A National Universal Design for Learning Curriculum: Advancing Access and Equity for Students With Disabilities

A National Universal Design for Learning Curriculum: Advancing Access and Equity for Students With Disabilities

 

By Melissa Beck Wells, EdD, BCASE, BCISE

 

This issue ofNASET’s Practical Teacher was written by Melissa Beck Wells, EdD, BCASE, BCISE. Universal Design for Learning (UDL), an educational framework grounded in cognitive neuroscience and learning variability, offers a research-backed solution. While UDL has gained traction in isolated districts and postsecondary institutions, a nationally mandated UDL-based curriculum is needed to ensure consistency, access, and high-quality education for students with disabilities across all learning environments. The purpose of this article is to present a compelling case for this national implementation, drawing from current statistics, DSM-5 classifications, and recent peer-reviewed research—including three studies the author conducted on UDL strategies in virtual and tertiary education settings.

Introduction

In the evolving landscape of American education, the need to provide equitable, accessible learning environments for all students has never been more critical. Among the most vulnerable populations in public education are students with disabilities, who comprise approximately 15% of students ages 3 through 21 receiving services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2024). Despite federal mandates guaranteeing their right to a free and appropriate public education, many of these students face systemic barriers to full participation in traditional educational settings. These barriers—often rooted in inflexible curricula and instructional practices—disproportionately affect students with neurodevelopmental differences, attention and learning needs, and cognitive or physical disabilities.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL), an educational framework grounded in cognitive neuroscience and learning variability, offers a research-backed solution. While UDL has gained traction in isolated districts and postsecondary institutions, a nationally mandated UDL-based curriculum is needed to ensure consistency, access, and high-quality education for students with disabilities across all learning environments. The purpose of this article is to present a compelling case for this national implementation, drawing from current statistics, DSM-5 classifications, and recent peer-reviewed research—including three studies I conducted on UDL strategies in virtual and tertiary education settings (Beck Wells, 2022; 2024a; 2024b).

Defining and Classifying Disabilities in Education

Understanding the diversity of disabilities that impact student learning is essential to effective curricular planning. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), neurodevelopmental disorders include conditions such as intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorders, and communication and motor disorders. These disabilities often appear in early childhood and affect various domains of functioning, including attention, memory, language, reasoning, and executive functioning. For example, students with specific learning disorders may struggle persistently with reading, writing, or mathematics despite average or above-average intelligence. Others, such as students with ASD, may experience challenges with communication, sensory processing, and social interaction, all of which impact classroom engagement.

These classifications offer critical insight into the challenges that students bring into educational spaces, yet they do not define a student’s capacity to learn. Unfortunately, many current educational models still operate on rigid assumptions about how students should demonstrate knowledge. The inflexibility of such models has created what CAST (2018) refers to as “barriers in the curriculum” rather than in the learners themselves.

The UDL Framework as a Systemic Solution

Universal Design for Learning is a proactive framework for designing educational environments that accommodate learner variability from the outset. Originating from architectural principles of universal design, UDL promotes access through three core principles: (1) multiple means of engagement, (2) multiple means of representation, and (3) multiple means of action and expression (CAST, 2018). These principles are designed to optimize motivation, comprehension, and demonstration of knowledge by offering flexible paths toward learning goals.

Unlike traditional special education accommodations, which are often reactive, UDL anticipates and embraces learner differences by embedding accessibility features into instructional design. The framework thus supports not only students with diagnosed disabilities, but also English language learners, students from diverse cultural backgrounds, and others who may benefit from alternative learning modalities.

In my 2022 mixed-methods study of UDL applications in virtual learning environments, students with ADHD and other attention-related needs reported higher levels of engagement, reduced anxiety, and a greater sense of academic ownership when UDL principles were applied (Beck Wells, 2022). These findings support the growing body of literature that positions UDL as both a learning design and social justice framework (Cumming & Rose, 2021; Espada-Chavarria et al., 2023).

Recent Empirical Evidence Supporting UDL

Recent studies reinforce UDL’s effectiveness across multiple educational contexts and populations. Almeqdad et al. (2023), in a meta-analysis of 45 empirical studies, found significant positive effects of UDL implementation on academic achievement and student engagement. Importantly, the review emphasized that institutional-level adoption—as opposed to isolated application—yielded the most consistent benefits.

Redstone and Luo (2024) examined UDL-aligned redesign in an online computer science course and reported increased retention and satisfaction among students with disabilities, citing greater access to alternative learning paths. Similarly, Pfeifer, Cordero, and Stanton (2023) highlighted how active learning strategies grounded in UDL enhanced classroom experiences for STEM majors with ADHD and learning disabilities, particularly by fostering self-advocacy skills and reducing stigma.

My own research (Beck Wells, 2024a) further supports this. In a study conducted at a public university, I found that faculty who embedded UDL principles in asynchronous courses reported higher rates of student persistence and fewer accommodation requests. The design strategies—such as flexible deadlines, multimodal content delivery, and scaffolded assessments—were found to benefit all students, not just those formally registered with disability services.

In another project (Beck Wells, 2024b), I explored UDL implementation in tertiary digital education. Faculty noted that students responded positively to environments that emphasized autonomy, choice, and multiple means of demonstrating knowledge. These outcomes align with findings by Rahajeng, Hendriani, and Paramita (2023), whose meta-analysis found strong links between environments that encourage student agency—like those designed through UDL—and improved academic performance among students with disabilities.

