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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

sessment, and alter <strong>the</strong>ir curriculum to focus more on teaching to <strong>the</strong> test, one has to question what will be cut from <strong>the</strong> curriculum. Perhaps <strong>the</strong> curriculum will have less focus on functional skills, such as daily living and social skills as, for example, Michigan’s alternate assessment focuses on ma<strong>the</strong>matics, literacy, and vocational skills. What about <strong>the</strong> au<strong>the</strong>ntic activities within and outside of school that have benefited <strong>the</strong>se students? Unless high stake assessments are expansive enough to capture many of <strong>the</strong> performative experiences students should engage in, <strong>the</strong>re is a risk that <strong>the</strong>se could be dropped from <strong>the</strong> curriculum, fur<strong>the</strong>r narrowing what counts as valued learning and a narrowed focus on curriculum that disperses information which can be measured on paper and pencil tests, and usually multiple choice tests at that. The seven factors identified in this study as influencing curricula enactment may be more pronounced in special education than general education, as general education teachers typically use a formal, commercially-available curriculum, published by <strong>the</strong> likes of Prentice Hall, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, and Houghlin- Mifflin. Special education is more acurricular, particularly so for <strong>the</strong> population of students with high incidence disabilities educated in a self-contained cross-categorical program, environments where debates occur over what curriculum is most appropriate. The lack of a formal commercially-available curriculum model may be <strong>the</strong> very reason that <strong>the</strong> identified factors were so pronounced in <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum for <strong>the</strong> students in this study. The few models that exist for students with high incidence disabilities are designed like worksheets and offer little application. Hence, teachers are left to piece-meal and construct <strong>the</strong>ir functional curriculum from a variety of sources, which are dependent on <strong>the</strong>ir community and school resources as well as <strong>the</strong>ir own pedagogical approach. The influence of <strong>the</strong> factors on <strong>the</strong> enactment was evident through <strong>the</strong> impact that school and community resources played. For example, a component of a functional curriculum can be learning to use multiple forms of transportation, yet public transportation is often nonexistent in rural settings, such as <strong>the</strong> two schools in this research. Similarly, a func- 306 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 tional curriculum typically involves a community access and/or skills component, which can be achieved through community-based instruction. However, utilization of communitybased instruction (CBI) opportunities requires businesses or agencies in which to conduct <strong>the</strong> CBI, as well as transportation to and from <strong>the</strong> site. A rural setting with few transportation options and few businesses fur<strong>the</strong>r exasperates <strong>the</strong> situation, leading to experiences being restricted to <strong>the</strong> school. This is what happened in Katie’s and Paula’s program, where much of <strong>the</strong> students’ work experience was gained in-school through working at <strong>the</strong> school store or cleaning <strong>the</strong> school. Along similar lines, both teachers’ educational programming was influenced by <strong>the</strong> resources available in <strong>the</strong> schools, particularly resources that supported <strong>the</strong> teaching of functional curricula components. The resources (or lack of) within a school, such as materials and equipment necessary for engaging in daily living skills and/or vocational education, raises questions about <strong>the</strong> ability to adequately provide this curriculum. How can teachers tell parents, students, and o<strong>the</strong>r educators <strong>the</strong>y are providing a functional curriculum if <strong>the</strong>y lack in-school (i.e., a kitchen) and out-ofschool (i.e., work experiences, CBI) resources to satisfactorily deliver <strong>the</strong> curriculum? Just as teachers and parents expect, and demand, <strong>the</strong> appropriate resources be made available for students to learn ma<strong>the</strong>matics, economics, and physics, so should <strong>the</strong> necessary resources be available to enact a functional curriculum. This consideration, along with o<strong>the</strong>r data from <strong>the</strong> study, suggests that a functional curriculum is viewed as an inferior approach. The education and/or curriculum occurring in <strong>the</strong>se programs were not being valued. In fact <strong>the</strong> education <strong>the</strong>se students received was devalued, as school personnel placed tasks such as cleaning and stuffing envelopes or bags before <strong>the</strong> intended curriculum. Students who are educated in self-contained cross-categorical programs have just as much right to learn, and to learn what is appropriate and what will benefit <strong>the</strong>m in terms of postschool outcomes. Although <strong>the</strong> activities school personnel asked <strong>the</strong> students to do (i.e., stuffing envelopes, cleaning <strong>the</strong> school, stuffing bags) might have had some connection to vocational experiences and o<strong>the</strong>r
