No child left behind, the individuals with disabilities education act and functional curricula: A conflict of interest?

Is a functional curriculum aligned with the federal education policies of No Child Left Behind (2002) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004)? This article analyzes the alignment, or lack thereof, between this approach to educating secondary students with mild mental impairment and the two main federal education laws governing their education. It explores the relationship across four areas: general education curriculum and setting, accountability, highly qualified teachers, and scientifically-based research. The analysis suggests that there may be a conflict of interest between the functional curriculum model and federal legislation. Students with disabilities, particularly developmental disabilities, and those that educate them face uncertain times. Federal education legislation has shifted the focus of education in general, and thus special education. Within the federal policies affecting the education of students with disabilities – No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, 2004) – the agenda for K-12 education has moved from access to outcomes with a focus on academics. With these shifts in focus, one has to wonder if there is a place for a functional curriculum to educate secondary students with mild mental impairment. NCLB (2002), the reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was founded on four pillars: stronger accountability, more freedom for states and communities (i.e., greater local control), use of proven educational methods (i.e., scientifically-based research), and more choices for parents. Its purpose is to make sure that every student has access to and achieves a quality education based on high standards (Yell & Drasgow, 2005). State standardized tests are used to validate student and school achievement and progress, with a goal of 100% proficiency rate in reading and mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year. The federal special education law, IDEA (2004), first passed in 1975, guarantees a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities, with a focus on individualization and protection under due process (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). The most recent reauthorization of IDEA emphasized access for students with disabilities to the general education curriculum and participation in general large scale assessments, in alignment to NCLB. Hence, NCLB and IDEA both focus on what to teach (curriculum) and where to teach it (instructional environment) and suggest what is valued and desired in the education of students with disabilities. Given the predominance of both policies towards increased academic achievement, especially in literacy and mathematics, and a push for schools to use evidence-based educational interventions, one has to wonder where a functional curriculum fits in as an option for educating secondary students with mild mental impairment. Do these laws provide a space for a functional curriculum, which focuses on the skills necessary to live, work, and have fun in society, to educate this population of students, students who have a below-average IQ Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, Purdue University, 5146 BRNG Hall, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907. Email: bouck@purdue.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2009, 44(1), 3–13 © Division on Developmental Disabilities Conflict of Interest / 3 and have limitations in adaptive functioning (Polloway, Smith, Chamberlain, Denning, & Smith, 1999)? Or does a functional curriculum and NCLB (2001) and IDEA (2004) face a conflict of interests? This paper examines NCLB (2002) and IDEA (2004) and how they connect (or fail to connect) with a functional curriculum approach to educating secondary students with mild mental impairment. The first section of the paper discusses what a functional curriculum is and gives a historical perspective on this curricular approach. The next section discusses the alignment, or lack thereof, between functional curricula and the two policies. Here four main areas are highlighted: access to the general education curriculum and setting, accountability and assessment, highly qualified teachers, and scientifically-based practices. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research and implications for practice regarding functional curricula. Functional Curriculum A functional curriculum reflects one option with which to educate students with disabilities and was developed after reflecting upon already existing curriculum, the common events one needs to confront and handle in a community, and the belief that what was occurring in schools failed to address the knowledge and skills necessary for post-school success for students with mild mental impairment (Bigge, 1988; Retish, Hitchings, Horvath, & Schmalle, 1991; Sabornie & deBettencourt, 1997; Schmalle & Retish, 1989). Snell (1997) suggested that functional curricula were developed to help students with disabilities acquire the adaptive skills needed in life that they did not possess and would not develop unless explicitly taught. Components of a functional curriculum, supported in the literature, include the functional application of skills from the core subject areas (academics), vocational education, community access, daily living, finances, independent living, transportation, social/relationships, and self-determination (Patton, Cronin, & Jairrels, 1997). These represent the core areas of knowledge needed by students with disabilities to live, work, and have fun in an inclusive community (Brown et al., 1979; Falvey, 1989; Snell & Browder, 1987). A functional curriculum aligns with the belief that students with disabilities, who do not plan on and/or are not capable of attending post-secondary school, do not need to focus on higher academics (e.g., mathematics – trigonometry, advanced algebra), but do need to understand functional academics (e.g., mathematics – money, time) (Patton, Cronin, & Bassett, 1997). And they need specific instruction in the elements of a functional curriculum, as research suggests that these students do not acquire these skills on their own or from just observing parents and peers (Edgar, 1988; Halpern & Benz, 1987; Sitlington, Frank, & Carson, 1993; & Wagner et al., 1992). In other words, it is not sufficient to assume students with disabilities will acquire daily living skills, vocational skills, or community access skills without direct instruction in these areas, which means they need to have access to a curriculum that specifically addresses these aspects so they can gain the skills necessary to achieve positive post-school outcomes, such as independent living, economic self-sufficiency, and full participation in community (Patton, Smith, Clark, Polloway, Edgar, & Lee, 1996; Turnbull et al., 2006). With recognition that secondary students with disabilities are not well prepared for adult life, a growing number of educators and researchers have called for a renewed and increased use of a functional curriculum (Bigge, Stump, Spagna, & Silberman, 1999; Bouck, 2004b; Cronin, 1996; Dever & Knapczyk, 1997; Knowlton, 1998; Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000). Billingsley and Alberston (1999) suggested that the quality of life of a student with a disability is dependent on acquiring functional skills. Clark (1994) and Patton and colleagues have argued that all students with a disability need a functional curriculum, particularly at the secondary level. Yet, there exists controversy regarding a functional curriculum as some feel that it is only suitable for students with severe disabilities (Clark). Unfortunately, making an informed decision for whom, and if, a functional curriculum is appropriate is problematic as it is an under-researched area in the field of secondary special education, both in terms of evidence as to the inclusion 4 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-March 2009 of its components as well as research on its impact on school and post-school student outcomes. Support for a functional curriculum for students with mild mental impairment has come from limited sources. Polloway, Patton, Smith, and Roderique (1991) suggested that a student’s subsequent environments should determine his/her curricular approach in school. For students who are not likely to attend postsecondary education, Edgar and Polloway (1994) suggested that rigorous academic curricula models are inappropriate. Instead curriculum models focusing on work and preparation for other adult role responsibilities should be utilized, such as life skills, vocational skills, etc. Smith and Puccini (1995) raised similar concerns regarding the use of a rigorous academic curriculum model for students with disabilities stating, “. exposing students to longer periods of time to inappropriate curricula or teaching efforts does not result in improved educational performance or an improved likelihood of success as adults” (p. 279). They also argued that too many students with disabilities at the secondary level were not receiving a curriculum that prepares them for independent living or gives them the necessary skills to be successful after high school, and that “students with disabilities should not be included in general education classes and settings and provided curricula that are not germane to their needs in developing independent living skills” (Smith & Puccini, p. 281). Historical perspective. Functional curriculum is not a recent phenomenon; its theory actually predates its peak usage time during the late 1970s-early 1980s. Its use in practice and emphasis in research diminished from the 1970s to the 1990s. Nietupski, HamreNietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth (1997) discovered a decrease of 32% in the number of articles that discussed functional skills during this time span. Billingsley (1997) also noted a decrease i