Quality Instruction for Students with Disabilities

Abstract

The year has ended, and Qver 4 million students with disabilities have completed another year of school ing. What have they learned? Has their learning been the direct result of effective instruction or is it merely the ' product of another year's experience? Will what they have learned serve them in a functional way tomorrow? Should they have learned more or learned something different? Who is responsible for what they have learned over the past 180 days—teachers, parents, administrators, schools^ or the students themselves? Has the knowledge base of research influenced what they have learned? g These are examples of questions to be considered in addressing the larger issue of how we will ensure quality instruction for students with exceptionalities in the 21st century. When the productivity of the special education profession is examined, it becomes apparent that comparatively little attention has been given to improving instruction. This point is illustrated, in part, by the work of Lessen, Dudzinski, Karsh, and Van Acker (1989), who reviewed research on learning disabilities published in nine journals from 1978 through 1987. They found that research on academic intervention constituted only 4% of the articles published during that 10year period. Research on instructional interventions may not be as easy to conduct or as provocative as position papers; however, if special education means providing instruction to meet the specific needs of students with' disabilities, then it is reasonable to assume that a considerable proportion of the profession's efforts should be concentrated on developing and refining instructional interventions and on identifying the conditions that assure their effectiveness. •] r \> Sharingthe Responsibility for Quality Instruction