Making the UDL Framework Universal: Implications for Individuals With Intellectual Disability.

The authors wrote a position paper. They asked how Universal Design for Learning can serve students with intellectual disability in general-ed classrooms.

They reviewed policy papers, UDL guides, and past studies. No kids were tested. The goal was to give teachers a roadmap for inclusive lesson planning.

UDL is not just extra help. It is a three-part plan: offer many ways to learn, many ways to show skill, and many ways to stay engaged.

When teachers build these choices into every lesson, students with ID can join the same activities as peers without needing pull-out services.

Lowrey et al. (2017) watched real classrooms. They saw teachers use UDL for fun tricks, but few linked the tricks to the exact needs of students with ID. The position paper fills that gap by showing which UDL checkpoints match ID support.

Sutton et al. (2022) pooled 26 studies and found small executive-function gaps in ID. Their data quietly back the paper’s call for flexible materials, since kids with weaker shifting and memory need more ways to access content.

Luckasson et al. (2013) and Matson et al. (2013) warn that labels shape expectations. The UDL paper answers their plea by keeping the label but lowering barriers, proving you can honor diagnosis without lowering standards.

You do not need a separate curriculum. Use the UDL checkpoints when you write lesson plans. Add one visual, one audio, and one hands-on path to the same goal. Students with ID stay at the table with everyone else, and you collect data on real inclusion instead of separate IEP boxes.