Reconciling an Ecological Curricular Framwork Focusing on Quality ...

Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities
2012, Vol. 37, No. 3, 139-152
copyright 2012 by
TASH
<strong>Reconciling</strong> <strong>an</strong> <strong>Ecological</strong> Curricnlar
Framework <strong>Focusing</strong> on Quality of Life
Outcomes With the Development
<strong>an</strong>d Instruction of St<strong>an</strong>dards-Based
Academic Goals
The emergence of the st<strong>an</strong>dards-based reform movement
has raised a number of issues related to the design of
educational programs for students with severe disabilities,
<strong>an</strong>d a debate has arisen that presents <strong>an</strong> "either/or" choice
between the general education curriculum <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> ecological
curricular framework that has traditionally guided curriculum
development. In this paper, the authors propose
that, to adequately meet the needs of students with moderate
to severe disabilities, <strong>an</strong> ecological approach focusing
on quality of life outcomes must be reconciled with
the development <strong>an</strong>d implementation of st<strong>an</strong>dards-based
academic curricula. To accomplish this reconciliation, the
authors recommend that individualized education pl<strong>an</strong>
teams engage in a process that allows them to work within
<strong>an</strong> ecological curricular framework to develop st<strong>an</strong>dardsbased
goals that reflect me<strong>an</strong>ingful knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills
that are tailored to students' individual needs <strong>an</strong>d applicable
to their everyday lives. They propose that quality of
life goals exp<strong>an</strong>d beyond home, friendships, community
participation, <strong>an</strong>d work to include academic goals that are
life enriching <strong>an</strong>d promote lifelong learning that c<strong>an</strong> be
linked to a broader r<strong>an</strong>ge of subject area domains in the
core curriculum. In addition, they suggest instructional
approaches that promote effective instruction <strong>an</strong>d generalized
outcomes for both academic <strong>an</strong>d functional skills.
Finally, they outline a number of issues that require
additional reflection, discussion, <strong>an</strong>d research.
DESCRIPTORS: ecological curricular framework,
st<strong>an</strong>dard-based academic goals, quality of Ufe, instructional
strategies, generalization
Address all correspondence <strong>an</strong>d reprint requests to Dr. Pam
Hunt, Department of Special Education, S<strong>an</strong> Fr<strong>an</strong>cisco State
University, 1600 HoUoway Ave., S<strong>an</strong> Fr<strong>an</strong>cisco, CA 94132.
E-mail: hunt@sfsu.edu
Pam Hunt
S<strong>an</strong> Fr<strong>an</strong>cisco State University
John McDonnell <strong>an</strong>d Margret A. Crockett
University of Utah
139
Tbe ecological framework for curriculum development
for students witb severe disabilities emerged in tbe late
1970s in response to tbe concerns of advocates <strong>an</strong>d researcbers
tbat traditional developmental <strong>an</strong>d academic
curricular approacbes for tbis group of students bad not
lead to signific<strong>an</strong>t improvements in tbeir quality of life
(Brown et al., 1979). In contrast to developmental <strong>an</strong>d
academic curricular models tbat focused on teacbing students
a predetermined sequence of skills, tbe ecological
framework was structured to identify <strong>an</strong>d teacb tbe routines,
activities, <strong>an</strong>d skills tbat students needed to learn
to support tbeir full participation in bome, scbool, work,
<strong>an</strong>d community settings. Tbe educational pl<strong>an</strong>ning process
was dynamic <strong>an</strong>d took into account a number of factors
including tbe students' <strong>an</strong>d tbeir family's preferences,
needs, <strong>an</strong>d resources; tbe opportunities <strong>an</strong>d supports tbat
were available to tbe students in tbeir community; <strong>an</strong>d
tbe students' long-term goals <strong>an</strong>d aspirations. Educational
goals were not driven by a specific curricular sequence
but ratber were based on a student's individual needs.
Tbe effectiveness of <strong>an</strong> educational program was evaluated
in terms of its impact on promoting a student's use
of commtinity resources, ability to live wbere <strong>an</strong>d witb
wbom be or sbe cbooses, opportunity to bave paid employment
in typical businesses <strong>an</strong>d industries, <strong>an</strong>d bis or
ber independence <strong>an</strong>d autonomy. .
As tbe ecological framework took root as tbe predominate
approacb for developing curriculum for students
witb severe disabilities (cf.. Ford et al., 1989; Neel &
Billingsley, 1989; SaUor et al., 1989; Wilcox & Bellamy,
1987), it soon became clear tbat simply making students
more competent in typical settings was insufficient
to meet tbe broader goals of full accept<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong>d
membersbip in tbe community. As a result, tbe expected
outcomes of tbis approacb to curriculum development
exp<strong>an</strong>ded from increasing students' presence <strong>an</strong>d participation
in tbe community to tbe development of positive

140 Hunt et al.
social relationships <strong>an</strong>d friendships (Gi<strong>an</strong>greco & Putnam,
1991). The result was that advocates <strong>an</strong>d researchers
beg<strong>an</strong> to emphasize the need for students to attend their
neighborhood schools, participate in the instructional
<strong>an</strong>d extracurricular activities of general education classes
<strong>an</strong>d the school, <strong>an</strong>d develop me<strong>an</strong>ingful friendships with
peers without disabilities. As a result, social connectedness
became as import<strong>an</strong>t in denning students' quality of
ufe as having satisfying work <strong>an</strong>d a comfortable home,
being able to use the resources of the community, <strong>an</strong>d
having control over one's life.
Research examining the posfschool outcomes of young
adults with severe disabilities has repeatedly affirmed the
benefits of the ecological approach to curriculum devel-j
opment. For example, research indicates that educational
programs that are <strong>an</strong>chored to the routines, activities
<strong>an</strong>d skills needed to participate in the community <strong>an</strong>d
are focused on fostering social connectedness improve
students' adjustment to employment (Benz, Lindstrom
& Yov<strong>an</strong>off, 2000; Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Phelps d
H<strong>an</strong>ley-Maxwell, 1997; White & Weiner, 2004), indej
pendent living (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; St<strong>an</strong>cliffe 8¿
Lakin, 2007), <strong>an</strong>d development of social relationships
with peers without disabilities (Chadsey, 2007). Given!
these outcomes, it is not surprising that <strong>an</strong> ecological
approach to curriculum development continues to enjo>
strong support from the field today (Dymond & Orelove,
2001; McDonneU & Hardm<strong>an</strong>, 2010; Wehm<strong>an</strong>, 2006).
The emergence of the st<strong>an</strong>dards-based reform movement
in the late 1990s has raised a number of issue:
related to the curriculum <strong>an</strong>d the design of education;
programs for students with severe disabilities. The focu
of this movement was to ensure that (a) schools, districts,
<strong>an</strong>d states establish high academic expectations for stu
dents; (b) students who are at risk of school failure <strong>an</strong>d
those with disabilities have equal access to the general
education curriculum; (c) curriculum, assessment, <strong>an</strong>d instruction
are aligned to increase school, district, <strong>an</strong>d state
accountability for student achievement; <strong>an</strong>d (d) educational
resources are allocated in ways that maximize
learning for all students (McGregor, 2003; McLaughlin
& Tilstone, 2000).
The st<strong>an</strong>dards-based reform movement culminated
with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act in 2001. NCLB requires states to establish rigorousi
academic content <strong>an</strong>d academic achievement st<strong>an</strong>dards
for all students in the areas of reading/l<strong>an</strong>guage arts,
mathematics, <strong>an</strong>d science. Academic achievement st<strong>an</strong>dards
must be aligned with the state's academic content
st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d be incorporated into a comprehensive
assessment system that allows states to evaluate students'
"adequate yearly progress" toward mastering the:
academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards.
The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) was amended in 2004 to align it with the key
elements of NCLB (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiy<strong>an</strong>nis, 2006).
Of particular import<strong>an</strong>ce is the requirement that individ-
ualized education pl<strong>an</strong> (IEP) teams must determine how
students with disabilities will participate <strong>an</strong>d progress
in the general education curriculum. Furthermore, the
law requires that students with disabilities participate in
the statewide assessment system or <strong>an</strong> alternate assessment
to determine fheir adequate yearly progress toward
meeting the state's academic achievement st<strong>an</strong>dards in
reading/l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, mathematics, <strong>an</strong>d science.
Given the broad support in the field for <strong>an</strong> ecological
approach to curriculum development, if not surprising
that the enactment of these m<strong>an</strong>dates has resulted in
on-going discussion among advocates <strong>an</strong>d researchers
about which curricular approach should drive the development
of students' educational programs. Some researchers
have suggested that the emphasis in IDEA on
participation <strong>an</strong>d progress in the general education curriculum
reinforces the idea fhaf all students c<strong>an</strong> leam
complex academic skills (Browder, Wakem<strong>an</strong>, et al.,
2007; Thurlow, 2002). Indeed, there is a growing body
of research that supports this argument <strong>an</strong>d provides
empirical evidence that these students c<strong>an</strong> learn skiUs
drawn from the general education curriculum when provided
explicit <strong>an</strong>d systematic instruction (Browder, Trela,
& Jimenez, 2007; Dymond et al., 2006; Jimenez, Browder,
& Courtade, 2008; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, &
Riesen, 2002; Ryndak, Morrison, & Sommerstein, 1999).
Other researchers have argued that these m<strong>an</strong>dates
raise a number of questions abouf the design <strong>an</strong>d implementation
of students' educational programs (Ryndak,
Alper, Hughes, & McDonnell, 2012; Lowrey, Drasgow,
Renzaglia, & Chez<strong>an</strong>, 2007). First is whether alternate
assessments will drive the selection of goals <strong>an</strong>d objectives
<strong>an</strong>d will result in a loss of individualized IEPs that
are specifically tailored to students' educational needs.
This is based on fhe concem that teachers will no longer
take a person-centered approach fo the design of IEPs
<strong>an</strong>d will essenfially begin to "teach fo the test." Second
is whether fhe focus on fhe general educafion curriculum
<strong>an</strong>d high-stakes testing will lead IEP teams fo
ab<strong>an</strong>don <strong>an</strong> ecological approach fo curriculum development
altogether as a basis for designing studenfs' educafional
programs even fhough it is not required in fhe
law. The result would be a dramatic shift in fhe focus
of educational programs for sfudenfs away from teaching
functional routines, activities, <strong>an</strong>d skills that improve
fheir perform<strong>an</strong>ce in typical settings fo teaching isolated
reading/l<strong>an</strong>guage arfs, mafhemafics, <strong>an</strong>d science concepts
<strong>an</strong>d skills. Third is fhe concern fhaf all studenfs, especially
those with severe disabilities, have signific<strong>an</strong>t difficulties
generalizing skills from academic fo natural perform<strong>an</strong>ce
settings (Homer, McDonneU, & Bellamy,
1986; Rosenthal-Bloom & Malek, 1998). Finally is fhe
concem regarding fhe lack of research evaluating fhe
impacts of students' participation in the general education
curriculum <strong>an</strong>d alfernafe assessments on either
fheir short-term academic achievement or long-term,
posfschool oufcomes.

