Archive for the ‘policy’ Tag

UDL Policy Challenges and Recommendations

Project Forum at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) has published a new report, UDL: Policy Challenges and Recommendations.

This report was generated from a collaborative forum and panel that took place last summer, fall, and winter. A live webinar on UDL, specifically the challenges of implementation, was followed by a virtual forum facilitated by Project Forum and CAST. In December, a face-to-face panel was assembled in Alexendria, VA.

As a participant of the virtual forum, I was impressed with the comprehensiveness of the discussions and the diversity of perspectives represented. Members were from K-12, higher education, state- and national-level government, and wide-ranging organizations. Project Forum and CAST established multiple forums, related to topics such as professional development and training, technology, awareness and outreach, data collection, and assessment.

The report summarizes the challenges that were identified in the virtual forum. The top 10 challenges to UDL implementation can be read on page 8, and include “engage and excite educators at all levels…,” “integrate UDL and technology within school cultures…,” “identify and provide supports…,” “ensure multiple methods of assessments are developed using UDL principles…,” and “provide incentives for commercial enterprises…”

Policy recommendations were sorted into four categories:

  • Easier to Implement/High Level of Impact
  • Challenging to Implement/High Level of Impact
  • Easier to Implement/Lower Level of Impact
  • Challenging to Implement/Lower Level of Impact

An example of “Easier/High Level” is to build a national consortium to develop content, PD, and accreditation standards.

An example of “Challenging/High Level” is to ensure continuity between assessment and instruction.

One recommendation was made for “Easier/Lower Level” and is to provide targeted grants that support community and technical colleges.

No recommendations were sorted into the “Challenging/Lower Level” category.

Finally, proposed strategies to begin implementation of six “easier to implement/high level of impact” are reported. The strategies are accompanied by “Target Audience,” “Who Should Be Involved?,” “Suggested Timeframe,” and “What Resources are Needed?” Outcome Measures are also stated.

Although generated for use on a national scale, the challenges, recommendations, and strategies for implementation reported in this publication can be useful to any school that is striving to improve the academic achievement of all learners.