Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
2013, Vol. 38, No. 2, 117-119
copyright 2013 by
TASH
From Different to Differentiated:
Using "Ecological Framework" to
Support Personally Relevant Access to
General Curriculum for Students With
Significant Intellectual Disabilities
Katherine Trela
Marist College
Bree A. Jimenez
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Language used in the field of special education is
important; it can serve to influence both curriculum and
placement decisions for students with intellectual disabil-
ity. Historically, "Functional Curriculum" was used to
describe curriculum adaptations necessary for students to
access their environment (school and community). How-
ever, the term has evolved to mean a separate set of
curriculum standards primarily addressing daily life skills
for individuals with significant disabilities. An unintended
consequence of this term has been to suggest a "different"
rather than "differentiated" curriculum for students and,
by doing so, suggest the need for separate settings in
which to deliver this differently focused curriculum. A re-

cent paper by Hunt, McDonnell, and Crockett (2012)
suggests the use of an ecological framework to guide stake-
holders to maintain a clear focus on individual student
needs as they provide access to general curriculum for
this population of students. The authors suggest the term,
"Personally Relevant," as a reference to curriculum adap-
tations made within the ecological framework to both
access grade-appropriate curriculum and receive individ-
ualized support This change—from Functional to Person-
ally Relevant—promotes inclusive practices by signalling
common curriculum that is differentiated, not different, for
students with significant intellectual disability.
D E S C R I P T O R S : general curriculum access, inclu-
sion, severe disability, intellectual disability, language,
terminology
Since the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), emphasis on access
and progress in the general education curriculum for
Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Bree A.
Jimenez, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Special-
ized Education Services, 421 School of Education Bldg., PO
Box
26170, Greensboro, NC 27402. E-mail: [email protected]
students with disabihties has been discussed in terms of
its imphcations and possible unintended negative con-
sequences for those students with significant intellectual
disabilities (McLaughlin, 2010; Thurlow, 2000, 2002). In
these discussions, authors have reflected on the need to
maintain the individualized nature of special education,
concerned that an emphasis on ahgnment to content
standards could promote individualized education pro-
grams (IEPs) written without attention to the student's
unique needs. Historically, programs for students with

significant intellectual disability followed the "criterion
of ultimate functioning" or the need to exphcitly teach
skills of daily hving to ultimately hve an independent,
engaged life in the community (Brown, Nietupski, &
Hamre-Nietupski, 1976). The intention was to move
away from developmental models in use at the time and
respect individuals with significant intellectual disabüity
through their lifespan with goals and activities that
support independent functioning within home, school,
and work communities. However, as materials and IEP
guidance documents (i.e., "catalogs of lifeskills," such as
reading directional signs or counting change) were
marketed to support instruction focused on student
"ultimate functioning" that specifically focused set of
skills became known as "Functional Curriculum." An
unintended consequence of instruction aligned to
"Functional Curriculum" was the development of a
static set of community living skills and activities, where
lessons could be repeated regardless of the student's
grade level. For example, students could work with a
hst of preselected "survival words" from elementary
through high school, with some words not as relevant
to the student's independence as intended (e.g., teaching
recognition of typical road signs for a student who will
not obtain a driver's hcense). Furthermore, Functional
Curriculum had been referenced in school leadership
program textbooks as the appropriate course of study
for students with significant intellectual disability to
117
118 Trela and Jimenez
follow (Bayat, 2012; Glatthorn, Boschee, & Whitehead,