Although it appears that NCLB, <strong>an</strong>d subsequently
IDEA, will be amended in the next Congress, it is likely
that some form of high-stakes assessment linked to
the general education curriculum will remain a central
element of both laws. The result is that IEP teams will
continue to be required to design education programs
that will allow students to master rigorous academic
knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills drawn from the general education
curriculum. It is also true that students with severe disabilities
win continue to need educational programs that
support their acquisition of functional routines, activities,
<strong>an</strong>d skills that are necessary to live, work, <strong>an</strong>d participate
in the community. We suggest that it is time to move beyond
casting the debate as a choice between the general
education curriculum <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong> ecological curricular framework.
Instead, we propose that, to adequately meet the
needs of students with severe disabihties, <strong>an</strong> ecological
approach focusing on quality of Ufe outcomes must be
reconciled with the development <strong>an</strong>d implementation of
st<strong>an</strong>dards-based academic curricula.
To accomplish this reconciliation, the authors propose
that <strong>an</strong> ecological approach to curriculum development
become the overarching framework for all curriculum development
activities; that is, consideration of high-priority
goal areas associated with quality of ufe outcomes for
individual students must guide the selection of IEP goals
<strong>an</strong>d the development of curricular <strong>an</strong>d instructional approaches,
activities, <strong>an</strong>d contexts. In addition, we recommend
that IEP teams engage in a process that allows
them to work within <strong>an</strong> ecological curricular framework
to develop st<strong>an</strong>dards-based academic goals that reflect
me<strong>an</strong>ingful knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills that are tailored to a
student's individual needs <strong>an</strong>d applicable to their everyday
life. Finally, we suggest instructional approaches <strong>an</strong>d
strategies that promote effective instruction <strong>an</strong>d generalized
outcomes for both academic <strong>an</strong>d functional skills.
Working Within <strong>an</strong> <strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong>
Framework to Develop <strong>an</strong>d Teach
St<strong>an</strong>dards-Based Academic Goals
With <strong>an</strong> overarching ecological curricular framework,
the question that drives all curriculum development activities
is this: What c<strong>an</strong> we teach students <strong>an</strong>d how c<strong>an</strong>
we arr<strong>an</strong>ge educational environments to increase quality
of life outcomes; connect the students to their worlds of
home, school, <strong>an</strong>d community; <strong>an</strong>d increase postschool
outcomes of full access <strong>an</strong>d social participation, employment,
<strong>an</strong>d independent living (Ayres, Douglas, Lowrey,
& Sievers, 2011; Ford et al., 1989; Sailor et al., 1989;
Tumbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Park, 2003)? The focus
is on curricula that are relev<strong>an</strong>t to students' individual
lives <strong>an</strong>d interests <strong>an</strong>d are, therefore, me<strong>an</strong>ingful <strong>an</strong>d
motivating.
A variety of student <strong>an</strong>d family-centered assessments
are implemented to identify individualized, high-priority,
quahty of life goal areas as the first step in the overall
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals
141
assessment process. <strong>Ecological</strong> assessments include, for
example, ecological inventories (Brown et al., 1979;
Brown, Lehr, & SneU, 2011), functional assessments
(Dunlap & Carr, 2007; Homer, Albin, Todd, Newton, &
Sprague, 2011), family interviews <strong>an</strong>d collaborative
pl<strong>an</strong>ning processes (Childre, 2004; Gi<strong>an</strong>greco, Cloninger,
& Iverson, 1998; Hunt, Soto, Maier, & Doering, 2003;
Mortier, Hunt, Desimpel, & V<strong>an</strong> Hove, 2009; Tumbull &
Turnbull, 1997), <strong>an</strong>d person-centered pl<strong>an</strong>ning (Falvey,
Forest, Pearpoint, & Rosenberg, 1997; Mount & Zwemick,
1988; V<strong>an</strong>dercook, York, & Forest, 1989).
Individualized quahty of life goals identified through
these types of assessment activities address, for example,
communicative <strong>an</strong>d social competence; the development
of positive social relationships <strong>an</strong>d friendships;
increased independence within classroom <strong>an</strong>d school, community,
<strong>an</strong>d vocational routines; <strong>an</strong>d self-determination,
self-m<strong>an</strong>agement, <strong>an</strong>d problem-solving skills. While historically,
outcomes associated with quality of life goals
have been deñned in utUitari<strong>an</strong> terms—access <strong>an</strong>d social
inclusion, interpersonal relations, postschool employment,
<strong>an</strong>d independent living—we propose that the
definition of quality of life outcomes be broadened to
include the acquisition of knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills that are
good in <strong>an</strong>d of themselves—for example, academic content
knowledge that is life enriching because it opens up
a student's underst<strong>an</strong>ding of the physical, historical, <strong>an</strong>d
social/political world; or knowledge associated with culture
<strong>an</strong>d citizenship <strong>an</strong>d the impact of both on a student's
role in the community; or academic skills that increase
the students ability to become a lifelong leamer. To do
this, procedures for ecological assessments such as personcentered
pl<strong>an</strong>ning <strong>an</strong>d ecological inventories would be
exp<strong>an</strong>ded to allow for the identification of quality of life
outcomes associated with academic content knowledge
<strong>an</strong>d skills; that is, academic content <strong>an</strong>d skills that are
(a) functional, if taught or practiced in a variety of natural
contexts (e.g., reading, writing, <strong>an</strong>d mathematics skills);
or (b) life enriching because it introduces the worlds of
art, literature, science, history, <strong>an</strong>d culture; or (c) of high
interest to the student.
AU members of the educational team contribute to
the identification of quality of life goal areas that will be
the focus of a student's educational pl<strong>an</strong>, with family
<strong>an</strong>d student preferences clearly represented (Halvorsen
& Neary, 2009; Hunt & McDonneU, 2007; Ryndak, 2003;
Tumbull & Tumbull, 1997). All potential areas are considered,
for example, communicafion, social interacfions <strong>an</strong>d
friendships, independence <strong>an</strong>d access, self-determination,
<strong>an</strong>d academic content areas, <strong>an</strong>d although team decisions
weigh some areas more highly th<strong>an</strong> others for individual
students, IEP goals representing <strong>an</strong>y of the areas have
equal st<strong>an</strong>ding in the student's educational pl<strong>an</strong>.
Reconciliation Process
<strong>Reconciling</strong> <strong>an</strong> ecological curricular framework with
the current emphasis placed on achievement in academic

142 Hunt et al.
subjects reqtiires the identification of a process for developing
<strong>an</strong>d teaching st<strong>an</strong>dards-based goals that reflect
me<strong>an</strong>ingful knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills, individualization, <strong>an</strong>d
application <strong>an</strong>d generalization to everyday life. Narrowly
constructed content st<strong>an</strong>dards limited to core academic
subjects present formidable challenges to the development
of educational goals that will impact students' quality
of life <strong>an</strong>d increase postschool outcomes of employment
<strong>an</strong>d independent living (Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson, &
Slagor, 2007; Ford, Davem, & Schnorr, 2001; McDonnell,
2010; Turnbull et al., 2003), <strong>an</strong>d the usefulness of altemate
assessments in helping IEP teams make decisions based
on empirical evidence <strong>an</strong>d logically sequenced curricula
is limited (Kohl, McLaughlin, & Nagle, 2006; McDonnell,
2010). A process is needed that would allow educational
team members to work within the st<strong>an</strong>dards frameworks
that their states currently offer to develop academic goals
for students with severe disabilities that reflect me<strong>an</strong>ingful
outcomes <strong>an</strong>d that are taught in ways that promote
generalization to the students' daily lives, <strong>an</strong>d a number of
recent publications have provided very thoughtful <strong>an</strong>alyses
of the steps that educational team members c<strong>an</strong> follow
to select <strong>an</strong>d teach st<strong>an</strong>dards-based academic content
that will impact the quality of students' lives now <strong>an</strong>d
in the future (e.g., Browder, Spooner, Wakem<strong>an</strong>, Trela,
& Baker, 2006; Browder, Wakem<strong>an</strong>, et al, 2007; Ford
et al., 2001; Kleinert & Thurlow, 2001; McDonnell, 2010;
Ryndak, 2003). We build on this body of work to offer
a process that differs only in its emphasis; that is, we
propose that each step of the process—from goal identification
to instruction—be driven by the high priority,
quality of life goal areas identified by families <strong>an</strong>d other
members of the educational team. The steps that we propose
are outlined below.
Step 1: Identify Quality of Life Goal Areas
for Individual Students Through Family <strong>an</strong>d
Student-Centered Assessment Activities
The quality of life goal areas for individual students
identified through the student <strong>an</strong>d family-centered assessment
processes described above both <strong>an</strong>chor <strong>an</strong>d
drive the process for identifying <strong>an</strong>d teaching st<strong>an</strong>dardsbased
academic goals (Ayres et al., 2011; Downing, 2006;
Dymond et al., 2007; Ford et al., 2001). Quality of life goal
areas include, for example, communicative <strong>an</strong>d social
competence; the development of posifive social relationships
<strong>an</strong>d friendships; increased independence within classroom
<strong>an</strong>d school, community, <strong>an</strong>d vocational routines;
<strong>an</strong>d self-determinadon, self-m<strong>an</strong>agement, <strong>an</strong>d problemsolving
skills. In addition, quality of Ufe goal areas include
academic content knowledge <strong>an</strong>d academic skills
that are life enriching, increase access <strong>an</strong>d independence
in ctirrent <strong>an</strong>d ftiture environments, or increase the student's
ability to become a ufelong leamer. Student interests
<strong>an</strong>d preferences are a key consideration in identifying
academic content areas that will enrich the student's life.
Table 1 includes a description of the quality of life goal
areas that were idenfified by educational team members
for three students—M<strong>an</strong>uel, Sarah, <strong>an</strong>d Jamal.
Step 2: Identify Priority, Grade-Level Content
St<strong>an</strong>dards From State St<strong>an</strong>dards Frameworks
With individual student's quality of life goal areas in
mind, teachers consider the grade-level content st<strong>an</strong>dards
in the major domain areas for academic subjects (e.g., in
l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, academic domains might include reading,
writing, speaking <strong>an</strong>d listening, <strong>an</strong>d l<strong>an</strong>guage; Nafional
Govemors Association Center for Best Practices & the
Council of Chief State School Officers, 2011). Their task
is to identify st<strong>an</strong>dards that are a priority because they
represent "big ideas" or key content in each of the domains
(Browder, Spooner, et al., 2006; Browder, Spooner,
& Jimenez, 2011) that will support the student's ability to
achieve his or her life goals. Typically st<strong>an</strong>dards are selected
from at least l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, mathematics, science,
<strong>an</strong>d social studies frameworks. Table 1 describes the priority
grade-level st<strong>an</strong>dards that were selected for M<strong>an</strong>uel,
Sarah, <strong>an</strong>d Jamal within a major domain area for science,
l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, <strong>an</strong>d mathematics. The students' general
educafion teachers provided guid<strong>an</strong>ce in idenfifying key
st<strong>an</strong>dards; however, the student's quality of life goal
areas were the most import<strong>an</strong>t considerafion.
Step 3: Identify the "Critical Function" of
Each Selected St<strong>an</strong>dard in Terms of Enriching
Students' Lives
It is a daunting task for educational team members
to take the next step)—that is, to identify perform<strong>an</strong>ce
outcomes linked to these priority academic content
st<strong>an</strong>dards—without first tr<strong>an</strong>slating them into their "critical
funcfions." Kleinert <strong>an</strong>d Thurlow (2001) have suggested
that team members look beyond the "form" of <strong>an</strong>
academic content st<strong>an</strong>dard to the "function" of the st<strong>an</strong>dard
in enh<strong>an</strong>cing the student's quality of life. For example,
a 5th-grade reading st<strong>an</strong>dard for literattire included
in the "Key Ideas" section of the Common Core State
St<strong>an</strong>dards for L<strong>an</strong>guage Arts is the following: "Determine
two or more main ideas of a text <strong>an</strong>d explain how
they are supported by key details; summarize the text."
This st<strong>an</strong>dard was selected by Sarah's educational team
as <strong>an</strong> educational priorify (see Table 1). The team members
then tr<strong>an</strong>slated the st<strong>an</strong>dard into its critical funcfion:
"accessing <strong>an</strong>d comprehending main ideas in a me<strong>an</strong>ingful,
accessible text." When the st<strong>an</strong>dard was tr<strong>an</strong>slated
into its crifical funcfion, the quaUty of life goal areas for
Sarah could be naturally <strong>an</strong>d logically linked to the st<strong>an</strong>dard,
<strong>an</strong>d individualized perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes could
be developed (see Table 1).
Step 4: Identify Me<strong>an</strong>ingful, Individualized Perform<strong>an</strong>ce
Outcomes Associated With the Critical Function of
Selected St<strong>an</strong>dards That Reflect the Student's Quality
of Life Goal Areas <strong>an</strong>d Current Level of Symbol Use
When educational team members link the student's
high-priority goal areas <strong>an</strong>d current level of symbol use

