Lou Brown

Using the Characteristics of Current and Subsequent Least Restrictive Environments in the Development of Curricular Content for Severely Handicapped Students.

This paper is designed to address several critical issues that pertain to the development of longitudinal curricular content for use with severely handicapped students. More specifically, to emphasize: (a) the importance of the principle of partial participation; (b) the need to create a wide variety of adaptations that might allow severely handicapped students at least to participate in many environments and activities from which they have been excluded; and (c) a rationale for using current and subsequent environment orientations and ecological inventory strategies in curriculum development processes. In addition, the authors present a cursory example of how ecological inventory strategies and current and subsequent environment orientations might be combined to generate chrononogical age appropriate curricular content.

The Home School: Why Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Must Attend the Schools of Their Brothers, Sisters, Friends, and Neighbors

A home school is the one a student with severe intellectual disabilities would attend if he or she were not disabled. A clustered school is a regular school attended by an unnaturally large proportion of students with intellectual disabilities, but it is not the one any or most would attend if they were not labeled disabled. Students who have severe intellectual disabilities should attend home schools so that (a) all children can be prepared to function in a pluralistic society; (b) the most meaningful and individually appropriate instructional environments and activities can be used; (c) parents, guardians, brothers, and sisters can have reasonable access to schools and services; and (d) a wide range of social relationships with students and others who are not disabled can be developed, maintained, and enhanced over long periods of time. The individualized educational program (IEP) of each student should include individually determined kinds and amounts of instruction in chronological age-appropriate regular education classrooms; on school grounds, but not in regular education classrooms; and in a wide variety of integrated nonschool environments that will actually be used during nonschool hours and days. Individually determined kinds and amounts of direct therapy and other needed services also must be provided from a home school base. Once a student with intellectual disabilities attends a home school, the next major issue becomes whether the student should be based in a regular education or in a special education classroom.

Seamless Transition and Long-Term Support for Individuals with Severe Intellectual Disabilities

The amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004 reiterate the significance of producing real postsecondary education, employment, and independent living outcomes. However, current employment data continue to show widespread unemployment and very limited access to inclusive community environments and services for adults with severe intellectual disabilities. On the contrary, data from the Transition Service Integration Model (N. J. Certo et al., 2003) demonstrate that these recalcitrant problems could be attenuated if two changes are implemented: The transition from school to adulthood components of IDEIA be strengthened to explicitly authorize school districts to subcontract with appropriate private agencies at the point of transition to produce direct-hire, individualized employment and adult living outcomes and that the federal government amend the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act to provide an entitlement to long-term support, creating a service system which parallels the functions of IDEIA after school exit.

Should Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Be Based in Regular or in Special Education Classrooms in Home Schools

All students with severe intellectual disabilities should attend the schools they would attend if they were not disabled; that is, their home schools. In a home school, each student must have an individualized educational program (IEP) that requires individualized instruction in chronological age-appropriate regular education classrooms; individual instruction on school grounds, but not in regular education classrooms; and individualized instruction in a wide variety of integrated nonschool environments that will actually be used during nonschool days and hours. The resources necessary to develop, maintain, and enhance an array of social relationships with nondisabled peers and others over long periods of time and individually appropriate therapy services are also considered critical components of each IEP. The focus here is whether students with severe intellectual disabilities should be based in special education classrooms or in chronological age-appropriate regular education classrooms in home schools. Ten challenging issues related to these two options are addressed.

How Much Time Should Students with Severe Intellectual Disabilities Spend in Regular Education Classrooms and Elsewhere

Students with severe intellectual disabilities should be based in the same schools and classrooms in which they would be based if they were not disabled. However, a regular education classroom base in a home school is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for minimally acceptable education. These students should spend some of their time elsewhere. Nine of many factors to consider when determining the amount of time and the kinds of instruction that should be provided in regular education classrooms and other settings are addressed. The ideological and instructional assumptions underlying the benefits that can accrue from functioning in both regular education classrooms and elsewhere must be realized.