UDL and Transition Readiness

Universal Design for Learning not only improves current learning experiences but also prepares students for lifelong learning. According to Taconet et al. (2023), data-driven implementation of UDL principles supports college and career readiness by enhancing executive functioning and organizational skills—critical for postsecondary success. Seidel et al. (2024) reached similar conclusions in their study of a UDL-based college readiness program for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Their results showed measurable gains in independence, goal setting, and time management.

This relationship between inclusive instructional design and transition readiness has significant implications for high school educators preparing students for higher education. As IDEA mandates transition planning by age 16, integrating UDL into national curriculum standards ensures that instructional strategies align with postsecondary expectations and opportunities.

Implementation Challenges and Systemic Barriers

While UDL’s promise is supported by research, significant challenges remain. One of the primary obstacles is insufficient teacher training. Many educators are not introduced to UDL principles in pre-service preparation and report limited professional development on inclusive digital design (Espada-Chavarria et al., 2023; Li et al., 2024). Additionally, some educators perceive UDL as time-intensive or only applicable to students with disabilities, a misconception that can hinder adoption (Farran, 2018).

Another barrier is technological inequity. Although UDL can be implemented in analog formats, many of its most impactful applications involve digital tools. Schools lacking reliable internet access, assistive technologies, or inclusive content repositories may struggle to implement UDL effectively. This challenge disproportionately affects rural and low-income districts and requires policy-level intervention.

Policy Recommendations and National Impact

To advance equitable implementation, a nationally adopted UDL curriculum must include three core policy priorities. First, UDL must be embedded in teacher licensure requirements and educator professional development. Second, federal and state departments of education should mandate the integration of UDL principles into all curriculum development processes, including textbook adoption, assessment design, and instructional technology procurement. Third, dedicated funding must support infrastructure upgrades to enable digital access and flexibility, particularly in under-resourced schools.

Critically, UDL aligns with the spirit and language of major federal policies such as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A national UDL framework would build on these legal mandates and provide coherent guidance for inclusive instructional practice, advancing both compliance and innovation.

Conclusion

Students with disabilities continue to navigate an educational system that often fails to fully accommodate their learning needs. However, the barriers they face are not intrinsic to their diagnoses; rather, they result from inflexible curricula and instructional practices that do not account for human diversity. Universal Design for Learning offers a transformative approach to address these systemic challenges by embedding access and flexibility into the design of learning itself. Supported by a robust body of research—including findings from my own work in tertiary and virtual education—UDL is well positioned to become the foundation of a national educational reform. A mandated UDL curriculum would not only fulfill the promise of inclusion but also elevate the quality of education for all students.

References

Almeqdad, Q. I., Alodat, A. M., Alquraan, M. F., Mohaidat, M. A., & Al-Makhzoomy, A. K. (2023). The effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cogent Education, 10(1), 2238591. doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2238591

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.

Beck Wells, M. (2022). Supporting higher education students with attention and learning needs in virtual learning modalities. Smart Learning Environments, 9(1), 5. doi.org/10.1186/s40561-022-00218-6

Beck Wells, M. (2024a). UDL strategies in digital tertiary education. College Teaching, 72(3), 215–222. doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2024.2285063

Beck Wells, M. (2024b, October 3). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) in digital higher education. ResearchGate.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381953462_UDL_in_Digital_Higher_Education

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. udlguidelines.cast.org

Cumming, T. M., & Rose, M. C. (2021). Exploring Universal Design for Learning as an accessibility tool in higher education: A review of the current literature. The Australian Educational Researcher, 48(4), 651–672. doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00453-9

Espada-Chavarria, R., González-Montesino, R. H., López-Bastías, J. L., & Díaz-Vega, M. (2023). Universal Design for Learning and instruction: Effective strategies for inclusive higher education. Education Sciences, 13(9), 929. doi.org/10.3390/educsci13090929

Farran, J. (2018). An examination of the insights and support of self-advocacy by academic advisors when working with students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 31(4), 323–338.

Li, Y., Zhang, D., Dulas, H. M., & Whirley, M. L. (2024). Academic learning experiences and challenges of students with disabilities in higher education. Journal of Postsecondary Student Success, 1(1), 1–20.

Pfeifer, M. A., Cordero, J. J., & Stanton, J. D. (2023). What I wish my instructor knew: How active learning influences the classroom experiences and self-advocacy of STEM majors with ADHD and specific learning disabilities. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 22(1), ar3. doi.org/10.1187/cbe.22-06-0118

Rahajeng, U. W., Hendriani, W., & Paramita, P. P. (2023). Association between self-advocacy and academic performance of higher education students with disabilities: A meta-analysis. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 10(1), 13–26. doi.org/10.21776/ub.ijds.2023.010.01.2

Redstone, A. E., & Luo, T. (2024). Empowering learners in higher education: Redesigning an online computer science course through Universal Design for Learning implementation. TechTrends.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-024-00921-2

Seidel, L. M., Blaskowitz, M. G., Hulings, Z., & Fisher, C. (2024). College 101: Supporting college readiness skills among students with intellectual & developmental disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78(1), 7801190030p1–7801190030p10. doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2024.050002

Taconet, A., Langdon, S., Esposito, C., Mazzotti, V. L., Morningstar, M. E., & Lombardi, A. R. (2023). Using data to support college and career readiness for students with disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 59(1), 14–22. doi.org/10.1177/10534512231174317