to the critical function of the content st<strong>an</strong>dards, the
individualized perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes that the team
identifies through this process become what Ford et al.
(2001) call foundational skills—"skills that open doors
for people...skills that provide the basis for interacting
with people <strong>an</strong>d information in a multicultural society,
successfully navigating the tasks of living, solving problems,
<strong>an</strong>d making contributions" (p. 217); or content
knowledge that is life enriching because it opens up a student's
underst<strong>an</strong>ding of the physical, psychological, social,
or intellectual world; or skills that represent earlier
abilities needed to move through a sequenced curriculum.
The critical function of selected grade-level st<strong>an</strong>dards
from each academic domain is the point of reference
(Browder, Spooner, et al. 2006; Browder, Wakem<strong>an</strong>,
et al., 2007); however, for l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, skills from
earUer grades are part of a continuum of skills that culminates
in grade-level proficiency. Therefore, for emergent
<strong>an</strong>d beginning readers, the extended grade-level
st<strong>an</strong>dards may align with emergent skills associated with
earlier grade st<strong>an</strong>dards; however, we propose teaching
those earlier skills using grade-level materials <strong>an</strong>d activities
that are adapted to allow access by emergent <strong>an</strong>d
beginning readers (e.g., adapting grade-level literature to
reduce pages <strong>an</strong>d text, simplify vocabulary, <strong>an</strong>d include
picture icons <strong>an</strong>d objects to promote comprehension of
written text), thereby making it possible for emergent <strong>an</strong>d
beginning readers to share in the same literature experiences
as their peers.
For mathemafics, skills addressed at earlier grades may
be needed to access grade-level content (e.g., counting
for st<strong>an</strong>dards in the measurement <strong>an</strong>d data domain);
however, if skills addressed by early grade st<strong>an</strong>dards are
considered to be prerequisites to moving on to current
grade-level st<strong>an</strong>dards, then students are subjected to
13 years of leaming to count, identify shapes <strong>an</strong>d pattems,
match colors <strong>an</strong>d sizes, <strong>an</strong>d group objects. We propose
that when mathematics skills associated with earlier
grades are needed to access grade-level content, those
skills are addressed in the context of teaching the gradelevel
content (e.g., teaching counting in the context of
teaching skills associated with a measurement-related
st<strong>an</strong>dard). Finally, we propose that all mathematics instruction
be contextualized for me<strong>an</strong>ing (i.e., story-based
lessons or taught during functional <strong>an</strong>d motivating school
<strong>an</strong>d community activities), that grade-level activifies <strong>an</strong>d
materials be adapted to allow access by beginning mathematics
leamers, <strong>an</strong>d that mathematics instructional contexts
provide motivating opportunities for commtinication
<strong>an</strong>d literacy development (e.g., reading mathematics story
problems with adapted text <strong>an</strong>d added picture icons <strong>an</strong>d
objects to promote comprehension; using picture icons on
a communication board to request mathematics materials
<strong>an</strong>d respond to mathematics comprehension questions).
For science, history, <strong>an</strong>d social studies, we propose that
perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes address priority grade-level content
st<strong>an</strong>dards with individualization for each student (e.g..
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals 143
in the targeted content, instructional approaches used, <strong>an</strong>d
adaptafions <strong>an</strong>d modifications) that will provide the
student with access to life enriching knowledge <strong>an</strong>d experiences
in each of these academic areas. In addifion, instructional
contexts should be designed to provide motivating
opportunifies for instruction of communication, social, literacy,
<strong>an</strong>d self-m<strong>an</strong>agement <strong>an</strong>d choice-making skills.
Finally, perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes are identified by educational
team members after first considering not only the
student's high-priority, quality of life goal areas but also
his or her current level of symbol underst<strong>an</strong>ding <strong>an</strong>d
use (Browder, Ahlgrim-DelzeU, Courtade-Little, & Snell,
2006; Mirenda, 2005). Any approach to the development
of educational goals for students with severe disabilities
must take into account that they are a very heterogeneous
group. This diversity is refiected in the continutim
of symbol use that characterizes this population of
students—from students who are leaming that symbols
have me<strong>an</strong>ing <strong>an</strong>d are currently communicating with
presymbolic behaviors (e.g., facial expressions, body
movements, vocalizations, <strong>an</strong>d gestures) to students who
underst<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d currently communicate with concrete
symbols (e.g., words, objects, photos, concrete graphic
icons), to students who underst<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>d communicate (or
are leaming to communicate) with a variety of abstract
symbols (e.g., words, signs, abstract graphic icons). The
student's current level of symbol use is a critical factor
in the development of individualized perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes.
For example, perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes associated
with the critical function of "accessing <strong>an</strong>d comprehending
the major themes of a me<strong>an</strong>ingful, accessible text"
might take form for a student who is learning that symbols
have me<strong>an</strong>ing through perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes that
include selecting books <strong>an</strong>d other reading materials, tuming
pages, <strong>an</strong>d attending to the pictures on each page <strong>an</strong>d
identifying characters in the story or <strong>an</strong>swering questions
about the story by pointing to the pictures; attending to
short stories read by peers; <strong>an</strong>d inserting repetitive lines
in stories or poems at appropriate times using a voice
output communication aid. The critical function of the
st<strong>an</strong>dard might come to life for a student who underst<strong>an</strong>ds
<strong>an</strong>d currentiy communicates with concrete symbols (photographs
<strong>an</strong>d concrete graphic icons) through perform<strong>an</strong>ce
outcomes that include following stories <strong>an</strong>d other text as
they are read with photos <strong>an</strong>d graphic icons on a
commtinication board; <strong>an</strong>swering questions about a story
or other text <strong>an</strong>d predicting what wül come next by pointing
to appropriate symbols on a communication board; <strong>an</strong>d
summarizing the story or other text by arr<strong>an</strong>ging three
pictures in the order in which the ideas that they represent
appear in the text. For a student who underst<strong>an</strong>ds abstract
symbols <strong>an</strong>d communicates using abstract graphic icons
<strong>an</strong>d a high-tech, voice output communication aide <strong>an</strong>d
a variety of low-tech communication boards, perform<strong>an</strong>ce
outcomes associated with reading adapted, gradelevel
Uterattire might include describing the attributes
of the major characters, <strong>an</strong>swering comprehension <strong>an</strong>d

