Reconciling an Ecological Curricular Framwork Focusing on Quality ...

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.