JAASEP WINTER 2008 Part 2 of 7
All series
- ADHD Series
- Assessment in Special Education Series
- Autism Spectrum Disorders Series
- Bullying of Children
- Classroom Management Series
- Diagnosis of Students with Disabilities and Disorders Series
- Discipline of Students in Special Education Series
- Early Intervention Series
- Genetics in Special Education Series
- How To Series
- IEP Components
- Inclusion Series
- JAASEP – Research Based Journal in Special Education
- LD Report
- Lesser Known Disorders
- NASET News Alert
- NASET Q & A Corner
- NASET Survival Guides
- Parent Teacher Conference Handouts
- Resolving Disputes with Parents Series
- RTI Roundtable
- Severe Disabilities Series
- Special Education: What Do the Latest Numbers Tell Us?
- Special Educator e-Journal – Latest and Archived Issues
- The Practical Teacher
- Treatment and Support for IEP Students with Disabilities
- Working with Paraprofessionals in Your School
P, a 14 year old female diagnosed with quadriplegic cerebral palsy, was placed in a designated classroom for students with cognitive and physical impairments (Multiple Impairments). She was functionally nonverbal. Her cognitive abilities were estimated to be more than three standard deviations below the mean. Parents and teachers described P‘s curriculum in terms of functional activity goals such as eating and toileting as well as behavioral goals to reduce disruptive and self-injurious behaviors. Parents and individual professionals developed methods of interacting with P and eliciting responses about her preferences and opinions. P was sometimes present for IEP and transition planning meetings, but her participation was often limited to affectionate, social interactions with parents and professionals. Occasionally, P‘s opinion about a specific goal was elicited through phrasing that anticipated a positive response (e.g. ―P, you like to work on the calendar with Ms. X, right?‖). Her consistent response was to smile, moving her head up and down.
Abstract
For students with significant speech and movement impairments, meaningful participation in educational planning activities is difficult. These students face barriers in communicating choices about daily activities and basic knowledge; therefore, student-initiated curriculum goals are not systematically included in IEP and transition planning processes. We present models for conceptualizing the 1) expression of choice in students with severe impairments in speech and movement, 2) inclusion of choice-making techniques and abilities into IEP documents, and 3) inclusion of choice-making in transition planning. Using these models, we argue that optimal student participation in educational planning requires clear identification of a student’s current choice-making techniques; and, that advanced techniques and abilities in expressing choices are best developed through systematic consideration in educational planning.