144 Hunt et al.
Student/grade/current level of
symbol underst<strong>an</strong>ding <strong>an</strong>d use
M<strong>an</strong>uel; 1st grade; learning that
symbols (objects/photos)
have me<strong>an</strong>ing <strong>an</strong>d currently
communicating with facial
expressions, body movements,
vocalizations, <strong>an</strong>d gestures
Sarah; 5th grade; currently
communicating with some
concrete words, photos, <strong>an</strong>d
graphic icons
Jamal; 10th grade; communicating
with one-syllable written
words <strong>an</strong>d concrete to
abstract graphic icons
Table 1
Decisions Made by Educational Team Members at Each Step of the Process for Identifying <strong>an</strong>d
Teaching St<strong>an</strong>dards-Based Academic Goals
Quality of life goal areas identified Academic
through family <strong>an</strong>d student-centered subject <strong>an</strong>d
assessments domain Priority grade-level st<strong>an</strong>dard
Stepl
(a) Communication using presymbolic Science: life
behaviors, objects, <strong>an</strong>d photos to sciences
express w<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d needs, share
information, make choices, <strong>an</strong>d
interact socially; (b) development
of positive sodal relationships <strong>an</strong>d
friendships; (c) actively participating
in academic instructional contexts
<strong>an</strong>d increasing comprehension
of concepts relev<strong>an</strong>t to the
student's daily life; (d) increasing
independence in classroom <strong>an</strong>d
school routines
(a) Communication to express w<strong>an</strong>ts L<strong>an</strong>guage arts:
<strong>an</strong>d needs, share information, reading
make choices, <strong>an</strong>d interact socially;
(b) development of positive social
relationships <strong>an</strong>d friendships
with peers; (c) development of
self-monitoring <strong>an</strong>d problem-solving
skills to increase active, positive,
<strong>an</strong>d productive engagement;
(d) life enrichment through the
development of emergent literacy
skills <strong>an</strong>d motivating academic
content knowledge; (e) increased
independence in classroom <strong>an</strong>d
. school activities
(a) Commtinication to engage in
conversation turn-taking with peers
<strong>an</strong>d to share feelings, information,
<strong>an</strong>d perspectives with others;
(b) development of positive
social relationships <strong>an</strong>d friendships
with peers; (c) development of
self-m<strong>an</strong>agement <strong>an</strong>d problem-solving
skills; (d) life enrichment through
gaining me<strong>an</strong>ingful academic
content knowledge <strong>an</strong>d the
development of reading <strong>an</strong>d writing
skills; (e) increased independence
within community-living contexts
<strong>an</strong>d activities
Math: number
<strong>an</strong>d qu<strong>an</strong>tities
Step 2
1st grade life sciences st<strong>an</strong>dard
(CA Curriculum Frameworks):
"Pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals meet their
needs in different ways."
5th grade reading st<strong>an</strong>dard for
literature {National Common
Core St<strong>an</strong>dards for LA):
"Determine two or more
main ideas of a text <strong>an</strong>d
explain how they are
supported by key details;
summarize the text."
10th grade reading st<strong>an</strong>dard
for number <strong>an</strong>d qu<strong>an</strong>tities
{National Common Core
St<strong>an</strong>dards for Geometry):
"Use units as a way to
underst<strong>an</strong>d problems <strong>an</strong>d
to guide the solution
of multi-step problems;
choose <strong>an</strong>d interpret
units consistently in
formulas; choose <strong>an</strong>d
interpret the scale <strong>an</strong>d
the origin in graphs <strong>an</strong>d
data displays."
Each of the student's individualized, quality of life goal areas is addressed through instruction of skills identified in the academic
IEP goals.
prediction questions as the story is read, <strong>an</strong>d summarizing
the story using software tbat incorporates icons.
Step 5: Generate the IEP Goals <strong>an</strong>d Objectives to
Address the Perform<strong>an</strong>ce Outcomes
Tbe academic perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes—witb associated
assisfive tecbnology, AAC devices, <strong>an</strong>d contextual
adaptations—are included as goals on tbe student's
IEP along with those relev<strong>an</strong>t to the student's quahty
of life goal areas that are not academic in nature (e.g.,
communication, social, self-determination, <strong>an</strong>d community
<strong>an</strong>d vocational activities goals). All goals describe
observable <strong>an</strong>d measureable perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes
that address quality of life goal areas <strong>an</strong>d perform<strong>an</strong>ce
criteria tbat include generalization across multiple natural
settings.

Critical function of
the st<strong>an</strong>dard
Step 3
Underst<strong>an</strong>ding the difference
between people, <strong>an</strong>imals,
<strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts <strong>an</strong>d that living
org<strong>an</strong>isms need different
things to thrive
Accessing <strong>an</strong>d comprehending
main ideas in a me<strong>an</strong>ingful,
accessible text
Using the measurement
of qu<strong>an</strong>tities to solve
problems <strong>an</strong>d underst<strong>an</strong>d
data displays that provide
useful information
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals 145
Individualized perform<strong>an</strong>ce
outcomes
Step 4
Identifying the difference
between people, <strong>an</strong>imals,
<strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts by sorting
examples <strong>an</strong>d photos of
each into the appropriate
category <strong>an</strong>d demonstrating
<strong>an</strong> underst<strong>an</strong>ding that people
<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals need food <strong>an</strong>d
water to thrive <strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts
need water <strong>an</strong>d light by
matching the org<strong>an</strong>ism to
the items needed to thrive.
Following stories <strong>an</strong>d other
text as they are read in a
shared reading context with
photos <strong>an</strong>d graphic icons
on a communication board;
<strong>an</strong>swering questions about
the text <strong>an</strong>d predicting what
will come next by pointing
to appropriate symbols on
a communication board;
summarizing the text by
arr<strong>an</strong>ging three pictures in
the order in which the ideas
they represent appear in
the text
Using measurement strategies
<strong>an</strong>d tools to solve problems
including (1) using the
"dollar-up" method to purchase
items, (2) using measuring
cups <strong>an</strong>d spoons to measure
ingredients to complete each
step of a simple recipe; <strong>an</strong>d
(3) using a scale to measure
current weight to compare
to a height/weight chart
Step 6: Teach These SkiUs Within <strong>an</strong>d Across
Me<strong>an</strong>ingful Activities That Provide Context
<strong>an</strong>d Motivation <strong>an</strong>d That Are Relev<strong>an</strong>t to
the Student's Daily Life
Ensuring fhaf whaf sfudenfs are learning is me<strong>an</strong>ingful
<strong>an</strong>d enh<strong>an</strong>ces fhe qualify of their life will require
IEP feams fo design insfrucfion so fhaf if maximizes
students' rate of skill acquisition <strong>an</strong>d promofes fhe gen-
IEP goal to address the
perfonn<strong>an</strong>ce outcome
Steps
During science lessons <strong>an</strong>d in
community settings during
school <strong>an</strong>d family activities,
M<strong>an</strong>uel will discriminate
between people, <strong>an</strong>imals,
<strong>an</strong>d pl<strong>an</strong>ts by sorting actual
examples or photos of each
into the appropriate category
<strong>an</strong>d will demonstrate <strong>an</strong>
underst<strong>an</strong>ding of the basic
needs of each by matching
the org<strong>an</strong>ism to the items
needed to thrive (food,
water, light).
Given a variety of grade-level
stories <strong>an</strong>d poems adapted
to Sarah's reading level, she
will (1) follow the texts as
they are read in a shared
reading context with photos
<strong>an</strong>d graphic icons on a
communication board;
(2) <strong>an</strong>swer questions about
the text <strong>an</strong>d predict what
will come next by pointing
to appropriate symbols on
the communication board;
<strong>an</strong>d (3) summarize the text
by arr<strong>an</strong>ging three pictures
in the order in which the
ideas they represent appear
in the text.
Jamal will use measurement
strategies <strong>an</strong>d tools to solve
problems by (1) using the
"dollar-up" method to
purchase items in school <strong>an</strong>d
the community, (2) using
measuring cups <strong>an</strong>d spoons
to measure ingredients to
complete each step of a
simple recipe during econ.
class <strong>an</strong>d at home; <strong>an</strong>d
(3) using a scale to measure
current weight, record it on
a graph, <strong>an</strong>d compare it to
a height/weight chart during
gym class <strong>an</strong>d at home.
Examples of instructional
activities that provide
me<strong>an</strong>ing <strong>an</strong>d context
Step 6
Community <strong>an</strong>d school
activities with a small group
of peers to ñnd <strong>an</strong>d take
photos of people, pl<strong>an</strong>ts,
<strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>imals; working with
peers to sort the photos into
the appropriate category
<strong>an</strong>d match the groups of
org<strong>an</strong>isms to the items
needed to thrive; growing
a pl<strong>an</strong>t in the classroom or
school garden <strong>an</strong>d providing
it with water <strong>an</strong>d light
Shared reading of adapted
grade-level stories <strong>an</strong>d
poems in small group
instructional contexts
in which students are
supported to talk about
the story <strong>an</strong>d make
predictions, point to .
<strong>an</strong>d track the print, <strong>an</strong>d
ask questions <strong>an</strong>d make
comments about the story;
acting out scenes from
stories with classmates
using a voice output
communication aid;
participating in shared
reading activities with
family members
Purchasing items at school
<strong>an</strong>d in the community using
the "doUar-up" method;
selecting <strong>an</strong>d preparing a
simple meal with peers by
reading <strong>an</strong>d fallowing the
steps of <strong>an</strong> adapted recipe
in home econ. class & eating
the meal while conversing
with peers; practicing cooking
<strong>an</strong>d conversation skUls at
mealtime with parents at
home; measuring weight each
week in gym class, recording
on a graph, <strong>an</strong>d comparing
to a height/weight chart
eraüzafion of skills fo typical perform<strong>an</strong>ce condifions
<strong>an</strong>d settings.
Recent research has demonstrated fhaf sfudenfs wifh
infellectual <strong>an</strong>d developmenfal disabilifies c<strong>an</strong> be faughf
a wide variefy of complex academic skills selecfed from
the general educafion curriculum (Bradford, Shippen,
Alberto, Houchins, & Flores, 2006; Jimenez et al., 2008;
McDonnell ef al., 2006; Neef, Nelles, Iwata, & Page,