2006; Neel & Billingsley, 1989; Wehman & Kregel,
2004). Previous concerns surrounding a solely func-
tional curriculum approach also noted that this sepa-
rate curriculum was often equated with a need to
deliver such instruction in a separate setting (Field,
LeRoy, & Rivera, 1994). In essence. Functional
Curriculum became a label for a parallel, predetermined
set of specific skills and activities for students not fol-
lowing the same course of study as their peers in gen-
eral education classes. Although the term Functional
Curriculum was intended to guide instruction that
promoted independent living, it unintentionally be-
came the "something or somewhere else" to which stu-
dents with significant disabilities were assigned. This
separate path was clearly not aligned to the spirit or letter
of IDEA: that all students have access to and make
progress in the general education curriculum (Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004).
In an effort to guide practice that provides both
access to and opportunities for student progress toward
learning goals aligned to the general education cur-
riculum, a growing body of research has focused on
how to support such progress and away from whether
or not to maintain a solely functional curriculum
approach. This emergent research does in fact show
how students with significant intellectual disabilities
can meaningfully access and show measurable progress
toward general curriculum standards (Browder et al.,
2012; Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, & Miller,
2007; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012;
Spooner, Knight, Browder, & Smith, 2012). Common
to the strategies that support access and progress
in general curriculum is the intentional connection
made between the skills and concepts taught and
their relevance in students' lives (e.g., following class

routines and asking questions when help is needed,
recognizing and organizing information to solve a
problem, drawing similarities between a literary char-
acter's preferences and one's own personal prefer-
ences, following a guided inquiry process to explore
the natural world). In this way, recent research has
drawn attention away from the question of whether or
not to teach to general curriculum standards toward a
focus on how to teach to general curriculum standards
while maintaining individualized support for students
with significant intellectual disability.
A recent article by Hunt et al. (2012) provides an
ecological curricular framework to guide IEP teams as
they balance individual needs of students with signifi-
cant intellectual disabilities with opportunities to both
access and make meaningful progress toward general
education curriculum standards (i.e.. Common Core
State Standards). Using this framework, students with
significant intellectual disability are truly "students"
first, with a clear set of curriculum expectations no
different from their same age peers without disabilities.
Expectations are individualized for access to the general
education curriculum based on each student's strengths
and needs. The framework articulates a process of work-
ing with families and students to identify needed sup-
ports, adaptations, and modifications that "personalize"
access to the curriculum, thus providing specially designed
instruction that maintains the "big ideas," skills, and
processes that are considered important for all students.
In an era of high stakes accountability, it has become
increasingly important to develop clearly defined cur-
riculum expectations for this population of students.
Often teachers, administrators, and researchers have

struggled to identify and manage a curriculum that
represents both the academic rigor all students deserve
to learn, as well as maintain the link to meaningful
instruction for a population with tremendous diversity.
To represent this unambiguous focus on curriculum that
is differentiated by making intentional, personally
relevant connections to the lives of students with
significant intellectual disabilities, we suggest the term
personally relevant. Personally relevant curriculum
modifications shaped by the ecological framework
connect students to their current school-based commu-
nity by considering skills, settings, and relationships that
support students' full participation in the school com-
munity. Similar to person-centered planning processes
that individuals and families with significant disabilities
follow to support community engagement upon transi-
tion from school, personally relevant curriculum mod-
ifications consider how access to and progress within
the general curriculum creates natural opportunities for
broader school and life experiences. For example, as
students learn the principles of solving math problems
on area and volume, they may also be working alongside
peers to determine the best shape and size of a school
garden; a high school class may read an adapted version
of Hamlet, then share the stage with a drama class to
present selected scenes to their school and community
audience; after a unit on plate tectonics, students may
engage in a fund raiser for victims of an earthquake in
another part of the world; and a middle school student
may share an adapted version of Call of the Wild with
his parents, allowing them time to discuss topics like
taking care of animals or knowing the difference
between needs and wants. In each example, instruction
remains focused on grade-appropriate general educa-
tion curriculum, but with modifications that are
personally relevant: modifications that intentionally

