The Relationship of IEP Quality to Curricular Access and Academic Achievement for Students with Disabilities.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and its influence on academic achievement, inclusion in general education classrooms, and curricular access for students with disabilities. 130 teachers from the state of Indiana were asked to submit the most recent IEP of one of their students in either elementary or middle school who (a) had an identified disability and (b) achieved the lowest level of proficiency on the statewide standardized assessment. Teachers also were asked complete the Curriculum Indicators Survey (CIS) which provided information about their student’s curriculum and instructional experiences. Ratings from the IEP analysis tool developed for and used in this study suggest that students’ IEP goals were of variable quality across grade bands. Academic-focused IEP goals were more likely to include sufficient information about links to the curriculum standards and progress monitoring strategies, but less frequently included sufficient information about students’ present levels of performance (PLOP) and the relevance of IEP goals to the students’ educational needs. Additionally, the quality of progress monitoring information in academicfocused IEP goals demonstrated a negative association with student achievement. IEP quality demonstrated no significant relationship to inclusion in general education classrooms or two measures of curricular access. Changes in United States educational policy included in the 2004 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the No Child left Behind Act (NCLB) are intended to promote increased access to the general education curriculum and improved academic performance for students with disabilities. These policy mandates have clearly resulted in increased participation in state and district accountability systems for students with disabilities (Altman et al., 2010). However, there is less definitive evidence that these policies have resulted in improved opportunities to learn and academic gains as measured state standardized assessments for students with disabilities. McCausland’s (2005) review of IEP policies and research in Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States indicated a key aspect of IEP policies examined is that they all stipulate that children with (disabilities) for whom IEPs are developed should continue to have their education based on the standard/general curriculum (p. 52). Thus, research that investigates the relationship between IEP quality and curricular access has potential applicability for an international audience. Legal Foundations for Access to General Education Classrooms and Curriculum A number of U.S. court cases have established a long-standing precedent for creating more opportunities to learn and increased access to meaningful, age and grade appropriate curricula for students with disabilities. In Debra P. v. Turlington (1981), the court recognized for the need to align curriculum content and instruction with the constructs and skills that will be measured on standardized achievement tests. In the late 1970’s, African American students disproportionately failed the Florida standardized achievement test because they were not allotted access to the curriculum that was assessed on these
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».