Universal Design for Learning

I have spent quite a bit of time reading through all the background information about UDL, and I feel as though it was a bit of a waste. I don't mean that as an attack on anyone, but everything that was presented to me is just good teaching. It started out by saying that UDL was used to adapt lessons for students with disabilities or who were classified as English as a Second Language (ESL). It then went on to talk about how the principles can be used to design lessons for all students. Well, duh! We are in an age of education where adapting lessons has become the norm. I feel that the UDL principles are what good teachers use to present material to students in a variety of ways, except that the terminology of what the teacher is doing is different. I'm very disappointed in this lesson because it was such a waste of time on something that teachers SHOULD already be doing. If they're not, then we can't classify them as good teachers. Of course I take my lessons and try to accommodate students who are more kinesthetic learners or who are more visual learners or more auditory learners. That's what good teaching is! It's taking information and adapting it to reach as many students as possible. Perhaps when I evaluate my lessons, I don't use the exact terminology found in the UDL principles, but I definitely try to "Provide multiple means of representation" which means to show the same thing in different ways. I also try to "Provide multiple means of action and expression" which means that I try to involve my students in lesson and give them options to express their knowledge. And I most definitely try to "Provide multiple means of engagement" which means I try to draw on experiences that they may have had or make topics relevant to their lives. I'm actually insulted by the content of this lesson because it seems to imply that good teachers didn't realize that they had students of all different abilities in their classrooms!