Response to Intervention (RtI)
RtI integrates assessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems. With RtI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions, and adjust the intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities. Source: National Center on Response to Intervention
Section 504 Plan
Section 504 is a component of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs and activities that receive federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education. Section 504 regulations require a school district to provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to each qualified student with a disability who is in the school district’s jurisdiction, regardless of the nature or severity of the disability. This may be defined as regular or special education services. Section 504 does require development of a plan, usually referred to as a 504 plan. The Individualized Education Program (IEP) of IDEA may be used as the 504 plan. Typically, a student who needs 504 services needs accommodations and/or related services but does not need special placement or instruction from a special education teacher. Source: The Center for Applied Special Technology
Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
UDL is a framework for applying universal design principles to instructional materials, curricula, and educational activities so that they are achievable and challenging for students with a wide range of abilities and needs. Source: The Center for Applied Special Technology
Think back to those times when, upon returning to school in the fall, there was a brand new textbook waiting for you—no bends, no marks, you were the first person to write your name in it. Now imagine not being able to access the content because of a visual impairment or print disability. The first day feeling changes to anxiety rather than excitement.
Students with a visual impairment or print disability may have to wait several weeks or even months to get the materials in a format they can use and learn from. In the meantime, students feel unprepared and risk falling behind their peers.
In most schools, the use of print-based instructional materials, mostly textbooks, is still primarily how teachers deliver curricular content. This system works fine for many learners. But for others—those who struggle to read because of physical, sensory, cognitive, or learning differences—such materials are not as effective for learning. These students need instructional materials in accessible, specialized formats in order to have meaningful and equal access to the general education curriculum. Such access is guaranteed in federal education statutes, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB).
This FOCUS on Results document defines accessible instructional materials (AIM), outlines the paths available to students who are eligible to receive such materials, and highlights the importance of expanding AIM availability.
What Are Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM)?
AIM are specialized formats of fully accessible textbooks and other curriculum materials that can be used by and with students who are struggling readers or otherwise unable to access printed text. Fully accessible means:
- All text is digital and can be read with text-to-speech, modified with regard to font size, and navigated by unit, chapter, section, and page number (or other appropriate segments).
- Images include alternative text and long descriptions when appropriate (alternative text is a replacement for an image that serves the same purpose as the image itself. It is read by a screen reader in place of the image).
- Math equations are provided as images with alternative text or in the content file using MathML.
- Content reading order, levels, and headings are determined by publisher tagging.
- Text can be converted into Braille.
The Need to Expand Accessible Instructional Materials (AIM) Availability
If a student is unable to use printed text effectively, he or she may require instructional materials in specialized formats. Determining this need for AIM is the first step toward ensuring that ALL students have the learning materials necessary for participation in activities that lead to educational achievement.
With today’s classrooms more diverse than ever, grade level content expectations (GLCEs) more rigorous, and the expectation that ALL students achieve at high levels, educators face great challenges. If we continue to rely on printed text as the main, and often only, source for delivering educational content, then we have failed our students. A struggling reader who does not have efficient access to printed text may be unable to participate in classroom discussions or complete assignments. In addition, students may “tune out” due to lack of engagement.
Every student has a different learning style, and AIM afford the flexibility to meet the needs of a broad range of students. Results from the 2007 National Assessment on Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP), outlined in Table 1 below, demonstrate the need to expand availability of AIM to all students. The gap between students with disabilities and students without disabilities is striking. Yet, the high percentage of students without disabilities reading below grade level is alarming. This signals a need for these materials to be available for all students, including those without a diagnosed disability who are not currently guaranteed access to AIM.
| The 2007 National Assessment on Educational Progress (NAEP) Yielded the Following Results | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2007 NAEP Results for Public School Students—Percentage of All Michigan Students With Disabilities Reading Below the Basic Achievement Level | 2007 NAEP Results for Public School Students—Percentage of All Michigan Students Except Students With Disabilities Reading Below the Basic Achievement Level | |
| Fourth Grade | 64% | 31% |
| Eighth Grade | 66% | 24% |
| The 2007 Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Yielded the Following Results | ||
| 2007 MEAP Results—Percentage of All Students With Disabilities Reading Either at Level 3 (Partially Proficient) or Level 4 (Not Proficient) Achievement Level | 2007 MEAP Results—Percentage of All Students Except Students With Disabilities Reading Either at Level 3 (Partially Proficient) or Level 4 (Not Proficient) Achievement Level | |
| Fourth Grade | 43% | 12% |
| Eighth Grade | 60% | 18% |
While educators work to improve students’ reading skills, students have the right to access the general curriculum in alternate ways. Students with limited reading skills can still think, comprehend, learn concepts, and be successful in reading-intensive classes such as science and social studies. AIM are not intended to replace good reading instruction, nor should remediation of a print disability cease. But, there must be an appropriate balance between remediation and the availability of alternative options. If the goal is to learn American history, should we penalize struggling readers who are unable to access the content? Or should we offer an alternative format that allows students to access the same content as their peers without accessibility issues? This is a new way to deliver content, which is unfamiliar to many educators. Coupled with assistive technologies, these materials provide a powerful solution. AIM may provide the opportunity for struggling readers to have equal access to a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and to fully demonstrate their skill levels.
