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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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>
Figure 2. Resultant intersection of factors impacting <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum. curriculum is up here” (Interview, February 24, 2005). Brenda stated that in her previous aid positions (at <strong>the</strong> elementary level), <strong>the</strong> curriculum was sequential and progressive, and <strong>the</strong>refore “everyone knew what was expected and what to expect” (Interview, February 24, 2005). She contrasted this to Katie’s program, saying that she had “never seen anything” and that she does “not know where to go” in terms of helping <strong>the</strong> students and moving <strong>the</strong>m forward. Discussion The nature of <strong>the</strong> impact of factors on <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum in <strong>the</strong>se two cross-categorical self-contained secondary special education programs could be discussed as a conjuncted process. It was <strong>the</strong> intersection and union of <strong>the</strong> seven factors that created <strong>the</strong> enacted curriculum, illustrated graphically in Figure 2. It was not one factor, or even all factors working singularly, but <strong>the</strong> union and intersection of <strong>the</strong> different factors that enacted <strong>the</strong> functional curriculum in both programs, for better or worse. Both Katie and Paula would likely have enacted different versions of a functional curriculum if factors had been different. This study raises concerns about use of functional curricula in light of current federal policy and legislation. The teachers involved in this study referenced <strong>the</strong> increasing role of policy and legislation with respect to <strong>the</strong>ir functional curriculum enactment, particularly citing <strong>the</strong> pressure towards academics and increased rigor. Yet <strong>the</strong>se teachers were in a unique position in that Michigan is one of <strong>the</strong> few states that has more than one alternate assessment, and one created specifically for students with mild mental impairment or those who functional as such (i.e., students educated in self-contained cross-categorical programs). The state test supposedly focused on functional independence; yet, <strong>the</strong>se two teachers were still concerned and commended how <strong>the</strong>y felt <strong>the</strong> alternate assessments did not truly value <strong>the</strong> functional curriculum <strong>the</strong>ir students were receiving. The question of using a functional curriculum may be a bigger issue in o<strong>the</strong>r states. If states do not have alternate assessments designed for this population than most likely <strong>the</strong> students would be tested using <strong>the</strong> general large scale state assessment. For students in <strong>the</strong>se programs, whose average grade level equivalency in reading was 3.3 and in math was 3.6, it would mean taking an assessment at least six years developmentally ahead of <strong>the</strong>ir learning. Unfortunately, although a functional curriculum holds much potential for educating secondary students with disabilities and preparing <strong>the</strong>m for post-school success, it is not designed to close a learning gap this large and thus is not likely to be supported as a curriculum option in today’s push towards passing state tests. Teachers and schools are being forced to decide if <strong>the</strong>y will educate <strong>the</strong>ir students with a functional curriculum to prepare <strong>the</strong>m for daily living, work, and independent living after school or if <strong>the</strong>y will prepare <strong>the</strong>m to hopefully, somehow, pass a general large-scale state assessment. Regardless if states have one test for all students or alternate assessment for special needs students, all special education teachers will be faced with <strong>the</strong> challenge of teaching to <strong>the</strong> test. Teaching to <strong>the</strong> test has been cited as negatively affecting students’ education. Peha (2005) stated that teaching to <strong>the</strong> test resulted in less teaching to students and less real learning. If teachers like Katie and Paula feel pressure to have <strong>the</strong>ir students pass <strong>the</strong> alternate assessment, or <strong>the</strong> general large-scale state as- Factors and Functional Curriculum / 305
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Developme
Page 7 and 8: Self-Determination in Relation to H
Page 9 and 10: ticipants (a) believed the<
Page 11 and 12: Field notes were used to document <
Page 13 and 14: ling information, medical history a
Page 15 and 16: Home. Jack lived with his mo<strong
Page 17 and 18: we felt strongly that we needed inf
Page 19 and 20: literature, mostly to do with <stro
Page 21 and 22: tion? The national consumer survey.
Page 23 and 24: Figure 1. Proposed intersection of
Page 25 and 26: teaching in each program for five y
Page 27 and 28: also used to support and challenge
Page 29 and 30: Despite Paula’s description of an
Page 31: The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 35 and 36: learning opportunities relevant to
Page 37 and 38: Bouck, E. C. (2005). Service delive
Page 39 and 40: Thirty Year Review of Safety Skill
Page 41 and 42: TABLE 1 Safety Skill Studies Refere
Page 43 and 44: TABLE 1—(Continued) Reference Par
Page 45 and 46: found differences only in efficienc
Page 47 and 48: skill for integrating persons with
Page 49 and 50: treatment of a burn) may take sever
Page 51 and 52: created video programs to teach stu
Page 53 and 54: and on-schedule behavior and decrea
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 1—(Continued) Author(s) Mor
Page 57 and 58: trums, aggression) in a four-year-o
Page 59 and 60: (Quill, 1995). Furthe</stro
Page 61 and 62: following picture prompt training.
Page 63 and 64: medication, for example anticonvuls
Page 65 and 66: TABLE 1 Number of Facilities That U
Page 67 and 68: Snoezelen on a variety of behaviors
Page 69 and 70: Kapell, D., Nightingale, B., Rodrig
Page 71 and 72: ity being on the c
Page 73 and 74: communication turns (i.e., initiati
Page 75 and 76: Definitions of Target Behaviors and
Page 77 and 78: student gave the p
Page 79 and 80: Figure 2. Bob’s performance data.
Page 81 and 82: contact increased 41% from baseline
Page 83 and 84:
Figure 5. Eric’s performance data
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 6. Jen’s performance data.
Page 87 and 88:
to students with severe disabilitie
Page 89 and 90:
The use of arm splints has been suc
Page 91 and 92:
Figure 1. Intervention results for
Page 93 and 94:
sions, he engaged in hand mouthing
Page 95 and 96:
Effects of a Reciprocal Questioning
Page 97 and 98:
4-45). Because the
Page 99 and 100:
TABLE 2 Codes of Student Question G
Page 101 and 102:
TABLE 3 Examples of Elements of a S
Page 103 and 104:
Figure 2. Self-monitoring checklist
Page 105 and 106:
TABLE 4 Example Question Words, Thi
Page 107 and 108:
Figure 4. Frequency of prompted and
Page 109 and 110:
Figure 5. Frequency of unprompted s
Page 111 and 112:
their children to
Page 113 and 114:
and lack of random selection makes
Page 115 and 116:
prehension-monitoring activities. C
Page 117 and 118:
all three participants who passed b
Page 119 and 120:
TABLE 2 Leisure Activities Used in
Page 121 and 122:
papers were removed and the
Page 123 and 124:
was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In <str
Page 125 and 126:
Teaching Test-taking Strategies to
Page 127 and 128:
ing experiences beginning at <stron
Page 129 and 130:
short essay question. Items were ei
Page 131 and 132:
plication of the t
Page 133 and 134:
Figure 2. Percent correct on <stron
Page 135 and 136:
aseline probes, data were highly va
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?