Many parents of students with significant cognitive disabilities find themselves wondering about the shift in the approach to providing specialized education for their children. What has prompted these changes and why is it meaningful for students? This article reviews the evolution of curriculum approaches for students with significant cognitive disabilities and provides a rationale for continuing to improve access for all students.

The 1970s

The approach to the education of students with significant cognitive disabilities in the 1970’s—following enactment of the federal special education law, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94-142), in 1975 — involved adapting infant/early childhood curriculum for students of all ages. Educational programming for many students with disabilities was new territory, since millions of children had been excluded from public schools prior to the passage of P.L. 94-142. This “developmental” approach assumed that children with significant cognitive disabilities developed more slowly than their same age peers. Instruction was based on skills of a student’s mental age, resulting in activities that were not chronologically age appropriate. Classroom activities for students of all grades included putting pegs into pegboards to develop the fine motor skills needed to hold a pencil or learning to listen to patterned songs to begin to recognize initial sounds of words to prepare for reading. Children who received this type of program were not included in any type of assessments for educational accountability.

The 1980s

The functional-skills approach emerged in the 1980s and was intended to promote community inclusiveness. This approach focused on skills such as cooking, shopping, managing money, using public transportation, and living in the community. Functional-skills are child-centered as determined by the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) team with little connection to or emphasis on academic skills beyond those the students may use daily and can apply to real life. The push for community inclusiveness in the 1980s exposed that adults with significant cognitive disabilities were often isolated because they had spent their days in the community or in classrooms separate from their classmates. They hadn’t developed social skills necessary to develop or maintain friendships. As a result, students with significant cognitive disabilities began participating in general education classes for primarily social opportunities rather than learning academic content. Initially, students were included in classes and during times of the day that had more opportunities for socialization and structure such as lunch, study hall, art, music, physical education, or classes that were compatible with a functional-skills curriculum such as home economics, work study, or consumer mathematics. Children continued to be excluded from any type of school or system-wide assessments used to measure achievement.

The 1990s

Several significant changes occurred when Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the name given to P.L. 94-142 in its 1990 reauthorization — in 1997. The 1997 IDEA required states to include students with disabilities in state testing and required states to create alternate assessments for students who could not participate in the general assessments by 2000. The law also emphasized that accommodations must be provided for students with disabilities and that the IEP team must make the determination about how the student would participate—whether by taking the general assessments (with accommodations, as needed) or alternate assessments.

The effects of the social inclusion movement in the 1980s not only impacted legislation of the 1990s but also teaching practices in the 1990s. Teachers and families began to notice that students with significant cognitive disabilities were learning some academic content while attending general education classes for the socialization opportunities. Encouraged by these academic gains without systematic instruction, educators began to place more effort on adapting and teaching general education curriculum in the classroom and began to question if these students could learn more academic content than was previously believed. Assistive technology and augmentative communication systems also gave students more independence in performing tasks and speaking that they previously had relied on the special education teacher or paraprofessional to do.

While IDEA 1997 required states to develop alternate assessments, it did not mandate how states should develop such assessments. States created different versions of alternate assessments based on their own knowledge of the characteristics of the students who would take such assessments. There was no requirement that alternate assessments be aligned to academic skills expected of the general population. However, the law did emphasize access to the general curriculum in an attempt to begin to elevate the expectations and quality of instructional programming for students with disabilities. The IDEA 1997 introduced the notion that a balance between functional-skills and an emerging recognition that students with significant cognitive disabilities could learn more of the general curriculum would need to be struck.

The 2000s

The  beginning of the 21^st century has brought about even more sweeping changes regarding the education of students with significant cognitive disabilities. First, all states were required to have their alternate assessments in place by mid 2000, ensuring that all students with disabilities would be included in state assessments.

The more significant change occurred in 2001 when Congress re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—the nation’s federal education law first enacted in 1965— renaming it the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). The law’s new provisions required states to develop and administer annual assessments in reading and math ( see Sidebar 1 in blue below) to all students. In addition, it instituted several new provisions to hold schools accountable for student performance—most significant among these provisions is the “adequate yearly progress” requirement. Not only were schools now required to test all students, including all students with disabilities, they were also now required to report the results of several populations within the school’s overall student population ( see Sidebar 1 in blue below) in order to highlight the performance of historically underperforming groups of students. ( See the Insight on Federal Policy article entitled, No Child Left Behind and Students with Disabilities, on page 70 in the September 2007 issue of EP for more information.) For the first time, students with disabilities were firmly and completely part of a statewide school accountability system—a system designed to hold schools and school districts responsible for the academic achievement of all students in reading and math.

