The Relationship of IEP Quality to Curricular Access and Academic Achievement for Students with Disabilities.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it