Functional Curriculum Evidence-Based Education?: Considering Secondary Students With Mild Intellectual Disabilities

Education is currently in an evidence-based era, demanding as well as assuming all educational practices are evidence-based. In the case of a functional curriculum for secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities, despite existing professional wisdom, the state of empirical evidence is unclear. This study represents a systematic review of the literature regarding the evidence-base of a functional curriculum to educate secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities. Seven research-based articles were found in the literature exploring use of a functional curriculum for this population of students, suggesting a lack of research on functional curriculum for secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities in recent years, especially when considering postschool outcomes and adult experiences. The authors concluded a functional curriculum for secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities is not an evidence-based practice at the current time. Education is currently in an evidence-based practice era (i.e., No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002), meaning the instructional practices used to educate students should be evidencebased. According to the United States Department of Education (US DOE, 2002), evidencebased education is “the integration of professional wisdom with the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver instruction.” Empirical evidence is then defined as practices that are scientifically-based or have empirical data as to their effectiveness. Professional wisdom is considered information ascertained through one’s own experiences or through a consensus (US DOE). Given the focus on evidence-based education, it seems intuitive that instructional practices and curriculum for all students should adhere to the definition of evidence-based education, meaning empirical evidence and professional wisdom exist to support their use. While the dual focus appears to be the standard for core academic areas, is it also true for curriculum and instructional practices for non-core content areas as defined by NCLB? This paper will explore the research base on functional curriculum for secondary students with mild intellectual disabilities and discuss if the use of a functional curriculum adheres to the definition of an evidence-based educational practice. The review focuses specifically on students with mild intellectual disabilities as recent consideration of the education of students with mild intellectual disabilities has been largely ignored (see Bouck, 2004b, 2007, 2009a; Polloway, 2006; Wehmeyer, 2006 for exceptions). Implications for use of a functional curriculum and evidence-based education, when considering the population of students who may benefit from a functional curriculum, will also be discussed. Functional Curriculum Slightly different conceptualizations of a functional curriculum exist in the field, including “a curriculum that focuses upon independent living skills and vocational skills, emphasizing communication and social skills” (Evans & Fredericks, 1991, p. 409), and a curriculum focused on skills needed for daily life, such as domestic, vocational, community, and recreation (Browder et al., 2004; Brown et al., Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, 5146 BRNG Hall, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47906. E-mail: [email protected] Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2010, 45(4), 487–499 © Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Evidence-Based Education / 487 1979). However, a key feature of functional curriculum involves a curriculum focused on skills needed to function in adult life (Bouck, 2009b; Browder et al., Brown et al.). Thus, a functional curriculum is multifaceted and typically considered to be composed of the following components (Patton, Cronin, & Jairrels, 1997): ● Functional academics (i.e., modified academic curriculum) (Browder & Snell, 1993). ● Vocational education (i.e., educational programs to prepare students for employment– paid or unpaid) (Vocational Education Act, 1963). ● Community access (i.e., skills to navigate the community and use community resources and services) (Snell & Browder, 1987). ● Daily living (i.e., domestic of life skills experienced as adults) (Bigge, Stump, Spagna, & Silberman, 1999; Edgar & Polloway, 1994). ● Financial (i.e., personal finances and applying money concepts to everyday life) (Wehmeyer, Sands, Knowlton, & Kozleski, 2002). ● Independent living (i.e., living independently and the skills needed to do so, such as home management and food preparation) (Kregel, Wehman, Seyfarth, & Marshall, 1986; Vogelsberg, Williams, & Bellamy, 1982). ● Transportation (i.e., moving about independently, including walking, taking a bus, driving) (Westling & Fox, 2000). ● Social/relationships (i.e., skills to make and maintain friendship and other relationships as well as social competence) (Gumpel, 1994). ● Self-determination (i.e., skills to be autonomous, make decisions, advocate, and control one’s self) (Patton et al., 1997; Wehmeyer, 1992). Educating students with disabilities with a functional curriculum dates back several decades. In 1938 the National Education Association produced a document regarding use of a functional curriculum for students with disabilities (Kolstoe, 1970). However, the peak use of a functional curriculum occurred during the late 1970s-early 1980s, and researchers suggested a general decline in its use from then through the 1990s (Kolstoe). Further, supporting the decline of a focus on functional skills, and thus use of a functional curriculum, Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth (1997) found 32% fewer articles published in six major journals in the field of special education (i.e., Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Mental Retardation, Teaching Exceptional Children, The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, The Journal of Special Education). In addition, Billingsley (1997) calculated that between the mid-1980s and mid1990s, 53% fewer articles relative to functional skills were cited by ERIC. Billingsley and Albertson (1999) suggested the decreased emphasis on functional skills and functional curriculum was related to the increased emphasis on inclusion. Although use of a functional curriculum for students with disabilities had advocates over the years (Bouck, 2004b; Cronin, 1988; Edgar, 1987; Kaiser & Abell, 1994; Patton, Cronin, Polloway, Hutchinson, & Robinson, 1989), it also had critics. For example, a functional curriculum has been viewed as an alternate curriculum and a deviant from the “normal” or acceptable curriculum (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). Others suggested a functional curriculum provided students with disabilities a limited set of skills and contributed to tracking in schools (Edgar & Polloway, 1994; Weaver, Landers, & Adams, 1991). Finally, criticism arose over functional curriculum because it was typically taught in a pull-out setting rather than a general education setting (Field, LeRoy, & Rivera, 1994). Despite the critics, previous research–although not disaggregated for students with mild intellectual disabilities–suggested positive outcomes for students receiving a functional curriculum. For example, Miller (1994) reported positive results after implementing a functional approach when teaching adolescents with high incidence disabilities. After using On Your Own curriculum–a functional curriculum for adolescents with “mild disabilities” geared towards skills in selecting a career, finding living arrangements, and budgeting, Miller found skipping class reduced by 80% and referrals to the principal for reasons of non-compliance behavior reduced by 72%. On a larger scale, Benz and colleagues (Benz, Lindstrom, & Latta, 1999; Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000) studied the Youth Transition 488 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2010 Program (YTP), which provided services for special education students in their last two years of high school that were aligned with components of a functional curriculum (i.e., self-determination; instruction in functional academics, vocational, independent living, and personal-social content areas; paid work experiences). Students in the YTP improved their rates of graduation, with those completing multiple years in the program having even higher rates of graduation. Additionally, 68% of students who participated in the program were engaged in some sort of postsecondary education after graduation or productive work (Benz et al., 2000). For those in productive work, students from YTP reported higher average hourly wages, higher average weekly wages, and higher maintenance of employment. The YTP students were also less likely to have lost their job because they quit, got fired, or were laid off (Benz et al., 1999). These results support the potential of functional skills to positively impact postschool outcomes.