connected the skills and concepts to the student's
broader school and community experience. Thus, we
suggest that the term personally relevant acknowledges
individuals as "students first" (i.e., a fifth grader or a
high school freshman), but, in that context, a student
who needs modifications that the students them-
selves, parents, and teachers have identified as relevant
to his/her hfe. In contrast to the term Functional
Curriculum, this change suggests a differentiated, not
Personally Relevant Curriculum 119
different, curriculum for students with significant
disabilities. Although the argument may be made that
this is simply a change in labels, we propose that the
term reflects a level of differentiation that promotes
access to make meaningful progress in the general
education curriculum rather than a separate curriculum.
Language plays an important role in perceptions of
individuals with disabihties in our culture. Acknowl-
edging the power of language to support, rather than
impede, positive perceptions of individuals with dis-
abilities, in 2010 President Obama signed Rosa's law
(Pub. L. 111-256), to replace the term "mental retarda-
tion" with "intellectual disability" in all federal legisla-
tion. In addition. Special Olympics and Best Buddy
Organizations have used public service announcements,
as well as social media platforms, to "spread the word
to end the word" in an effort to directly address the
misuse of the word "retarded" in our popular culture
(thearc.org; https://www.facebook.com/EndtheWord).
Additionally, language used in the "field" can influence
the way local education agencies characterize programs

and services for students with significant intellectual
disabilities. For example, both students and programs
were once identified with outdated labels such as
"Trainable Mentally Retarded." In some districts, such
labels have since been replaced with terms that focus
curriculum needed by individuals with significant intel-
lectual disabilities, such as "Lifeskills" or "Specialized
Academic Curriculum." Although school districts will
continue to use a variety of program names as IEP
teams discuss special education placements along a
continuum of support, this suggestion is made in the
spirit of focusing those discussions on the level of
differentiation needed to access and progress in a
common curriculum rather than the need for a different
curriculum. The use of the term personally relevant
within the IEP process may focus planning teams to
begin with the general curriculum and plan access
based on individualized needs identified through a
person-centered ecological framework. As noted be-
fore, for quite some time curriculum has been devel-
oped, even within the IEP process, as personal needs
versus general curriculum access. As general and
special educators in many states move forward with
aligning instruction for all students to the Common
Core State Standards, this change in language is
suggested to replace "functional curriculum" as a
more accurate reference to the demanding work that
students with significant disabilities and their teachers
do on a daily basis to balance the expectations of
general education curriculum standards and individu-
alized goals.
Historically, a change in terms in the field of special
education has signalled a step away from labels that
separate toward language that both acknowledges com-
mon bonds and supports diversity (e.g., "people first"

language). In that spirit, we encourage use of the term
personally relevant to describe those modifications deter-
mined by using an ecological framework for students with
significant intellectual disability. With this change, we
may signal a step toward a differentiated, not different,
curriculum to ensure that students with significant
intellectual disability be more fully and naturally included
in their present school and future community settings.
References
Bayat, M. (2012). Teaching exceptional children. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez, B. A.,
Knight, V., 8L Flowers, C. (2012). Teaching mathematics and
science standards to students with moderate and severe
developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education,
46, 26-35. doi:10.1177/0022466910369942
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976).
Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.),
Hey, don't forget about me! Education's investment in the
severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2-15).
Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Collins, B. C , Evans, A., Creech-Galloway, C , Karl, X, &
Miller, A. (2007). Comparison of the acquisition and
maintenance of teaching functional and core content sight
words in special and general education settings. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220-233.
Field, S., LeRoy, B., & Rivera, S. (1994). Meeting functional
curriculum needs in the middle school general education
classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 26, 40-43.

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F , & Whitehead, B. M. (2006).
Curriculum leadership: Development and implementation.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Hunt, P., McDonnell, J., & Crockett, M. A. (2012). Reconciling
an ecological curriculum framework focusing on quality of
life outcomes with the development and instruction of
standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for
Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37,139-152.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004, PL108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq.
Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W.
(2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated
embedded instruction for students with moderate intellec-
tual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 301-317.
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educa-
tional equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional
Children, 76, 265-278.
Neel, R. S., & Billingsley, F. F. (1989). Impact: A functional
curriculum handbook for student with moderate to severe
disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Rosa's Law: P L 111-256, S. 2781 (2010).
Spooner, F , Knight, V. F., Browder, D. M., & Smith, B. R.
(2012). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to
students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial
and Special Education, 33, 374-387.
Thurlow, M. L. (2000). Standards-based reform and students
with disabilities: Reflections on a decade of change. Focus on