146 Hunt et al.
2003). These studies also showed that students were able
to generalize these skills to other sdmulus materials,
tasks, <strong>an</strong>d settings in the school; however, there are few, if
<strong>an</strong>y, studies that have validated specific strategies for
promoting the generalization of complex academic skills
to the functional routines <strong>an</strong>d acfivities completed by
students on a day-to-day basis.
While much more research will be needed to fully
address this issue, we suggest that IEP teams c<strong>an</strong> improve
the likelihood that students will use academic
knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills to meet high-priority hfe goals if
they employ four general strategies, including (a) teaching
skuls in multiple ways during the school day; (b)
incorporating authentic tasks into instruction; (c) incorporating
student-directed activities into instruction; <strong>an</strong>d
(d) embedding academic skills into the instruction of
functional routines <strong>an</strong>d activities in home, school, <strong>an</strong>d
community settings.
Teaching skills in multiple ways during the school day
Historically, instruction for students with severe disabilities
was done in one-to-one, massed practice teaching
formats (Duker, Didden, & Sigafoos, 2004). Although
students are likely to continue to need individualized instruction
that provides a high number of opportunities
to respond, IEP teams may need to combine multiple -
instructional approaches into comprehensive teaching
packages that are implemented throughout the school
day to achieve this outcome. This approach is not intended
to replace students' participation in the leaming
activities provided by the classroom teacher but rather
to supplement these activities to increase the efficacy of
instruction.
Research over the last decade has vahdated a ntimber
of student-specific instructional strategies that c<strong>an</strong> be used
to teach academic skills to students in general education
classes (Hunt & McDonnell, 2007). These include the
use of accommodations <strong>an</strong>d modifications (Fisher & Frey,
2001), student-directed leaming (Agr<strong>an</strong> et al., 2005), <strong>an</strong>d
embedded instruction (McDonnell et al., 2002).
Instructional strategies that are used with all students
in the class are also effective in promofing the acquisition
of academic skills by students with severe disabihfies.
These include cooperative learning (Cushing, Kennedy,
Shukla, Davis, & Meyer, 1997; Hunt, Staub, AlweU, &
Goetz, 1994), peer-mediated instruction (Kamps, Barbetta,
Leonard, & Delquardri, 1994; McDonneU, Thorson,
AUen, & Mathemaficsot-Buckner, 2000), <strong>an</strong>d heterogeneous
smaU group instruction (R<strong>an</strong>kin et al., 1999;
Schoen & Ogden, 1995).
Although these strategies are effecfive when they are
used alone, we believe that a more beneficial approach
is to combine strategies into comprehensive instructional
packages. Beyond increasing the rate of acquisition, this
approach would also enh<strong>an</strong>ce the probability of skiU
generalization because it would provide students with
opportunities to use the skiU across a variety of conditions
<strong>an</strong>d contexts throughout the school day. This approach
would be parficularly effective if each strategy employed
different materials <strong>an</strong>d required the student to apply
the skiU in different ways. For example, M<strong>an</strong>uel could
be taught to differentiate between people, <strong>an</strong>imals, <strong>an</strong>d
pl<strong>an</strong>ts by placing pictures in the appropriate category
during a heterogeneous smaU group instmctional format
with peers who were working on related content from
the same unit; pointing to a picture of a person, <strong>an</strong>imal,
or pl<strong>an</strong>t during embedded instruction distributed throughout
classroom routines <strong>an</strong>d activities; <strong>an</strong>d peer supported
instrucfion during coUaborative science activities like
those described in Table 1. This is only one example of
how several validated practices could be combined to
provide students with effective instruction. The possible
combinations of these strategies are m<strong>an</strong>y <strong>an</strong>d would
need to be tailored to students' parficular leaming needs,
the skUls being taught, <strong>an</strong>d the instrucfional <strong>an</strong>d social
context of the general educafion classes.
Incorporate authentic tasks into instruction
Cognitive psychologists have argued for weU over two
decades now that instruction on academic knowledge
<strong>an</strong>d skiUs needs to move beyond text-based leaming
activities to include authentic learning activities that Unk
student learning to real world problems (Berrym<strong>an</strong>,
1993; Brown, Colhns, & Duguid, 1989; Resnick, 1987).
They argue that this approach increases the motivation
of students to learn difficult concepts <strong>an</strong>d operations
because it is more me<strong>an</strong>ingful to them <strong>an</strong>d equaUy
import<strong>an</strong>t because it increases the likelihood that
students will be able to "tr<strong>an</strong>sfer" or generahze new
knowledge to everyday activities task.
Increasingly, special educators have also acknowledged
the limitations of teaching approaches that only require
students to make discrete responses to teacher-directed
instructional trials. Studies have shown the utility of
"<strong>an</strong>chored instruction" for students with learning disabUities
in l<strong>an</strong>guage arts <strong>an</strong>d mathematics (Bottge, Heinrichs,
Ch<strong>an</strong>, & Serlin, 2001; Reith et al., 2003) <strong>an</strong>d "funcfional
application" of academic content knowledge for students
with severe disabilities to support their generalization
of these skills to typical perform<strong>an</strong>ce settings (Browder,
Spooner, et al., 2006; Browder et al., 2009). For example,
in addition to the instruction that Jamal would receive
on interpreting units of a scale displayed on a graph
during his geometry class, he could apply these skiUs by
weighing himself in the men's locker room or at home
<strong>an</strong>d recording it on a graph. He could use this information
to <strong>an</strong>alyze his progress toward meeting a healthy
weight goal. SimUarly, Sarah's teacher might extend instruction
beyond small group instruction on questions
about the main ideas in text or predicting what would
happen next using her communication board to include
shared reading activities with a peer in the hbrary <strong>an</strong>d
with famUy members. These acfivifies would not only be
used to reinforce her ability to gain me<strong>an</strong>ing from text

ut also to increase her motivation to read as a way to
gain knowledge or for recreation.
Extending instructional activities beyond traditional
teaching formats <strong>an</strong>d incorporating "authentic" learning
activities into instruction creates opportunities for
students to use knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills across a variety of
contexts <strong>an</strong>d to use materials <strong>an</strong>d responses that more
closely reflect typical perform<strong>an</strong>ce conditions. Anchoring
instruction to activities that are import<strong>an</strong>t to students
allows them to see the link between instruction
<strong>an</strong>d their day-to-day activities.
Incorporate student-directed learning activities
into instruction
The ability to independently <strong>an</strong>alyze complex problems,
create solutions, <strong>an</strong>d communicate ideas to others
is widely recognized as a crifical indicator of a student's
mastery of academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills (Council of
Chief State School Officers/National Govemors Associafion,
2010; National Reading P<strong>an</strong>el, 2000). Inherent in
the independent use of knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills is the ability
to generalize concepts, operations, <strong>an</strong>d processes to new
problems <strong>an</strong>d situations. Furthermore, these abilifies also
provide the basis for students to become self-directed,
lifelong leamers <strong>an</strong>d to confinue to use their knowledge
<strong>an</strong>d skills to increase their independence <strong>an</strong>d autonomy.
The basic principle of independence, autonomy, <strong>an</strong>d
self-directedness is one of the primary values underlying
educafional programs for students with severe disabilities
(McDonnell & Hardm<strong>an</strong>, 2010; Snell & Brown, 2011).
There has been extensive research conducted on instrucfional
models that are designed to help educators to
teach students to achieve their own leaming goals using
self-regulated problem-solving strategies such as the
Self-Determined Leaming Model of Instrucfion (Agr<strong>an</strong>,
Cavin, Wehmeyer, & Palmer, 2006) <strong>an</strong>d cooperative
leaming (Cushing et al., 1997; Hunt et al., 1994).
Student-directed learning strategies help students to
leam to control their own learning <strong>an</strong>d work as part of a
team to independently solve problems. Activifies such
as working with peers to pl<strong>an</strong>, purchase, <strong>an</strong>d prepare
a simple meal during home economics class would
not only provide Jamal with opportunities to learn the
"dollar-up" strategy <strong>an</strong>d to use measuring cups but
provide opportunities to learn a variety of pl<strong>an</strong>ning,
problem-solving, <strong>an</strong>d communicafion skills necessary for
success in a variety of acfivifies <strong>an</strong>d settings. These strategies
also provide a framework for students to adjust the
application of their knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills to variations
in sfimulus <strong>an</strong>d response conditions.
Embed academic instruction in daily routines
<strong>an</strong>d activities
A final strategy that teachers c<strong>an</strong> use to promote
generalization is to embed explicit instrucfion on academic
knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills in instrucfion on daily roufines
<strong>an</strong>d acfivities (McDonnell, Johnson, & McQuivey,
2008; Snell & Brown, 2011). This approach has been used
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals 147
for decades to help students to be more independent
in home, community, <strong>an</strong>d work settings; for example,
embedded instruction has been used to teach students to
count money within the context of learning to shop for
groceries or buy a meal at a restaur<strong>an</strong>t (Colyer & Collins,
1996; Test, Howell, Burkhard, & Beroth, 1993).
Providing embedded instrucfion to students within the
on-going routines <strong>an</strong>d activities of the general education
classroom <strong>an</strong>d school is also <strong>an</strong> import<strong>an</strong>t way
to support the mastery <strong>an</strong>d generalization of academic
knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills. A very simple example would be
to provide Jamal with embedded instrucfion on using
the "dollar up" strategy when purchasing items from the
school store or purchasing lunch at school. Similarly,
Sarah could be provided instruction on pointing <strong>an</strong>d
tracking printed instrucfions each fime the class was
asked to complete a worksheet or workbook page.
Conclusion
The current emphases in NCLB <strong>an</strong>d IDEA on
students' with disabilities parficipation <strong>an</strong>d progress in
states' core curricula have created both opportunifies
<strong>an</strong>d challenges. On one h<strong>an</strong>d, this m<strong>an</strong>date has reinforced
the expectafion that students with disabilifies, including
those with signific<strong>an</strong>t disabUifies, c<strong>an</strong> learn complex academic
content. It has also broadened the definifion of
what parficipation in the core curriculum me<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d thus
has allowed m<strong>an</strong>y students who may have been previously
excluded based on their classification to access
instrucfion on academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills. On the
other h<strong>an</strong>d, this m<strong>an</strong>date has created new challenges
for IEP teams in identifying academic content that is
both afigned with grade-level content st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d
that has a clear impact on the students' immediate <strong>an</strong>d
future qualify of life. It has also pushed the limits of our
current instructional technology to identify strategies
for promoting the generalization of the knowledge <strong>an</strong>d
skills that students' learn in school to day-to-day perform<strong>an</strong>ce
contexts <strong>an</strong>d settings.
It is not uncommon for divisions to surface in our field
whenever new poUcies force a rethinking of educational
practice. In the current context, these divisions have occurred
between proponents of ecological frameworks
of curriculum design <strong>an</strong>d those who support the development
of students' educational programs based primarily,
if not solely, on state core curriculum (e.g., Ayres
et al., 2011; Browder, Wakem<strong>an</strong>, et al., 2007). Although
both sides of the debate make import<strong>an</strong>t points, our
concern is that by framing our discussion as <strong>an</strong> "either/or"
choice we miss the opportunifies to take adv<strong>an</strong>tage of
the beneficial features of both approaches.
In this paper, we have proposed <strong>an</strong> educafional pl<strong>an</strong>ning
process that attempts to blend ecological frameworks
for currictilum design <strong>an</strong>d state core curricula in
a way that takes into account the traditional values of the
field of severe disabilities including individualization,
self-determinafion, inclusion, <strong>an</strong>d a focus on improving

