general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 122-133.
Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M., Calvin, M., & Palmer, S. (2010). Promoting active engagement in the general education classroom and access to the general education curriculum for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45(2), 163-174.
Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39, 166-175.
Brodkin, E. Z. (1990). Implementation as policy politics. In D. J. Palumbo & D. Calista (Eds.), Implementation and the policy process (pp. 109-118). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Brodkin, E. Z. (2003). Street level research: Policy at the front lines. In T. Corbett & M. Lennon (Eds.), Policy into action: Implementation research and welfare reform (pp. 145-163). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice fo r Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 309-321.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers to follow a task analysis to engage middle school students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities in grade-appropriate literature. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 206-219.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., & Flowers, C. (2006). Assessment of progress in the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Theory Into Practice, 45, 249-259.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2-16.
Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research and Practice fo r Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 284-292.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending school reform from one school to many. New York, NY: RoutledgeFaimer.
Donnellan, A. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9, 141-150.
Downing, J. (2006). On peer support, universal design, and access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities: A personnel preparation perspective. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 327-330.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 32, 1-15.
Etscheidt, S. (2012). Complacency with access and the aggregate? Affirming an individual determination of educational benefit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22, 195- 207. doi: 10.1177/1044207311410423 Evans, T. (2011). Professionals, managers and discretion: Critiquing street-level bureaucracy. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 368-386. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcq074
Halle, J. W., & Dymond, S. K. (2008). Inclusive education: A necessary prerequisite to accessing the general curriculum? Research and Practice fo r Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33/34, 196-198.
Heck, R. (2004). Studying educational and social policy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Individuals With Disabilities Act. (2004). Public Law 108-446. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008-2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33/34, 175-195.
Karger, J. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities: A discussion o f the interrelationship between IDEA and NCLB (A policy paper for educators and families). Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Education Programs.
Kelly, M. (1994). Theories of justice and street-level discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 119-140.
Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M., Soukup, J., & Palmer, S. (2010). Impact of curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213-233.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street level bureaucracy, dilemmas of the individual in public services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Malow-Iroff, M., Benhar, M., & Martin, S. (2008). Educational reform and the child with disabilities. In H. L. Johnson & A. Salz (Eds.), What is authentic educational reform? Pushing against the compassionate conservative agenda (pp. 71-88). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines ofpublic service. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
Moores-Abdool, W. (2010). Included students with autism and access to general curriculum: What is being provided? Issues in Teacher Education, 19(2), 153-169.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oakes CA: SAGE.
Riccucci, N. M. (2005). How management matters street level bureaucrats and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Riccucci, N. M. (2010). Public administration: Traditions o f inquiry and philosophies of knowledge. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In A. M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds.), The qualitative researchers companion (pp. 305-329). Thousand Oakes, CA: SAGE.
Ryndak, D., Moore, M., Orlando, A., & Delano, M. (2008-2009). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 199-213.
Sandfort, J. R. (2000). Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10, 729-756.
Schmidt, M., & Datnow, A. (2005). Teachers sense-making about comprehensive school reform: The influence of emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 949-965.
Scott, P. (1997). Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 35-57.
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open system perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., Jimenez, B., & Browder, D. (2013). Using an early science curriculum to teach science vocabulary and concepts to students with severe developmental Disabilities. Education & Treatment of Children, 36(1), 1-31.
Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. A. (2007). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101-120.
Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. (2006). Why teach the general curriculum? In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, & science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 1-14). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C. FI. (2006). What we know and need to know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 277-283.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art o f political decision making (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Vinzant, J. C., & Crothers, L. (1998). Street level leadership, discretion and legitimacy in front line public service. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice fo r Persons With Severe Disabilities, 31, 322-326.
Wehmeyer, M. L., & Agran, M. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In D. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 15-37). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
Weissert, C. (1994). Beyond the organization: The influence of community and personal values on street-level bureaucrats’ responsiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4, 225-254.
Yell, M., Katsiyannis, M., & Hazelkom, M. (2007). Reflections on the 25th anniversary of the US supreme court’s decision in Board of Education v. Rowley. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(9), 1-12.
)
مشاهدة على SCiNiTO