Sidebar 1

NCLB ANNUAL TESTING REQUIREMENTS

All students in grades 3 through 8 must be tested each year in both reading/language arts and math. In addition, high school students must be tested sometime during grades 10-12 in both reading/language arts and math. (Beginning in 2008, all students must also be assessed in science once during grades 3-5, once during grades 6-9, and once during grades 10-12. However, schools are not held accountable for student performance on these science assessments.)

NCLB STUDENT SUBGROUP REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Schools, school districts and states must report both test participation and performance for all students tested as well as separately for the following groups of students:

•       Students who are economically disadvantaged

•       Students from major racial/ethnic groups

•       Students with limited English proficiency

•       Students with disabilities (IDEA-eligible students with IEPs)

In 2003, the U.S. Department of Education (USED) issued new federal regulation pertaining to alternate assessments that can be used to test students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Specifically, the USED required that such alternate assessments must be aligned with a state’s academic content standards, must yield results separately for both reading/language arts and mathematics, and must be designed in a manner that supports use of the test results in the determination of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). These specifications required states to reformulate the alternate assessments developed to meet the requirements of IDEA 1997 and submit the assessments to USED for approval.

This required “alignment” of alternate assessments to state academic content standards in reading and math ushered in the current approach to instructional programming for students with significant cognitive disabilities—one based on access to grade level content, not just the general education setting.

In 2004, the U.S. Congress once again re-authorized the IDEA, adding even more emphasis on access to the general curriculum and underscoring the participation of all students in state- and district-wide assessments, including those required by NCLB.

These curriculum shifts are steeped in the same civil rights that brought about P.L. 94-142—the right of all children to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), including specially designed instruction to ensure access to the general curriculum so that the student can meet the educational standards that apply to all children ( see Figure 1 below).

Figure 1. Source: Learning opportunities for your child through alternate assessments:alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Including all students with disabilities — including those who need an alternate assessment—in state accountability policies carries substantial benefits for students, among them:

• Increased attention and consideration by schools, districts, and states

• Higher expectations and broader opportunities
• Improved quality of instruction and teachers

The shift to a standards-based curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities is well-grounded in an increased understanding of how and what these students can learn. It is more positive and productive; designed to focus on a student’s capability rather than on a student’s disability. Students with significant cognitive disabilities can and are learning academic content. Yet educators and parents agree that there is still a need for functional teaching ( see Sidebar 2 in blue below).

Sidebar 2

Distinguishing Between Functional Teaching and a Functional-Skills Approach

Functional teaching is important for both special education and general education. It is a teaching practice to ensure that the use and practicality of any content is taught. For example, addition and subtraction of decimal numbers is a commonly taught math skill. Functional teaching would emphasize learning and using addition and subtraction of decimal numbers in personal money management and budgeting. General education curriculum has not historically emphasized functional teaching in all content areas. Since the 1980s with the success of teaching students independent living skills the terms functional teaching and functional-skills approach have become interchangeable.

A functional-skills approach is not a curriculum, but a menu of activities that are arguably important for independence and a high quality life. Those activities of a functional-skills approach are likely to be practical and useful. They are often focused on work, leisure, home life, and community access.

Balancing a state’s curriculum with a functional-skills approach while using functional teaching provides rich and broad educational opportunities for students with significant cognitive disabilities. This balance is illustrated in Figure 2 below. The circle to the right represents the important skills and activities that have traditionally been taught through a functional-skills approach, while the circle on the left represents grade level curriculum in Math, Reading, Writing, Science, etc. Each circle represents a range of important and interesting activities and content that could make up the student’s educational experience. Some of these activities may be uniquely important for the student, such as toileting or dressing appropriate for the weather but a link to high school general education content isn’t evident. Some of the general education standards may not appear immediately practical for the student, but a number of the grade level standards can be taught in practical and useful ways and within existing general education classroom activities. The key to an appropriate education for students with significant cognitive disabilities is using a state’s program of studies as the curriculum for a student’s education while balancing it with important educational priorities based on a students current and future needs.

Figure 2. From Wickham, D., & Lederer, L. (2007, December). Functional Curriculum and Academic Standards-based Curriculum: Competing for your Child's Time? Session presented at the conference of TASH, Seattle, WA. Adapted with permission.