148 Hunt et al.
Students' quality of life. We buud on previously proposed
pl<strong>an</strong>ning procedures that focus on extending the academic
content st<strong>an</strong>dards in ways that allow the students
to access the content based on their symbol use <strong>an</strong>d
learning strengths (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, et al.,
2006; Ford et al., 2001; Kleinert & Thurlow, 2001;
Thompson, Quenemoen, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 2001).
We argue that to make these procedures relev<strong>an</strong>t, pl<strong>an</strong>ning
must begin with a clear articulation of the students'
life goals based on one or more person-centered pl<strong>an</strong>ning
processes. These life goals are intended to be more
th<strong>an</strong> referents in the pl<strong>an</strong>ning process but in fact should
be the primary consideration in selecting appropriate
core content st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d in designing the extension of
those st<strong>an</strong>dards to accommodate students' unique educational
needs (Bambara, Wilson, & McKenzie, 2007;
McDonnell & Hardm<strong>an</strong>, 2010). To unify ecological curricular
frameworks <strong>an</strong>d core state curriculum, the IEP
team needs to exp<strong>an</strong>d the potential life goals beyond
home, friendships, community participation, <strong>an</strong>d work
to include academic goal areas that enh<strong>an</strong>ce students'
ability to become more critical thinkers, exp<strong>an</strong>d their
underst<strong>an</strong>ding of culture, society, <strong>an</strong>d community <strong>an</strong>d
to become lifelong learners. Accepting that education is
more th<strong>an</strong> simply pursuing utilitari<strong>an</strong> outcomes—<strong>an</strong>d
includes the development of the student as a person,
friend, family member, <strong>an</strong>d citizen—allows IEP teams to
think more broadly about what access to the state core
curriculum me<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d how the content st<strong>an</strong>dards may or
may not benefit students' quality of Ufe.
In addition to embracing a pl<strong>an</strong>ning process that
broadens our traditional definition of education, IEP
teams must also begin to think of teaching as a multilayered
process that relies on instructional packages
consisting of several instructional approaches <strong>an</strong>d strategies.
IEP teams need to think more systematically
about how research-vaUdated practices c<strong>an</strong> be combined
to supplement the instruction students receive
from the classroom teacher to promote the acquisition
<strong>an</strong>d generalization of academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skiUs.
Research has clearly shown that students with severe
disabilities c<strong>an</strong> learn complex academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d
skills when provided systematic instruction (Hunt &
McDonnell, 2007), but we also know that a "train <strong>an</strong>d
hope" approach to instruction wUl not lead to students'
application <strong>an</strong>d use of academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skUls
in day-to-day activities <strong>an</strong>d settings. Teaching knowledge
<strong>an</strong>d skills across the day in different contexts, with
different materials, <strong>an</strong>d within various instructional formats
seems to be a good first step toward achieving
these outcomes.
Areas for Future Research
Continued progress toward reconciling ecological
frameworks to curriculum design <strong>an</strong>d states' core curricula
WUl require additional research in a number of different
areas. One critical issue that needs to be addressed is the
impact that the m<strong>an</strong>date for students to participate <strong>an</strong>d
progress in states' core curricula has on the design of their
educational programs. While there are a number of potential
issues, the following are of particular import<strong>an</strong>ce:
• Assess how IEP pl<strong>an</strong>ning procedures that seek to
address academic core st<strong>an</strong>dards impact the content
<strong>an</strong>d org<strong>an</strong>ization of students' IEPs. Other th<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>ecdotal
reports, we have little information on how these
procedtires may affect the content of students' IEP
goals (i.e., functional or academic core st<strong>an</strong>dards);
the breadth <strong>an</strong>d depth of the core curricular domains
(i.e., l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, mathematics, <strong>an</strong>d science) represented
in students' IEP goals; the r<strong>an</strong>ge of adaptations
<strong>an</strong>d modifications used by IEP teams to support
student's access to academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards; or
whether IEP teams are structuring IEP goals <strong>an</strong>d/or
objectives in ways that <strong>an</strong>chor targeted academic content
st<strong>an</strong>dards to day-to-day activities or settings.
• Evaluate the impact of states' alternate assessments
on the development of students' IEPs. The question
is whether IEP teams are exercising their discretion
to include goals that are both functional <strong>an</strong>d that
are based on academic core st<strong>an</strong>dards; or do they
develop IEPs that simply refiect academic content
st<strong>an</strong>dards because of the structure of m<strong>an</strong>dated alternate
assessments.
• Examine the process that IEP teams use to extend
academic core st<strong>an</strong>dards for students who do not currentiy
use symbols to communicate. Areas of interest
would include the extent of alignment between the
extended st<strong>an</strong>dards developed by the IEP team with
the grade-level academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards; the aUgnment
of the academic perform<strong>an</strong>ce outcomes developed
by the team <strong>an</strong>d the "critical function" of
the grade-level academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards; <strong>an</strong>d the
vaUdity <strong>an</strong>d reliabiUty of the measures used to assess
progress in mastering the knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills identified
in the extended content st<strong>an</strong>dard.
• Determine the social validity of these pl<strong>an</strong>ning processes
from the perspective of students, parents <strong>an</strong>d
families, teachers, <strong>an</strong>d administrators.
There is also a signific<strong>an</strong>t need for additional research
on instructional approaches that promote acquisition
<strong>an</strong>d generalization of academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skiUs. In
general, researchers need to exp<strong>an</strong>d the r<strong>an</strong>ge of dependent
variables used to vaUdate instructional strategies
to include direct measurement of students' appUcation
<strong>an</strong>d use of academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skiUs outside of
school. In addition, we need to look closely at the relative
impact of instructional packages over single instructional
strategies in promoting student learning <strong>an</strong>d their use
of skiUs in day-to-day activities <strong>an</strong>d settings. It seems
unUkely that students wiU make signific<strong>an</strong>t progress in
states' core curricula unless they receive supplemental
instruction beyond what is provided by the classroom

teacher. We also need to begin to examine bow to <strong>an</strong>cbor
instruction provided to students in schools to reallife
problems <strong>an</strong>d contexts. This could include looking
more closely at the nature of the academic tasks (e.g.,
story problems, activity-based learning, student-directed
vs. teacber-directed), instrucfional materials (e.g., use of
technology), <strong>an</strong>d tbe exp<strong>an</strong>ded use of experienfial learning
strategies sucb as service learning.
Finally, there is a critical need to examine tbe longterm
effects of students' participation <strong>an</strong>d progress in
tbe core curriculum on postscbool outcomes (Ryndak
et al., 2012). While tbe benefits of ecological curricular
frameworks when paired with systematic instruction
<strong>an</strong>d adequate postschool supports are well established,
it is still not clear bow students' access to tbe general
education curriculum through extended academic content
st<strong>an</strong>dards impacts students' employment, bome
life, social connectedness, self-determination, <strong>an</strong>d perceived
quality of hfe. Adequately addressing tbese issues
will require comprebensive longitudinal studies that follow
students from school into adulthood. In spite of the
signific<strong>an</strong>t methodological challenges associated with tbis
kind of research (e.g., measuring social cotmectedness
or quality of life), it seems unlikely that we will achieve
<strong>an</strong>y underst<strong>an</strong>ding of bow to improve educafional programs
for students with severe disabilities without tbis
information.
Final Thoughts
Tbe purpose of tbis paper was to propose some modest
steps tbat IEP teams could use to pl<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d carryout
students' educational programs based on botb ecological
frameworks for curriculum design <strong>an</strong>d states' core curricula.
Otir primary message is that ecological curricular
frameworks <strong>an</strong>d states' core curricula will work best
together when they are used to achieve clearly defined lifegoals
that are based on the needs <strong>an</strong>d preferences of individual
students. It makes little sense to teach funcfional
routines or activifies to students that are not directly
linked to outcomes that will enh<strong>an</strong>ce <strong>an</strong> individual's quality
of life. The same expectation must also be applied
IEP goals that are focused on academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d
skills tbat based on academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards.
As we pointed out earlier, tbere is a signific<strong>an</strong>t need
for additional research focused in this area. However,
as import<strong>an</strong>t as research is, we also believe tbat it will
do httle good if, as a field, we c<strong>an</strong>not come to some
agreement on three key issues. First, what is the fundamental
purpose of education for students with severe
disabilities? Tbe ecological framework of curriculum design
bas largely taken a utilitari<strong>an</strong> approacb to defining
expected educafional outcomes for students including
employment, social connectedness, community participafion,
<strong>an</strong>d so on. The expectation that students with disabilities
parficipate <strong>an</strong>d progress in tbe general educadon
suggests that educadon should be more th<strong>an</strong> just developing
narrow disciplinary knowledge or tbe skills necessary
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals 149
for career <strong>an</strong>d employment. The argument is that educadon
is not simply about helping people to live better by
achieving import<strong>an</strong>t but obvious t<strong>an</strong>gible quality of life
outcomes (e.g., where <strong>an</strong>d how they work. Uve, <strong>an</strong>d play)
but creating tbe possibility of continued growtb <strong>an</strong>d development
as a person, fostering <strong>an</strong>d exp<strong>an</strong>ding their tinique
interests <strong>an</strong>d talents, <strong>an</strong>d maximizing their pardcipadon
in their commtinides as citizens. <strong>Reconciling</strong> ecological
frameworks for curriculum design <strong>an</strong>d state core curricula
requires us to define addidonal outcomes associated witb
exp<strong>an</strong>ding tbe students' awareness <strong>an</strong>d underst<strong>an</strong>ding of
tbe pbysical, bistorical, <strong>an</strong>d social/polidcal world in wbicb
tbey Uve so tbat tbese kinds of outcomes c<strong>an</strong> become <strong>an</strong>
integral part of tbe educadonal pl<strong>an</strong>ning process.
Second, we need to resolve wbat it really me<strong>an</strong>s for
students witb severe disabihdes to pardcipate <strong>an</strong>d progress
in states' core curricula. At tbis point, IEP teams
are required to review <strong>an</strong>d select academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards
from the core curricula in l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, mathematics,
<strong>an</strong>d science that are appropriate to the student's
educational needs. This approach raises a number of
import<strong>an</strong>t questions sucb as tbe following: Does tbis
sampling approach to selecdng st<strong>an</strong>dards for individual
students represent me<strong>an</strong>ingful "participation" in tbe curriculum?
If we do not expect students to pardcipate <strong>an</strong>d
progress in all of tbe st<strong>an</strong>dards, then what do we expect
<strong>an</strong>d why? How does holding IEP teams, schools, <strong>an</strong>d
districts accountable on a small subset of grade-level academic
content st<strong>an</strong>dards that differ across students contribute
to improving educadonal quality <strong>an</strong>d increased
accountability? Our concem is that the import<strong>an</strong>ce of
students leaming academic knowledge <strong>an</strong>d skills will
be lost if tbe decisions that IEP teams are making are
driven by team member preferences or arbitrary gtiidelines,
ratber tb<strong>an</strong> what is in the best interest of students.
To address this concem, we propose tbat consideration
of eacb student's quahty of life goal areas drive tbe selecdon
process.
Finally, we are troubled by tbe decoupling of students'
participation <strong>an</strong>d progress in states' core curriculum
<strong>an</strong>d the effort to increase the number of students who
are educated in general classes. Obviously, the statutes
allow teachers, schools, <strong>an</strong>d districts to provide students'
access to the core curriculum in separate special education
settings. The quesdon is whether this makes sense
given the field's strong commitment over the last several
decades to promoting inclusive education? Furthermore,
it seems logical that students' participation in the
core curriculum should be guided by general educadon
teachers who have expertise in content area knowledge.
Wbat message does it send to otber students, teacbers,
administrators, <strong>an</strong>d community members wben we accept
<strong>an</strong> approacb that allows special education teachers who
may or may not have tbe experdse necessary to teach
l<strong>an</strong>guage arts, mathemadcs, <strong>an</strong>d science content to students
in separate classes? Brown versus the Board of
Education clearly established the principle that separate