Exceptional Children, 33, 1-16.
Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all
students: The promise of standards-based reform. Remedial
and Special Education, 23,195-202.
Wehman, P., & Kregel, J. (2004). Functional curriculum for
elementary, middle, and secondary age students with special
needs. Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Received: May 10, 2013
Final Acceptance: May 22, 2013
Editor in Charge: Martin Agran
Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities is the property of
TASH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple
sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
CH 9: Riemer, Science, and Romance
The Political Values of Political Actors

Key Terms
Political values are important beliefs about which goals,
principles, and policies are worthwhile in public affairs.
A goal is an objective. (may be peace, security, and order or
war, domination, and power; may be liberty, equality, justice,
and fraternity or slavery, subordination, tyranny, and enmity.
May be positive or negative goals.)
A principle is a basic truth or belief that is used as a basis of
reasoning or a guide to behavior. May also be positive or
negative (peaceful change or violent change).
A policy is a course or general plan of action designed to solve
problems or achieve specified goals; help determine whether
certain standards are being met; serve as important guideposts
in politics.
Where do political values come from? Whose goals, principles,
and policies are actually being observed?
A political actor is the individual or group that expresses and
shapes political values, struggles for power, and decides issues
of public policy; governmental, economic, social and military
elites, political parties, interest groups, the mass media, and
nation-states are all examples of political actors.
Individual citizens are also political actors.

Level-of-analysis problem
With so many different political actors, who do we focus on: the
national government as the primary actors or the decision-
makers who lead the government? The international system
itself?
What level do we operate on to really understand what is going
on?
Guiding Hypothesis in studying political values
1) political values of political actors are rooted in their vital
needs, fundamental interests, and perceived desires.
2) the struggle over political values is conditioned by the
differing interpretations of needs, interests, and desires by
diverse political actors and by the historical distribution of
power (make for both conflict and consensus).
Guiding Hypothesis in studying political values
3) the world of politics frequently contains serious gaps
between professed values and actual behaviors. The gaps exist
because political actors are unable to break out of parochial,

rigidly ideological patterns of thought and behavior. Difficult to
narrow these gaps because human resources and capabilities are
limited.
4) the future will probably include a major constitutional and
democratic struggle between what we might call broad values
and narrow values; will require a realistic understanding of vital
needs, of compatible fundamental interests, and of modest and
prudent desires.
The Values of Nations as Political Actors
Nations (national leaders, ruling elites, or governing parties)
generally profess and seek to protect the national interest in
foreign affairs and public interest in domestic affairs.
National interest is the vital needs and fundamental interests of
the nation as a whole, security, liberty, justice and welfare,
which are essential to the independence, prosperity, and power
of the nation-state.
Public interest is the interest of the entire community that
transcends the selfish interests of individuals or groups. It
expresses the best long-range interests of the entire nation.
Values of political leaders
Survival, security, safety, peace, territorial integrity, defense,
prosperity, independence, and power.

Freedom, their capacity to govern themselves, their control of
their own destiny, and their enjoyment of the rights that make
freedom meaningful.
Justice, equality before the law, due process, equitable
distribution of wealth.
Equal treatment of sovereign nations, respect for international
law and procedure.
Concern for welfare of their citizens.
Values of political leaders
Policies that enhance national economic well-being through
growth, production, full employment, decent farm prices, and
satisfactory business profits.
Policies that enhance social well-being through literacy,
adequate food and housing, and good health and nutrition.
Endorse stable institutions and organizations as a way to ensure
political well-being.
Key National Interests:
Security and Peace
Security and Peace; most leaders say they believe in security
and peace but the 20th and 21st centuries have been littered
with violent conflict: interstate wars, revolutions,
assassinations, rebellions, wars of national liberation, ethnic
conflict, terrorism, and genocide.
Over the past fifteen to twenty years, somewhere between thirty

