INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD 2017, Vol. 55, No. 1, 15–24 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.1.15 A Closer Look: Examining Teachers’ Language Around UDL, Inclusive Classrooms, and Intellectual Disability K. Alisa Lowrey, Aleksandra Hollingshead, and Kathy Howery Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the language teachers used to discuss inclusion, Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and learners with intellectual disability (ID) in an effort to better understand how teachers describe the relationship between those three. Utilizing a secondary analysis procedure, interview transcripts from seven general education teachers were reanalyzed to identify language used by teachers to refer to inclusive educational settings, the implementation of UDL, and learners with intellectual disability. The identified themes were then juxtaposed against the UDL framework (principles, guidelines, and checkpoints) and the current literature related to UDL and inclusive education. We end with recommendations for future practice and research involving inclusive classrooms, UDL, and learners with ID. Key Words: intellectual disability; Universal Design for Learning; inclusion; stories The percentage of students with disabilities receiv- ing some or all of their educational services in general education has increased from 33% in 1990– 91 to 62% in 2013–2014 (Kena et al., 2016). Unfortunately, this has not been the case for students with intellectual disability (ID). In the same year (2013–2014), the National Center for Education Statistics reported only 16% of students with ID spent the majority of their school day in inclusive, general education settings (Kena et al., 2016). In 1998–99, that number was 13.8% (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). In 15 years, that is a paltry gain of 2.2%. The required access, participation and progress in the general education curriculum, at least as it applies to inclusive placements, seems to have been less applied to the learning experiences of individuals with ID as compared to those with other disabilities (Kena et al., 2016). This is perplexing given more than a decade of research demonstrating a positive asso- ciation between the amount of time spent in general education classrooms and gains academi- cally, socially, and in post-school outcomes for students with ID (e.g., Cosier, Causton-Theoharis, & Theoharis, 2013; Fisher & Meyer, 2002; Helmstetter, Curry, Brennan, & Sampson-Saul, 1998; White & Weiner, 2004). During this same period, the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) framework (Rose & Meyer, 2002) has increased in recognition. According to CAST, this scientifically valid framework is applicable to curriculum design in inclusive class- rooms. Researchers (Copeland & Cosbey, 2008; Hartmann, 2015; Ryndak, Jackson, & White, 2013; Wehmeyer, 2006) have explored the promise of UDL for individuals with ID, mostly through a lens of how inclusive education might improve if the UDL framework was applied. Several have specif- ically studied the application of the UDL frame- work inclusive of students with ID (e.g., Browder, Mims, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Lee, 2008; Coyne, Pisha, Dalton, Zeph, & Smith, 2012; Dymond et al., 2006). Dymond et al., (2006) was the only study identified that researched general education teachers’ experiences with students with ID, inclusive education, and UDL. Overall, while bearing much promise, the effectiveness of the UDL framework as it applies to learners with ID in inclusive settings is still undetermined. The varied understanding and implementation of inclusive education, the varied understanding and imple- mentation of UDL, along with the low represen- tation of learners with ID within these initiatives hinders the ability to measure the effectiveness of UDL in inclusive settings for these learners. Although UDL has been validated as a framework, research is needed to explore, inform, and evaluate its application in practice to include K. A. Lowrey, A. Hollingshead, and K. Howery 15