150 Hunt et al.
education is nof equal educafion for sfudents of Afric<strong>an</strong>
Americ<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d Europe<strong>an</strong> Americ<strong>an</strong> decenf. If is reasonable
<strong>an</strong>d appropriafe fo apply fhis same principle fo
studenfs with severe disabilities. We believe fhaf sfudenfs'
parficipafion <strong>an</strong>d progress in fhe core curriculum
c<strong>an</strong> <strong>an</strong>d should be achieved in general educafion classes.
There are no easy solufions fo these issues, <strong>an</strong>d fhe
debafe over them is likely fo be vigorous. We are nof
naive enough fo believe fhaf fhe recommendations thaf
we have made in fhis paper are fhe solufion, buf fhey
are a start. As a field we do best for sfudents <strong>an</strong>d their
families when we start our discussions on policy, research,
<strong>an</strong>d practice with their interests in mind <strong>an</strong>d by
acknowledging fhat no single approach will be effective
for all people. If we build on whaf we know works for
studenfs <strong>an</strong>d confinually seek ways fo push our expecfafions,
we c<strong>an</strong> signific<strong>an</strong>fly improve fhe qualify of fheir
educafion <strong>an</strong>d lives. <strong>Reconciling</strong> fhe perceived conflicfs
between ecological frameworks for curriculum design <strong>an</strong>d
sfudenfs' parficipafion in sfafes' core curricula provides
<strong>an</strong> exciting opportunity for us fo make fhaf happen.
References
Agr<strong>an</strong>, M., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2006).
Participation of students with moderate to severe disabilities
in the general education curriculum: The effects of the Self-
Determined Leaming Model of Instruction. Research <strong>an</strong>d
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 230-241.
Agr<strong>an</strong>, M., Sinclair, T., Alper, S., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M.,
& Hughes, C. (2005). Using self-monitoring to increase
following-direction skills of students with moderate to severe
disabilities in general education. Education <strong>an</strong>d Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 40, 3-13.
Ayres, K. M., Douglas, K. H., Lowrey, K. A., & Sievers, C
(2011). I c<strong>an</strong> identify Saturn, but I c<strong>an</strong>'t brush my teeth: What
happens when the curricular focus for students with severe
disabilities shifts. Education <strong>an</strong>d Training in Autism <strong>an</strong>d
Developmental Disabilities, 46,11-21.
Bambara, L. M., Wilson, B. A., & McKenzie, M. (2007).
Tr<strong>an</strong>sition <strong>an</strong>d quality of life. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Homer,
M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), H<strong>an</strong>dbook of developmental
disabilities (pp. 371-389). New York: Guilford.
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yov<strong>an</strong>off, P. (2000). Improving
graduation <strong>an</strong>d employment outcomes of students with disabilities:
Predictive factors <strong>an</strong>d student perspectives. Exceptional
Children, 66, 509-529.
Berrym<strong>an</strong>, S. E. (1993). Learning for the workplace. In D. L.
Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education
(pp. 343-404). Washington, DC: Americ<strong>an</strong> Education Research
Association.
Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal postschool
outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National
Longitudinal Tr<strong>an</strong>sition Study. Exceptional Children,
62, 399-413.
Bottge, B. A., Heinrichs, M., Ch<strong>an</strong>, S., & Serlin, R. (2001).
Anchoring adolescents' underst<strong>an</strong>ding of math concepts
in rich problem solving environments. Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special
Education, 22, 299-314.
Bradford, S., Shippen, M. E., Alberto, P., Houchins, D. E., &
Flores, M. (2006). Using systematic instruction to teach
decoding skills to middle school students with moderate
intellectual disabilities. Education <strong>an</strong>d Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 41, 333-343.
Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., &
Snell, M. E. (2006). General curriculum access. In M. E. Snell
& F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities
(6th ed., pp. 489-525). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Browder, D. M., Gibbs, S., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade, G. R.,
Mraz, M., & Flowers, C. (2009). Literacy for students with
severe disabilities: What should we teach <strong>an</strong>d what should
we hope to achieve? Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special Education, 30,
269-282.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F, & Jimenez, B. (2011). St<strong>an</strong>dardsbased
individualized education pl<strong>an</strong>s <strong>an</strong>d progress monitoring.
In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching students
with moderate <strong>an</strong>d severe disabilities (pp. 42-91). New York:
The Guilford Press.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F, Wakem<strong>an</strong>, S., Trela, K., & Baker, X
(2006). Aligning instruction with academic content st<strong>an</strong>dards:
Finding the link. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31, 309-321.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., & Jimenez, B. (2007). Training teachers
to follow a task <strong>an</strong>alysis to engage middle school students with
moderate <strong>an</strong>d severe developmental disabilities in gradeappropriate
literature. Pocus on Autism <strong>an</strong>d Other Developmental
Disabilities, 22, 206-219.
Browder, D. M., Wakem<strong>an</strong>, S. Y, Flowers, C, Rickelm<strong>an</strong>n, R. X,
Pugalee, D, & Karvonen, M. (2007). Creating access to the
general education curriculum with links to grade-level content
for students with signific<strong>an</strong>t cognitive disabilities: An explication
of the concept. The Joumal of Special Education, 41,2-16.
Brown, F., Lehr, D., & Snell, M. E. (2011). Conducting <strong>an</strong>d
using student assessment. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown
(Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.,
pp. 73-121). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Brown, X S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition
<strong>an</strong>d the culture of leaming. Educational Researcher, 18,
606-638.
Brown, L., Br<strong>an</strong>ston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpi<strong>an</strong>, I.,
Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing
chronological-age-appropriate <strong>an</strong>d functional curricular
content for severely h<strong>an</strong>dicapped adolescents <strong>an</strong>d young
adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81-90.
Chadsey, X (2007). Adult social relationships. In S. Odom,
R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & X Blacher (Eds.), H<strong>an</strong>dbook
of developmental disabilities (pp. 449-466). New York: The
Guildford Press.
Childre, A. L. (2004). Families. In C. H. Kennedy SL E. M. Horn
(Eds.), Including students with severe disabilities (pp. 78-99).
Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Colyer, S. P, & Collins, B. C (1996). Using natural cues within
prompt levels to teach the next dollar strategy to students with
disabilities. The Joumal of Special Education, 30, 305-318.
Council of Chief State School Officers/National Governors
Association. (2010, June 2). Common core st<strong>an</strong>dards for
mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corest<strong>an</strong>dards.org/
the-st<strong>an</strong>dards.
Cushing, L. S., Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S:, Davis, J, & Meyer,
K. A. (1997). Disent<strong>an</strong>gling the effects of curricular revision
<strong>an</strong>d social grouping within cooperative leaming arr<strong>an</strong>gements.
Pocus on Autism <strong>an</strong>d Other Developmental Disabilities, 12,
231-240.
Downing, X (2006). On peer support, universal design, <strong>an</strong>d
access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities:
A personnel preparation perspective. Research <strong>an</strong>d
Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 327-330.
Duker, R, Didden, R., & Sigafoos, X (2004). One-to-one training:
Instructional procedures for learners with developmental
disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Dunlap, G, & Carr, E. G. (2007). Positive behavior support <strong>an</strong>d
developmental disabilities: A summary <strong>an</strong>d <strong>an</strong>alysis of research.
In S. L. Odom, R. H. Homer, M. E. Snell, & X Blacher