and forty wars were raging at any given point in time.
One estimate of those killed in recent wars: 87.5 million dead –
33.5 million combatants and 54 million civilians (Zbigniew
Brzezinski, Out of Control: Global Turmoil on the Eve of the
Twenty-first Century).
A second estimate puts the total at 203 million (M. Chiref
Bassouni, “Searching for Peace and Achieving Justice”)
Security and Peace
Facetious adage in international relations: “all wars are fought
in self-defense.”
Do nations engage only in just wars, defending itself against
aggressive opponents and protecting its security against real
attack?
Or have some nations engaged in war using the pretext of
protecting vital interests?
Do wars actually serve to protect a nation’s security?
Difficult to answer these questions because terms like just war,
defensive war, aggressive war, vital interests or security lack
common definitions.
Terrorism and nuclear proliferation have complicated the
question of security even further.
Security and Peace

The following are certain, however, (1) there is a serious gap
between talk of peace and the reality of war, (2) different
nations hold incompatible conceptions of national security, (3)
sometimes nations counter power with power in order to protect
vital national interests, (4) national defense expenditures are
huge and distort other priorities, and (5) the machinery for
peace and peaceful change is inadequate.
Many countries and their political leaders claim to be peace-
loving but often engage in war.
The Clash of Civilizations
Clashing conceptions of national security highlight international
relations.
Recent debates focus on the nature of ethnic and cultural
conflicts that persist.
Samuel Huntington (1993): predicted that with the fall of
communism different civilizations – Western, Eastern, Islamic,
Latin American – will come into conflict; these civilizations
will represent great blocs of countries with similar cultural,
religious, and political histories; highlights the intersection of
values, culture, and security; leads to a clash of civilizations as
each tries to protect itself; diverse values become the source of
clashing security concerns.
Values:
Liberty, human rights, and democracy

Most nations profess a commitment to liberty, human rights,
and democracy.
What constitutes a democracy is open to debate; accept that
democracies must have freedom of expression, free elections,
and the ability to gather alternative sources.
Some countries might achieve some level of democracy, but not
complete democracy.
So, how do we measure democracy?
Freedom House
Ranks countries into three categories: Free, Partly Free, and Not
Free.
The rankings show that there are more democracies than ever in
the world.
Also show that many countries profess to be democracies and
yet are not quite living up to the high standards that democracy
demands.
Gaps between rhetoric and reality.
Many countries will justify violations of liberty, human rights,
and the democratic process in the name of national security and
the need for domestic order.

Values:
Justice, equality, and liberty
Justice, equality, and liberty; justice, roughly understood as
fairness, involves balancing liberty and equality; but justice is
perceived in different ways by different nations and by different
groups within nations.
There are many ways to measure a nation’s commitment to
justice, or fairness; one is the way in which income is
distributed.
In general, the higher the development level of a nation, the
more equitable the distribution of income within a society.

Values:
Justice, equality, and liberty
The issues of justice and equality goes to the very heart of what
values political elites hold.
Justice addresses the question of how to balance competing
values.
The demands of personal freedom, which might require a
limited state that allows people to do what they want, will come
into conflict with the ideal of equality, which might call for the
state to limit concentration of wealth.
Values:
Welfare and economic well-being
Welfare and economic well-being; most nations endorse (at
least in their rhetoric) the welfare and economic well-being of
their people.
Welfare refers to government provisions for , or contributions
to, individual needs for employment, income, food, housing,

health care, and literacy.
Economic well-being is the level of income, food, health care ,
and education that satisfies minimum quality-of-life standard
and permits full growth and development.
Richer, industrial, developed nations have a much easier time
satisfying these needs.
Values of Citizens
What shapes the values of citizens?
What are those actual values?
How do they vary from country to country and within countries?
Is there a conflict between the values espoused by elites and
those espoused by average citizens?
To what degree should elites follow public opinion and respect
the basic values of the typical citizen?
Values of Citizens
Considerable evidence that the values of people who make up
political communities are rooted in and correlated with a
hierarchy of human needs: for sustenance and safety; for
belonging and esteem; and for intellectual, aesthetic, and social
fulfillment.
Associated with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs: people are
motivated to achieve self-actualization, but only after other
needs on the hierarchy are fulfilled first.