learning opportunities relevant to a functional curriculum, <strong>the</strong>y were not designed in this capacity. Instead <strong>the</strong>se activities were used to assist staff or serve as time-fillers. Ra<strong>the</strong>r than demonstrating <strong>the</strong> many functional curriculum learning opportunities that could occur naturally within a school, <strong>the</strong> data suggested that <strong>the</strong>se students, <strong>the</strong>ir educational programming, and <strong>the</strong>ir learning were valued less than o<strong>the</strong>rs. The lack of formal curriculum materials fur<strong>the</strong>r suggests that perhaps a comprehensive, flexible, balanced functional curriculum heuristic needs to be developed for <strong>the</strong> population within <strong>the</strong>se programs. The words of a paraprofessionals working in one of <strong>the</strong>se programs summarized it best when it came to <strong>the</strong> enacted curriculum, “I don’t understand what <strong>the</strong> curriculum is . . .”. A proposed balanced, yet flexible, functional curriculum heuristic would include utilization of different learning <strong>the</strong>ories and pedagogical approaches (i.e., skills, cognitive apprenticeship, modeling, social mediation direct instruction, etc.). It would attempt to balance <strong>the</strong> various components of a functional curriculum (e.g., functional academics, community access, daily living skills, financial, transportation, leisure and recreation, communication, self-determination, social skills, vocational education, independent living skills) as well as direct skills instruction with a cognitive apprenticeship, students as consumers with students as producers, and individualization with community. A balanced approach to a functional curriculum would resemble a balanced literacy approach (see Duke, Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts, 2003), moving on a continuum, with shifting emphasis from “learning to function” (i.e., performance) to “functioning to learn” (i.e., cognitive apprenticeship), which is represented graphically in Figure 3. The balanced approach distributes expertise across multiple individuals and activities, to avoid self-contained cross-categorical teachers having to be all. Although a balanced a functional curriculum heuristic is suggested, it must be flexible enough to address various factors. This heuristic must be flexible to work within <strong>the</strong> confines of various community and school variables as well as fluid enough to address what students bring to <strong>the</strong> program and how Figure 3. A balanced a functional curriculum heuristic. <strong>the</strong> composition of students will impact <strong>the</strong> enactment and curricular decision-making. Although <strong>the</strong> data analysis was approached with an apriori lens in terms of factors, because <strong>the</strong> researcher approached it with an open mind and looked for evidence to support and challenge <strong>the</strong>se factors, ano<strong>the</strong>r factor was found – paraprofessionals. It is likely that <strong>the</strong> role of paraprofessionals was not acknowledged because <strong>the</strong> limited literature on factors influencing an enacted curriculum came from general education, in which paraprofessionals play less of a role, if present at all. Paraprofessionals added benefits and limitations to <strong>the</strong> enactment of a functional curriculum. One major challenge for paraprofessionals involved confusion over <strong>the</strong>ir role. At times <strong>the</strong>y were treated and given privileges as a teacher and at times that of a secretary or assistant, and <strong>the</strong>se two distinct roles hold implications for <strong>the</strong> education of students. One major contention when discussing paraprofessionals and <strong>the</strong>ir impact involves <strong>the</strong> fact that <strong>the</strong>y are often instructing or teaching some of <strong>the</strong> most vulnerable students in schools. Research has suggested that some paraprofessionals spend almost 50% of <strong>the</strong>ir time providing individual instruction to students without a teacher present (Ashbaker & Morgan, 2001). Some students have been found to receive as much of 80% of <strong>the</strong>ir instruction from a paraprofessional, ra<strong>the</strong>r than a certified teacher (Ashbaker & Morgan). Thus, our students who may be most in need of a highly ”qualified” teacher’s assistance are fur<strong>the</strong>st away (i.e., secondary students educated in self-contained cross-categorical programs) and being educated by paraprofessionals – individuals who may not have a college degree and potentially little training in teaching or working with children. Factors and Functional Curriculum / 307
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 and 32: The paraprofessionals at Harborvill
Page 33: Figure 2. Resultant intersection of
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?