Download the Journal (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

able to break away from <strong>the</strong>ir families, that
some of her students were <strong>the</strong> glue that held
<strong>the</strong>ir families toge<strong>the</strong>r and that <strong>the</strong>y might
forever need to come home and “bail <strong>the</strong>m
out.” Yet, o<strong>the</strong>r students were held back from
independence out of <strong>the</strong>ir parents’ fear that
<strong>the</strong>y might <strong>the</strong>n leave <strong>the</strong>m. Katie implied
that she incorporated independent skills into
her curriculum through her use of budgeting
and daily living skills. Katie felt that her students
would benefit greatly from having a
school social worker in <strong>the</strong> classroom on a
daily basis. She expressed that her students
had a lot of family issues that needed resolving
and <strong>the</strong> assistance a school social worker
could provide an important part of curriculum
enactment.
Students’ certification or level of functioning
was also influential. Both teachers spoke
of <strong>the</strong>ir students’ functioning levels with regards
to academic abilities and skills. Paula
indicated that her current students were at
higher levels than her past students, that her
previous students had lower reading abilities
and were generally lower in cognitive ability.
As a result of her perception that this group of
students had “higher abilities,” Paula contemplated
adding some different (and new)
things to her program. Katie commented on
<strong>the</strong> opposite, as she felt her current students
were at a lower ability level that her previous
groups, and that <strong>the</strong>ir behavior was worse.
Katie stated that, “when you have more behavior
problems and self-esteem issues, it impacts
it [curriculum enactment]. It absorbs more of
your time.” Katie also mentioned that her current
group of students had less interest in
cooking, so <strong>the</strong>y did not do it as much because
<strong>the</strong> students complained and generally
seemed not to get much out of <strong>the</strong> experience.
Curriculum materials factor. Nei<strong>the</strong>r program
employed a commercially-available a
functional curriculum model, but instead <strong>the</strong>
teachers created <strong>the</strong>irs through a piece-meal
approach. The motto was to use whatever was
available and “be flexible.” As a result of Katie’s
and Paula’s “piece-mealing,” <strong>the</strong>ir functional
curriculum consisted of purchased materials,
borrowed materials, created materials
and photocopied materials. Many of Katie’s
materials were photocopies of workbooks,
novels, and o<strong>the</strong>r materials. She explained
304 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008
that photocopies were used because she did
not have resources to secure curriculum materials.
The program was given $800 when it
was started and it had not received any additional
funding. To purchase any additional
materials, such as kitchen equipment, novels,
and workbooks, Katie used money made from
<strong>the</strong> school store that her class ran.
Paula explained that <strong>the</strong> curriculum materials
in her program were “piece-mealed” because
of a lack of appropriate materials available
for her cross-categorical program. Paula
expressed frustration because <strong>the</strong> reading
level of materials was often above those of her
students, stating “most stuff is designed for
students with learning disabilities. Their reading
levels [her students] are low, as low as 2.3,
but generally between 3 and 4” (Fieldnotes,
January 28, 2005). She indicated that <strong>the</strong> special
education director at her district encouraged
<strong>the</strong> use of research-based materials,
which she could not find any for <strong>the</strong> population
she taught. The lack of an appropriate
functional curriculum was supported by <strong>the</strong>
researcher’s review of functional curricula
models. Despite that many exist, few were designed
for this population – students with mild
mental impairment and learning disabilities.
Most models were designed for students with
moderate or severe mental impairment, such
as The Syracuse community-referenced guide and
Impact: A functional curriculum handbook (Ford
et al. 1989; Neel & Billingsley, 1989). Ones
that focused on students with high incidence
disabilities were designed as workbooks that
students filled out ra<strong>the</strong>r than providing application
of functional curricula components,
such as Life skills activities for secondary students
with special needs (Mannix, 1995).
When Katie started teaching in <strong>the</strong> program,
she found <strong>the</strong> Life Centered Career Education
(Brolin, 1997) as <strong>the</strong> only formal model
available. She referred to <strong>the</strong> curriculum that
she developed and enacted in terms of “taking
different things and piecing <strong>the</strong>m toge<strong>the</strong>r”
(Interview, January 27, 2005). Katie talked
about <strong>the</strong> varying abilities of students in her
room and that a range of curricular materials
would be helpful because students come in at
different levels and have different interests.
The lack of a “formal” curriculum model in
Katie’s program was noted by <strong>the</strong> paraprofessional
Brenda, “I don’t understand what <strong>the</strong>