(Eds.), H<strong>an</strong>dbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 469-527).
New York: The Gilford Press.
Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, E P (2001). What constitutes effective
curricula for students with severe disabilities? Exceptionality,
9, 109-122.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C L., & Slagor, M. T.
(2007). Defining access to the general curriculum for high
school students with signific<strong>an</strong>t cognitive disabilities. Research
<strong>an</strong>d Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 1-15.
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Rosenstein, A., Chun, E. J.,
B<strong>an</strong>ks, R. A., Nisw<strong>an</strong>der, V., et al. (2006). Using participatory
action research approach to create a universally designed
inclusive high school science course: A case study.
Research <strong>an</strong>d Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
31, 293-308.
Falvey, M., Forest, M., Pearpoint, J., & Rosenberg, R. (1997). Alt
my life's a circle. Using the tools: Circles, i\ÍAPS, <strong>an</strong>d PATHS.
Toronto, Ontario: Inclusion Press.
Fisher, D, & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum:
Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special
Education, 22, 148-157.
Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with signific<strong>an</strong>t
disabilities: <strong>Curricular</strong> relev<strong>an</strong>ce in <strong>an</strong> era of st<strong>an</strong>dardsbased
reform. Remédiât <strong>an</strong>d Special Education, 22, 214-222.
Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., &
Dempsey, P. (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum
guide for students with moderate <strong>an</strong>d severe disabilities.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Gi<strong>an</strong>greco, M. E, Cloninger, C J., & Iverson, V. S. (1998). Choosing
options <strong>an</strong>d accommodations for chitaren (COACH): A guide
to educational pl<strong>an</strong>ning for student with disabilities (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Gi<strong>an</strong>greco, M. E, & Putnam, J. W. (1991). Supporting the education
of students with severe disabilities in regular education
environments. In L. H. Meyer, C. A. Peck, & L. Brown
(Eds.), Critical issues in the lives of people with severe disabilities
(pp. 245-270). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Halvorsen, A. T., & Neary, T. (2009). Building inclusive schools:
Tools <strong>an</strong>d strategies for success (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson.
Homer, R. H., Albin, R. W., Todd, A. W., Newton, J. S., &
Sprague, J. R. (2011). Designing <strong>an</strong>d implementing individualized
positive behavior support. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown
(Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (7th ed.,
pp. 257-303). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Homer, R. H., McDonnell, J., & Bellamy, G. T. (1986). Efficient
instruction of generalized behaviors: General case programming
in simulation <strong>an</strong>d community settings. In R. H.
Homer, L. H. Meyer, & H. D. Fredericks (Eds.), Educating
learners with severe h<strong>an</strong>dicaps: Exemplary service strategies
(pp. 289-314). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Hunt, P, & McDonnell, J. (2007). Inclusive education. In S. L.
Odom, R. H. Homer, M. Snell, & J. Blacher (Eds.), H<strong>an</strong>dbook
on developmental disabilities (pp. 269-291). New York:
Guilford Press.
Hunt, P, Soto, G, Maier, J., & Doering, K. (2003). CoUaborative
teaming to support students at risk <strong>an</strong>d students with severe
disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children,
69, 315-332.
Hunt, P, Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement
by all students within the context of learning groups.
The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe H<strong>an</strong>dicaps,
19, 290-301.
Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. (2008).
Teaching <strong>an</strong> algebraic equation to high school students with
moderate developmental disabilities. Education <strong>an</strong>d Training
in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 266-274.
Kamps, D. M., Barbetta, P M., Leonard, B. R., & Delquardri, J.
(1994). Classwide peer tutoring: An integration strategy to
<strong>Ecological</strong> <strong>Curricular</strong> Framework <strong>an</strong>d Academic Goals 151
improve reading skills <strong>an</strong>d promote peer interactions among
students with autism <strong>an</strong>d general education peers. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 49-62.
Kleinert, H. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2001). An introduction
to alternate assessment. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Keams
(Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes <strong>an</strong>d supports
for students with disabilities (pp. 1-15). Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Kohl, F L., McLaughUn, M. J., & Nagle, K. (2006). Altemate
achievement st<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d assessments: A descriptive investigation
of 16 states. Exceptional Children, 73,107-122.
Lowrey, K. A., Drasgow, E., Renzaglia, A., & Chez<strong>an</strong>, L.
(2007). Impact of altemate assessments on curricula for students
with severe disabilities: Purpose driven or process driven.
Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 244-253.
McDonnell, J. (2010). Curriculum. In J. McDonnell & M. L.
Hardm<strong>an</strong> (Eds.), Successful tr<strong>an</strong>sition programs: Pathways
for students with intellectual <strong>an</strong>d developmental disabilities
(pp. 63-80). Thous<strong>an</strong>d Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
McDonnell, J., & Hardm<strong>an</strong>, M. L. (2010). Successful tr<strong>an</strong>sition
programs: Pathways for students with intellectual <strong>an</strong>d developmental
disabilities. Thous<strong>an</strong>d Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.
McDonnell, I, Johnson, J. W., & McQuivey, C. (2008). Embedded
instruction for students with developmental disabilities
in general education classes. Alex<strong>an</strong>dria, VA: Division of Developmental
Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T.
(2002). The effects of embedded instruction on students with
moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes.
Education <strong>an</strong>d Training in Mental Retardation <strong>an</strong>d Developmental
Disabilities, 37, 363-377.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T.,
Jameson, J. M., & Kercher, K. (2006). A comparison of oneto-one
embedded instmction in general education classes with
small group instruction in special education classes. Education
<strong>an</strong>d Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41,125-138.
McDonnell, J., Thorson, R, Allen, C, & Mathematicsot-
Buckner, C. (2000). The effects of partner leaming during
spelling for students with severe disabilities <strong>an</strong>d their peers.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 10,107-122.
McGregor, G. (2003). St<strong>an</strong>dards-based reform <strong>an</strong>d students
with disabilities. In D. L. Ryndak & S. Alper (Eds.), Curriculum
<strong>an</strong>d instruction for students with signific<strong>an</strong>t disabilities
in inclusive settings (pp. 32-50). Upper Saddle River, NJ: AUyn
& Bacon.
McLaughlin, M. I, & Tilstone, C. (2000). St<strong>an</strong>dards <strong>an</strong>d curriculum.
The core of educational reform. In M. Rouse & M. J.
McLaughlin (Eds.), Special education <strong>an</strong>d school reform in
the united States <strong>an</strong>d Britain (pp. 38-^5). London: Routledge.
Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative <strong>an</strong>d altemative communication
techniques. In J. E Downing (Ed.), Teaching communication
skills to students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Mortier, K., Hunt, P, Desimpel, L., & V<strong>an</strong> Hove, G. (2009).
With parents at the table: Creating supports for children with
disabilities in general education classrooms. Europe<strong>an</strong> Journal
of Special Needs Education, 24, 337-354.
Mount, B., & Zwernick, K. (1988). It's never too early, it's
never too late: An overview of personal futures pl<strong>an</strong>ning.
St. Paul, MN: Govemor's Platining Council on Developmental
Disabilities.
National Govemors Association Center for Best Practices &
the Council of Chief State School Officers. (2011). Common
core st<strong>an</strong>dards for English l<strong>an</strong>guage arts. Retrieved from
http://www.corest<strong>an</strong>dards.org/the-st<strong>an</strong>dards.
National Reading P<strong>an</strong>el (NRP). (2000). Report of the National
Reading P<strong>an</strong>el: Teaching children to read. Reports of the subgroups
(NIH Publication 00-4654). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Child Health <strong>an</strong>d Hum<strong>an</strong> Development.

152
Neef, N. A., Nelles, D. F., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J.
(2003). Analysis of precurrent skills in solving mathematics
story problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
36, 21-34.
Neel, R. S., & Billingsley, F. F. (1989). Impact: A functional
curriculum h<strong>an</strong>dbook for students with moderate to severe
disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Phelps, L. A., & H<strong>an</strong>ley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-towork
tr<strong>an</strong>sitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes
<strong>an</strong>d practices. Review of Educational Research, 67,
197-226.
R<strong>an</strong>kin, D. H., Log<strong>an</strong>, K. R., Adcock, I, Angelucci, J., Pittm<strong>an</strong>,
C, Sexstone, A., et al. (1999). Small group learning: Effects
of including a student with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Developmental <strong>an</strong>d Physical Disabilities, 11,159-177.
Reith, H. J., Bry<strong>an</strong>t, D. P., Kinzer, C. K., Colburn, L. K., Hur,
S. J., Hartm<strong>an</strong>, P., et al. (2003). An <strong>an</strong>alysis of the impact of
<strong>an</strong>chored instruction <strong>an</strong>d leaming activities in two ninthgrade
l<strong>an</strong>guage arts classes. Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special Education,
32,180-196.
Resnick, L. B. (1987). Leaming in school <strong>an</strong>d out. Educational
Researcher, 16,13-20.
Rosenthal-Malek, A., & Bloom, A. (1998). Beyond acquisition:
Teaching generalization for students with developmental disabilities.
In A. Hilton & R. Ringlaben (Eds.), Best <strong>an</strong>d promising
practices in developmental disabilities (pp. 139-155).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Ryndak, D. L. (2003). The curriculum content identification process
<strong>an</strong>d its use in inclusive settings. In D. L. Ryndak & S. Alper
(Eds.), Curriculum <strong>an</strong>d instruction for students with signific<strong>an</strong>t
disabilities in inclusive settings (2nd ed., pp. 282-310). Boston:
Pearson Education, Inc.
Ryndak, D. L., Alper, S., Hughes, C, & McDonnell, J. (2012).
Documenting impact of educational contexts on long-term
outcomes for students with signific<strong>an</strong>t disabilities. Education
<strong>an</strong>d Training in Autism <strong>an</strong>d Developmental Disabilities, 47,
127-138.
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P, & Sommerstein. L. (1999).
Literacy before <strong>an</strong>d after inclusion in general education settings:
A case study. The Journal of the Association for Persons
With Severe H<strong>an</strong>dicaps, 24, 5-22.
Sailor, W, Anderson, J. L., Halvorsen, A. T, Doering, K., Filler, X,
& Goetz, L. (1989). The comprehensive local school: Regular
education for all students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes.
Schoen, S. F, & Ogden, S. (1995). Impact of time delay, observational
leaming, <strong>an</strong>d attentional cuing upon word recog-
Hunt et al.
nition during integrated small group instruction. Journal of
Autism <strong>an</strong>d Developmental Disorders, 25, 503-519.
Snell, M. E., & Brown, F (2011). Instruction of students with
severe disabilities (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
St<strong>an</strong>cliffe, R. X, & Lakin, K. C (2007). Independent living. In
S. Odom, R. H. Homer, M. E. Snell, & X Blacher (Eds.),
H<strong>an</strong>dbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 429-448). New
York: The Guildford Press.
Test, D. W, Howell, A., Burkhard, K., & Beroth, T. (1993). The
one-more-th<strong>an</strong> technique as a strategy for counting money
for individuals with moderate mental retardation. Education
<strong>an</strong>d Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 232-241.
Thompson, S. X, Quenemoen, R. F., Thurlow, M. L., &
Ysseldyke, X E. (2001). Altemate assessments for students with
disabilities. Thous<strong>an</strong>d Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Thtirlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results; The promise
of st<strong>an</strong>dards-based reform. Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special Education,
23,195-202.
TurnbuU, A. P, & Turnbull, R. (1997). Families, professionals,
<strong>an</strong>d exceptionality: A special partnership (3rd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
Turnbull, H. R., Tumbull, A. P, Wehmeyer, M. L., & Park, X
(2003). A quality of life framework for special education
outcomes. Remedial <strong>an</strong>d Special Education, 24, 67-74.
V<strong>an</strong>dercook, T, York, X, & Forest, M. (1989). The McGill
action pl<strong>an</strong>ning system (MAPS): A strategy for building the
vision. Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe
H<strong>an</strong>dicaps, 14, 79-87.
Wehm<strong>an</strong>, P. (2006). Life beyond the classroom: Tr<strong>an</strong>sition strategies
for young people with disabilities (4th ed.). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.
White, X, & Weiner, X S. (2004). Influence of least restrictive
environment <strong>an</strong>d community-based training on integrated
employment outcomes for tr<strong>an</strong>sition students with severe
disabilities. Journal of Vocation Rehabilitation, 21, 149-156.
Wilcox, B., & Bellamy, G. T. (1987). The activities catalog: An
alternative curriculum for youth adults with severe disabilities.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Yell, M. L., Shriner, X G, & Katsiy<strong>an</strong>nis, A. (2006). Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
<strong>an</strong>d IDEA Regulations of 2006: Implications for educators,
administrators, <strong>an</strong>d teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional
Children, 39, 1-24.
Received: June 9, 2011
Final Accept<strong>an</strong>ce: November 1, 2011
Editor in Charge: Carolyn Hughes

Copyright of Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities is the property of TASH <strong>an</strong>d its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.