Fewer Paraprofessionals and More Teachers and Therapists in Educational Programs for Students with Significant Disabilities.

During the post-World War II baby boom, increasing numbers of children with significant disabilities survived the birth process and lived longer than their predecessors. Many viewed them as less valuable than others and incapable of developing to more than the level of an infant without disabilities (Kliewer & Drake, 1998). Predictably, they were excluded or rejected from public schools and private alternatives emerged and proliferated. Most who provided direct services in these segregated private settings were untrained, relatively low paid, not college educated, or licensed. Subsequently, some legislatures established tax supported settings for these excluded and rejected children. Two additional segregated service models emerged: tax supported government operated programs and private services supported by public school tax dollars. In these settings, it was not unusual for one teacher and five

The Quest for Ordinary Lives: The Integrated Post-School Vocational Functioning of 50 Workers With Significant Disabilities

An extensive report is made of the work histories of 50 adults with significant disabilities who are served by Community Work Services, Inc., in Madison, Wisconsin. The primary purpose is to share information about the integrated vocational functioning of these adults, 90% of whom exited high school 15–24 years ago. A second purpose is to celebrate the inspiring achievements of a remarkable group of workers, their family members and the professionals who served them. A third is to affirm the validity and feasibility of integrated vocational functioning. Hopefully, by documenting what was and is operational, opportunities for and improvements in integrated services can be generated and more ordinary lives can be realized.

Strategies for Generating Comprehensive, Longitudinal, and Chronological-Age-Appropriate Individualized Education Programs for Adolescent and Young-Adult Severely Handicapped Students:

If chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content is to be developed, the basic components of an individualized education program (IEP) as mandated by P.L. 94-142 must be supplemented, expanded, and instructionally defined in relation to the unique educational needs of each severely handicapped student. A six-phase process for developing IEPs for such students is presented. It is intended that this six-phase process be considered in attempts to generate individualized interpretations of many of the concepts in P.L. 94-142. Furthermore, it is intended that progression through the phases will result in closer approximations of chronological-age-appropriate IEPs than if only components stipulated by P.L. 94-142 are considered.

Teaching Trainable-Level Students to Read Unconjugated Action Verbs

2Formerly with the Madison Public Schools, Madison, Wisconsin. Historically, teaching reading to trainable mentally retarded students has been confined to basic caution or safety words (Goldberg & Rooke, 1967; Kirk, 1972). Howerver, it is becoming increasingly evident that such circumscribed instructional objectives are unduly delimiting; in the near future the overwhelming majority of students labeled &dquo;trainable&dquo; will be expected to function in complex community settings rather than residential institutions. During the past 2 years, the authors and their colleagues have developed several programs designed to teach trainable-level retarded students to read. These programs have been concerned with teaching students to verbally label sight words (Brown, Hermanson, Klemme, Haubrich, & Ora, 1970), to functionally read nouns and adjective-noun phrases (Brown, Jones, Troccolo, Heiser, Bellamy, & Sontag, 1972), to spell printed words (Brown, Bellamy, Bancroft, & Sontag, 1972), and to functionally read complete sentences which involve the verb form &dquo;to be&dquo; and nine different prepositions (Brown & Perlmutter, 1971). Except for the Brown, Bellamy, Bancroft, and Sontag (1972) program referred to above, a &dquo;whole word&dquo; approach to reading was utilized. That is, the students involved were taught to verbally label a word in its entirety, without regard to phonetic, contextual,

1:1 versus 1:3 Instruction of Severely Multihandicapped Students.

This study investigated how the responses of three multihandicapped students differed in 1:1 and 1:3 arrangements. Data were collected on the motoric responses made by each student during a 45-minute snack session. In the 1:3 arrangements, the teacher instructed the students concurrently. In the 1:1 arrangements, each student was provided with 1:1 instruction for a portion of the 45-minute session and was wheeled to a free time area for the remaining portion. Results indicated that the students made more task-relevant responses and fewer counterproductive responses during the 1:3 than during the 1:1 arrangements when the data from the free time portions were included in the analysis.