Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 271-282

  Wehmeyer, Michael L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7044238162     PISSN: 15470350     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
2. Federal Register (1999, March 12). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
3. Feldman, R. S., Saletsky, R. D., Sullivan, J., & Theiss, A. (1983). Student locus of control and response to expectations about self and teacher. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 27-32.
4. Greenspan, S. (1997). Dead manual walking: Why the 1992 AAMR definition needs redoing. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32, 179-190.
5. Jacobson, J. W., & Mulick, J. A. (1992). A new definition of mentally retarded or a new definition of practice. Psychology in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 18(2), 9-14.
6. th Ed.). Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
7. th Edition). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
8. Luckasson, R., & Spitalnick, D. M. (1994). Political and programmatic shifts of the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. In V. Bradley, J. W. Ashbaugh, & B. C. Blaney (Eds.), Creating individual supports for people with developmental disabilities: A mandate far change at many levels (pp. 81-96). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
9. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Siperstein, G. N. (1993). Conceptual and psychometric concerns about the 1992 AAMR definition of mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 325-335.
10. Orkwis, R., & McLane, K. (1998). A curriculum every student can use: Design principles for student access. ERIC/OSEP Topical Brief, Fall, 1998. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
11. Polloway, E. A., Smith, J. D., Chamberlain, J., Denning, C. B., & Smith, T. E. C. (1999). Levels of deficits or supports in the classification of mental retardation: Implementation practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34, 200-206.
12. Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (1996). Challenges for the special education-curriculum reform partnership. In M. C. Pugach & C. L. Warger (Eds.), Curriculum trends, special education, and reform: Refocusing the conversation (pp. 227-252). New York: Teachers College Press.
13. Ramey, S. L., Dossett, E., & Echols, K. (1996). The social ecology of mental retardation. In J. W. Jacobson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Manual of diagnosis and professional practice in mental retardation (pp. 55-65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
14. Reiss, S. (1994). Issues in defining mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 1-7.
15. Rolison, M. A., & Medway, F. J. (1985). Teachers' expectations and attributions for student achievement: Effects of label, performance pattern, and special education intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 561-573.
16. st Century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
17. Sarason, S. (1985). Psychology and mental retardation: Perspectives in change, Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
18. Schalock, R. (2002). Definitional issues. In R. L. Shalock, P. C. Baker, & M. D. Croser (Eds.), Embarking on a new century (pp. 45-66). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
19. Thompson, J., Bryant, B., Campbell, E., Craig, E. P., Hughes, C., Rothelz, D., Schalock, R., Silverman, W., Tasse, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Supports Intensity Seale (Field-Test Version 4.5). Washington, DC: AAMR.
20. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S. (2002a). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 223-234.
21. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 329-344.
22. Wehmeyer, M. L., Sands, D. J., Knowlton, H. E., & Kozleski, E. B. (2002b). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
23. Wigfield, A., & Harold, R. D. (1992). Teacher beliefs and children's achievement self-perceptions: A developmental perspective. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 95-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.