Disagreement on Values
Whether there is broad consensus or significant disagreements
about certain basic values.
In the United States sharp disagreements can exist between
voters.
Republicans and Democrats differ substantially on several
issues, including government spending.
Notion of culture wars: division over the values reflected in
opposing positions on key public policy issues such as abortion,
gay marriage, prayer in public schools, euthanasia, genetic
research, and sex education.

Interest Groups and Class Values
Politics as a tug-of-war among competing interests; public
policy as a result of group pressures; political scientists
emphasize the importance of understanding the values and
behavior of powerful interest groups in the political community.
An interest group is comprised of members of the public who
organize and attempt to shape public policy on issues of
concern to them. Almost all political communities contain
interest groups seeking to protect their vital needs and
fundamental interests.
Social scientists influenced by the egalitarian ideas of Marxism
or socialism, focus on the interests held by social classes;
emphasize the role played by class values.
Class values are the political interests shaped by the social
classes, such as worker or capitalist; key interests wrestle for
power, working to integrate their values into laws,
administrative policies, and court decisions.

Values of nations, citizens, and interest groups are rooted in
their vital needs, fundamental interests, and perceived desires.
General agreement about fundamental needs and interests holds
all political communities together and enhances politics as a
civilizing process.
Serious gaps exist between civilized national values and actual
national values as measured by behavior.
Guide
A curriculum guide is a packet of practical ideas for teaching
that is written in a convenient format as practical teaching notes
for use by either you or your colleagues. It is a how-to guide
that covers steps for achieving specific objectives, principles
governing behavior, or descriptions of effective teaching
strategies, interventions, and accommodations that a special
educator can use in the classroom. Curriculum guides might
include the title of the strategy or principle, explanation of its
educational purpose (goal or objective), task analysis of teacher
and student activities, and student assessment procedures.
Create curriculum guides for teaching reading, writing, spelling,
and mathematics as a reference, in a format that will provide
you and your professional colleagues with practical information
necessary for effective teaching of students with ID. Ensure the
curriculum guide is sufficiently accurate, thorough, and clear so
the reader can implement the strategies. The guide should be
usable by any of the teachers in the student's school.
Each strategy should be referenced. There should be a minimum
of three references for each subject
Resources

Academic Instruction for Students with Moderate and Severe
Intellectual Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms
From Different to Differentiated: Using "Ecological
Framework" to Support Personally Relevant Access to General
Curriculum for Students with Significant Intellectual
Disabilities.
Impact of Curriculum Modifications on Access to the General
Education Curriculum for Students with Disabilities
This might help them with doing the assignment. So this is the
link. http://www.teachhub.com/how-create-curriculum-map
Other resources:
There are many different templates available online. With that
being said, I have included a link to a template that you can
refer to. Please note that the example is a massive, in-depth one,
so don't panic when you see it. It just sort of gives you an
overview. Again, this is just one example though and if you
search curriculum map, you will find a ton of examples. Find
strategies, supports, and accommodations that will help us teach
each of these core subjects. Since we cannot really go off of a
set curriculum, we just need to give basic, overall strategies that
can help us with any level. Think of it really as a how-to-guide
that you could give to someone to learn how to teach a core
subject matter.
Here is some resources:
How to Create a Curriculum Map
STARTALK Curriculum Templates | STARTALK
STARTALK Curriculum Templates | STARTALK

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx

Similar to Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx (20)

More from ronak56

More from ronak56 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities2013.docx