Recent and emerging research supports the need for and guided the development of the Academic Curriculum Framework. The 1997 amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, further mandates that districts teach academics to students with significant disabilities, expecting states to establish challenging standards and to measure the performance of all students against those standards.

Research supports the need to create a strong link between assessments, curriculum, and statewide content standards for students with disabilities (Thurlow, 2003; Wiener, 2005). Therefore, it is crucial that educators present and teach content that is aligned to standards to students with disabilities. A review of published studies revealed that “what gets taught” is the one factor that most affects the achievement of a student (Marzano, 2003). The requirement that all students demonstrate knowledge of standards creates the expectation that both general educators and special educators will have a knowledge base and understanding of content standards across academic areas. Research indicates that aligning assessments and instruction to standards can be linked to improved learning outcomes for all students, including those with disabilities (Thurlow, 2003; Wiener, 2005).

Research further indicates that students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities typically need extended time, practice, and applications in context in order to master skills. It is also common that students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities experience significant delays in oral language and comprehension development (Houston, Otaiba, and Torgesen, 2006). To meet the needs of these students, the Academic Curriculum Framework utilizes the Integrated Teaching and Learning Cycle. This cycle was designed to maximize strategies found to be effective in teaching students with moderate to severe intellectual and developmental disabilities by incorporating three overlapping instructional phases as specially designed instruction is presented:

• Phase 1–Teach/Re-teach     

• Phase 2–Guided and Independent Practice     

• Phase 3–Informal Assessment

Houston, D., Al Otaiba, S., & Torgesen, J. (2006). Learning to read: Phonics and fluency. Teaching Reading, Math and Science to Students with Significant Disabilities, edited by D. Browder and F. Spooner, (pp. 93-123). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Marzano, R.J. (2003). What Works in Schools: Translating Research Into Action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Thurlow, M.L. (2003). Linking standards, assessment and instructional practices. Presentation at Pacific Rim Conference, Waikiki, HI. National Center on Education Outcomes. http://www.education.umn.edu.nceo/ (accessed May 7, 2009).

Wiener, D. (2005). One state’s story: Access and alignment to the GRADE-LEVEL content for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Synthesis Report 57). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO?Onlinepubs?Synthesis57.pdf (Accessed June 20, 2009).