Three factors should influence the balance between general education curriculum standards and traditional functional-skill activities for a student:

•          Age of student – As a student ages there is greater emphasis on activities outside of the state’s program of study that prepare for maximum independence and quality of life, such as accessing community resources and work preparedness. Teaching practical and use of general education curriculum is still emphasized.

•          Student interest – The practical use of some general education standards may be difficult to recognize, such as identifying different types of clouds, however may lead to adult hobbies and community participation. For example, identifying different types of clouds is important for a storm chaser, a volunteer job in many communities.

•          Family preference – Some families prefer to teach those traditionally functional skills such as cooking and personal care at home so that school time focuses on general education academics. Home/school collaboration ensures that skills such as toileting and communication are practiced in both settings.

The student’s IEP meeting is a good time to discuss the impact of the factors and determine the emphasis for the student’s educational experiences.

Even with a commitment to balancing general education curriculum standards and traditional functional-skill activities meeting the prioritized learning needs on a student’s IEP is challenging while teaching the academic content. A student with significant cognitive disabilities may have identified IEP goals that are very basic such as to communicate a consistent message or make choices. It may be difficult to imagine how to teach a student curriculum-level when he or she is still establishing a consistent way to respond. As well, the reading level of grade level books may be so difficult that a teacher mistakenly substitutes activities or materials that are compatible with a functional-skills approach to make the curriculum seem more practical. The example below, created by colleagues with ILSSA at the University of Kentucky (Kearns, Clayton, & Burdge, 2005), illustrates how an 8^th grade standard i.e., making predictions, drawing conclusions, and making generalizations about what is read can be adapted and taught to Victoria while she practices to consistently make choices, an IEP goal.

Victoria is a student with a significant cognitive disability who has emerging skills in communication and uses assistive technology to demonstrate learning. Victoria will access the novel, Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry, by Mildred Dial Taylor through a prerecorded summary of each chapter that she can listen to when she activates a tape recorder with a switch ( see Figure 3 below).

Figure 3. Excerpt of the summary that Victoria listens to and a picture of her switch. "Cassie Logan had three brothers, Stacey, Christopher John, and Little Man. They live on a big, 400-acre farm. Their family still owes money and has to pay taxes. Their papa leaves home each year to find work to pay for the farm…" [BIGmack Switch (Ablenet)]

She then uses a custom overlay on an adapted keyboard to predict whether a described character will be friendly with the Logan children and after reading the selection will match the character to the correct interaction—the 8^th grade standard ( see Figure 4 below). This grade level activity also provides Victoria an opportunity to practice her IEP goal, making choices.

Figure 4. Overlay and adapted keyboard Victoria uses to predict and check predictions. [IntelliKeys (IntelliTools)]

Finally, she will be given picture choices to draw conclusions about underlying cause(s) of the family’s difficulties—the 8^th grade standard and another opportunity to practice her IEP goal, making choices ( see Figure 5 below).

Figure 5. Pictures for Victoria to choose from that represent her opinion of why the Logan family was having a hard time. [Boardmaker symbols (Mayer-Johnson Inc.)]

This example shows how learning priorities from the IEP can be taught within grade level curriculum and adaptations can provide access to curriculum. This activity represents only a small part of Victoria’s whole school day; she should practice this IEP goal and others throughout the school day through curriculum in reading, math, science and other classes that an 8^th grade student takes.

Achieving a balance is both the responsibility and challenge for families and educators. It offers students with significant cognitive disabilities challenging content and the greatest opportunity to prepare them for their future. Educators have not historically been trained to balance these priorities and they will need improved teacher preparation to ensure high quality instruction occurs during this shift. Parents have not received adequate explanations about the reasons for and appropriateness of moving away from a strictly functional-skills approach to an approach that blends functional skills with academics. It will take time for both educators and parents to become comfortable with these new expectations.

Candace Cortiella is Director of The Advocacy Institute (www.AdvocacyInstitute.org), a nonprofit organization dedicated to the development of products, projects and services that work to improve the lives of people with disabilities. The mother of a young adult with learning disabilities and a disability rights advocate for over 17 years, she lives in the Washington, D.C. area.

Donna Wickham is Director of The Inclusive Large Scale Standards and Assessment ( ILSSA), a branch of the Human Development Institute at the University of Kentucky dedicated to improving teaching and assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities around the country. She has been a teacher of high school-aged students with significant cognitive disabilities and deafblindness and helped to develop inclusive preschool services in Lawrence, Kansas.