and weaknesses
of the child through the use of formal and informal tools for proper program grade
placement. Existing SPED Centers in the Division shall assist regular schools in the
assessment process.
3. Program Options. Regular schools with or without trained SPED teachers shall be
provided educational services to children with special needs. These schools shall access
educational services from SPED Centers or SPED trained teachers. The first program
option that shall be organized for these children is a self-contained class for children with
similar disabilities which can be mono-grade or multi-grade handled by a trained SPED
teacher. The second option is inclusion or placement of the child with disabilities in
general education or regular class where he/she learns with his/her peers under a regular
teacher and/or SPED trained teacher who addresses the child’s needs.

The third option is a resource room program where the child with disabilities shall be
pulled out from the general education or regular class and shall report to a SPED teacher
who provides small group/one-on-one instruction and/or appropriate interventions for
these children.

4. Curriculum Modifications. This shall be implemented in the forms of adaptations and

accommodations to foster optimum learning based on individual’s needs and potentials.
Modification in classroom instructions and activities is a process that involves new ways
of thinking and developing teaching-learning practices. It also involves changes in any of
the steps in the teaching-learning process. Curriculum modifications shall include service
delivery options like cooperative or team teaching, consulting teacher program and
others. The provision of support services from professionals and specialists, parents,
volunteers, and peers or buddies to the children with special needs is an important
feature in the inclusion program.
5. Parental Involvement. This plays a vital role in preparing the children in academic, moral
and spiritual development. Parents shall involve themselves in observing children’s
performance, volunteering to work in the classroom as teacher aide and providing
support to other parents.
4. District and school-based special education and regular teachers, administrators and parents
need to collaboratively develop and facilitate the most effective program for children with
disabilities. This program shall be included in the School Improvement Plan (SIP).
5. To realize the successful implementation of inclusive education in the schools, the duties and
responsibilities of DepED officials are defined in Enclosure No. 2.
6. Officials at the division, region and central offices shall provide the needed training on inclusive
education to administrators, teachers and other school staff; regularly monitor the
implementation of the program and provide the corresponding technical assistance needed and
conduct evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the program and improve its
implementation.
7. Immediate dissemination of and compliance with this Order is directed.