The Impact of Federal Public Policy on Curriculum and Instruction for Students With Disabilities in the General Classroom

References

• Billingsley, F. F., Liberty, K. A., & White, O. R. (1994). The technology of instruction. In E. C. Cipani & F. Spooner (Eds.), Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities (pp. 81-116). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Carnine, D. (2000). Why education experts resist effective practices (And what it would take to make education more like medicine). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Elbaum, B. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605-619.
   Google Scholar
• Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (1965).
   Google Scholar
• Gandal, M. (2007). Multiple choices: How will states fill in the blanks in their testing systems? No Child Left Behind: What will it take? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Geenan, K., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Educational standards and students with disabilities. Educational Forum, 61, 220-229.
   Google Scholar
• Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. §5801 et seq. (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).
   Google Scholar
• Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Ingels, S. J. (1996). Sample exclusion in NELS: 88: Characteristics of base year ineligible students; changes in eligibility status after four years (NCES Technical Report 96-723). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
   Google Scholar
• Kauffman, J. M. (1999). Commentary: Today's special education and its messages for tomorrow. Journal of Special Education, 32, 244-254.
   Google Scholar
• McGrew, K. S., Vanderwood, M., Thurlow, M. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). Why we can't say much about the status of students with disabilities during educational reform (Synthesis Report 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. (1998). Special education in an era of school reform: An overview. Washington, DC: Federal Resource Center for Special Education.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. J., Fuchs, L., & Hardman, M. (1999). Individual rights to education and students with disabilities: Some lessons from U.S. policy. In H. Daniels & P. Garner (Eds.), Inclusive education: World yearbook of education 1999 (pp. 24-35). London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, M. J., & Tilstone, M. (2000). Standards and curriculum. The core of educational reform. In M. Rouse & M. J. McLaughlin (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 38-65). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nevin, A. (1998). Curricular and instructional adaptations for including students with severe disabilities in cooperative groups. In J. Putnam (Ed.), Cooperative learning and strategies for inclusion (2nd ed.; pp. 49-65). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
   Google Scholar
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, U.S.C. §6301 et seq. (2001).
   Google Scholar
• O'Connor, R. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kindergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 43-54.
   Google Scholar
• Peterson, J. M., & Hittie, M. M. (2003). Inclusive teaching: Creating effective schools for all learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, M., Sindelar, P., & Hardman, M. (2004). Preparing highly qualified teachers for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: The impact of NCLB and IDEA. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 266-278.
   Google Scholar
• Rouse, M., Shriner, J. G., & Danielson, L. (2000). National assessment and special education in the United States and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 66-97). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sebba, J., Thurlow, M. L., & Goertz, M. (2000). Educational accountability and students with disabilities in the United States and England and Wales. In M. J. McLaughlin & M. Rouse (Eds.), Special education and school reform in the United States and Britain (pp. 98-125). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(3), 1-15.
   Google Scholar
• Torgesen, J. K. (1996, January). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: John F. Kennedy Center Distinguished Lecture Series. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who are exceptional, diverse, and at-risk in the general education classroom. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
   Google Scholar