A Closer Look: Examining Teachers' Language Around UDL, Inclusive Classrooms, and Intellectual Disability.

Lowrey et al. (2017) listened to general-ed teachers talk about Universal Design for Learning.

They recorded and coded every word the teachers used when they described UDL, inclusion, and students with intellectual disability.

The team then grouped the words into themes to see how teachers really think about these ideas.

Teachers treated UDL as a bag of flexible tricks—choice of seat, fun tech, extra time.

They almost never linked those tricks to the specific needs of learners with ID.

In short, teachers liked the tools but missed the purpose.

Taylor et al. (2017) published the same year with the opposite message: UDL is a powerful framework for including students with ID.

The two studies do not fight—they simply look at different sides of the same coin.

Alisa shows the teacher view; J shows the view we want teachers to reach.

Earlier work by Matson et al. (2013) and Luckasson et al. (2013) warned that the words we choose shape the lives of people with ID.

Alisa’s data prove those warnings still matter in today’s classrooms.

If you coach or supervise teachers, do not assume they connect UDL to disability needs.

In your next PD or classroom visit, pick one UDL checkpoint and ask, "Which learner with ID does this support and how?"

That single question can turn flexible tricks into true inclusion.