1. Education and
Training
in
Autism
and
Developmental
Disabilities
Focusing on individuals with
autism, intellectual disability and other developmental disabilities
Volume 47
Number 2
DADD
June 2012

2. June 2012
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 125–252

3. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities
The Journal of the Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
The Council for Exceptional Children
Editor: Stanley H. Zucker
Editorial Assistant: Kathleen M. Corley
Arizona State University
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Arizona State University
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Consulting Editors
Martin Agran
Reuben Altman
Phillip J. Belfiore
Sharon Borthwick-Duffy
Michael P. Brady
Fredda Brown
Mary Lynne Calhoun
Sharon F. Cramer
Caroline Dunn
Lise Fox
David L. Gast
Herbert Goldstein
Juliet E. Hart
Carolyn Hughes
Larry K. Irvin
James V. Kahn
H. Earle Knowlton
Barry W. Lavay
Rena Lewis
Kathleen J. Marshall
John McDonnell
Gale M. Morrison
Gabriel A. Nardi
John Nietupski
James R. Patton
Edward A. Polloway
Thomas G. Roberts
Robert S. Rueda
Diane L. Ryndak
Edward J. Sabornie
Laurence R. Sargent
Gary M. Sasso
Tom E. C. Smith
Scott Sparks
Fred Spooner
Robert Stodden
Keith Storey
David L. Westling
John J. Wheeler
Mark Wolery
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities is sent to all members of the Division on Autism and Developmental
Disabilities of The Council for Exceptional Children. All Division members must first be members of The Council for Exceptional Children.
Division membership dues are $30.00 for regular members and $15.00 for full time students. Membership is on a yearly basis. All inquiries
concerning membership, subscription, advertising, etc. should be sent to the Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2900 Crystal
Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, VA 22202-3557. Advertising rates are available upon request.
Manuscripts should be typed, double spaced, and sent (five copies) to the Editor: Stanley H. Zucker, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Box
871811, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1811. Each manuscript should have a cover sheet that gives the names, affiliations, and
complete addresses of all authors.
Editing policies are based on the Publication Manual, the American Psychological Association, 2009 revision. Additional information is
provided on the inside back cover. Any signed article is the personal expression of the author; likewise, any advertisement is the responsibility
of the advertiser. Neither necessarily carries Division endorsement unless specifically set forth by adopted resolution.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities is abstracted and indexed in Psychological Abstracts, PsycINFO, e-psyche,
Abstracts for Social Workers, International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences, Excerpta
Medica, Social Sciences Citation Index, Adolescent Mental Health Abstracts, Educational Administration Abstracts, Educational Research
Abstracts, and Language and Language Behavior Abstracts. Additionally, it is annotated and indexed by the ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Children for publication in the monthly print index Current Index to Journals in Education and the quarterly index,
Exceptional Child Education Resources.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities Vol. 47, No. 2, June 2012, Copyright 2012 by the Division on Austim and
Developmental Disabilities, The Council for Exceptional Children.
Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
The Council for Exceptional Children
Board of Directors
Officers
Members
Past President Emily Bouck
President Teresa Taber-Doughty
President-Elect Richard Gargiulo
Vice President Nikki Murdick
Secretary Toni Merfeld
Treasurer Gardner Umbarger
Debra Cote
Mark Francis
Robert Sandieson
Jordan Shurr (Student Governor)
Debora Wichmanowski
Dianne Zager
Executive Director
Tom E. C. Smith
Publications Chair
Michael Wehmeyer
Communications Chair
Darlene Perner
Conference Coordinator
Cindy Perras
The purposes of this organization shall be to advance the education and welfare of persons with autism and developmental disabilities, research
in the education of persons with autism and developmental disabilities, competency of educators in this field, public understanding of autism
and developmental disabilities, and legislation needed to help accomplish these goals. The Division shall encourage and promote professional
growth, research, and the dissemination and utilization of research findings.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES (ISSN 2154-1647) (USPS 0168-5000) is published quarterly in March, June, September, and December, by The Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3557. Members’ dues to The Council for
Exceptional Children Division on Developmental Disabilities include $8.00 for subscription to EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN
AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES. Subscription to EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES is available without membership; Individual—U.S. $60.00 per year; Canada, PUAS, and all other countries $44.00;
Institutions—U.S. $195.00 per year; Canada, PUAS, and all other countries $199.50; single copy price is $30.00. U.S. Periodicals postage
is paid at Arlington, Virginia 22204 and additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTERS: Send address changes to EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN AUTISM AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES,
2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3557.

4. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental
Disabilities
VOLUME 47
NUMBER 2
JUNE 2012
Documenting Impact of Educational Contexts on Long-Term Outcomes for
Students with Significant Disabilities
127
DIANE LEA RYNDAK, SANDRA ALPER, CAROLYN HUGHES, and JOHN McDONNELL
Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual Disability:
Exploring Postschool Outcomes through the NLTS2
139
EMILY C. BOUCK and GAURI JOSHI
Effects of a Self-Monitoring Strategy on Independent Work Behavior of
Students with Mild Intellectual Disability
154
JENNIFER COUGHLIN, KATHLEEN M. McCOY, AMY KENZER, SARUP R. MATHUR,
and STANLEY H. ZUCKER
Teaching Social Skills to Children with Autism Using the Cool versus Not
Cool Procedure
165
JUSTIN B. LEAF, KATHLEEN H. TSUJI, BRANDY GRIGGS, ANDREW EDWARDS,
MITCHELL TAUBMAN, JOHN McEACHIN, RONALD LEAF, and
MISTY L. OPPENHEIM-LEAF
The Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS): A Promising Method for
Improving Communication Skills of Learners with Autism Spectrum Disorders
176
JENNIFER B. GANZ, RICHARD L. SIMPSON, and EMILY M. LUND
Teacher Education in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Potential Blueprint
187
ERIC SHYMAN
Anxiety Levels in Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder Making the
Transition from Primary to Secondary School
198
ELIZABETH F. HANNAH and KEITH J. TOPPING
Effectiveness of an Essay Writing Strategy for Post-Secondary Students with
Developmental Disabilities
210
SUZANNE WOODS-GROVES, WILLIAM J. THERRIEN, YOUJIA HUA, JO HENDRICKSON,
JULIA SHAW, and CHARLES HUGHES
Comparison of the Effects of Video Models With and Without Verbal Cueing
on Task Completion by Young Adults With Moderate Intellectual Disability
223
LINDA C. MECHLING and TERRI S. COLLINS
Mainstream Teachers’ Experiences of Communicating with Students with
Multiple and Severe Disabilities
236
TANIA DE BORTOLI, SUSAN BALANDIN, PHIL FOREMAN, MICHAEL ARTHUR-KELLY,
and BERNICE MATHISEN
Manuscripts Accepted for Future Publication in Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities
126
The Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities retains literary property rights on copyrighted articles. Up
to 100 copies of the articles in this journal may be reproduced for nonprofit distribution without permission from
the publisher. All other forms of reproduction require permission from the publisher.

5. Manuscripts Accepted for Future Publication in Education
and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities
September 2012
Cognitive strategy instruction for functional mathematical skill: Effects for young adults with
intellectual disability. Youjia Hua, Benjamin S. T. Morgan, Erica R. Kaldenberg, and Minkowan
Goo, University of Iowa, College of Education, Department of Teaching and Learning, N256
Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Effects of a video model to teach students with moderate intellectual disability to use features of an
iPhone. Kathryn Walser, Kevin M. Ayres, and Erika Foote, Department of Special Education, The
University of Georgia, 516 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602-7153.
Group delivered literacy-based behavioral interventions for children with intellectual disability.
Dana Keeter and Jessica L. Bucholz, University of West Georgia, Department of CSI / Ed Annex
228, 1601 Maple Street, Carrollton, GA 30118.
Grade-aligned math instruction for secondary students with moderate intellectual disability. Diane
M. Browder, Bree Jimenez, and Katherine Trela, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro,
Department of Specialized Education Services, 421 School of Education Building, Greensboro, NC
27402-6170.
Two approaches to phonics instruction: Comparison of effects with children with significant
cognitive disability. Elizabeth Finnegan, St. Thomas Aquinas College, 125 Route 340, Sparkill, NY
10976.
Using video modeling to teach young children with autism developmentally-appropriate play and
connected speech. Sarah Clifford Scheflen, Stephanny F. N. Freeman, and Tanya Paparella,
ECPHP, UCLA, Dept. of Child Psychiatry, 77-447 Semel Institute for Neuroscience, 760 Westwood
Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1759.
Preparing children with developmental disabilities for life in the community: A Tanzanian perspective. Angela Stone-MacDonald, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of
Massachusetts, Boston, College of Education and Human Development, 100 Morrissey Blvd.,
Boston, MA 02125-3393.
Comparing the effects of video prompting with and without error correction on skill acquisition for
students with intellectual disability. Helen I. Cannella-Malone, Joe E. Wheaton, Pei-Fang Wu,
Christopher A. Tullis, and Ju Hee Park, The Ohio State University, A348 PAES Building, 305 W
17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210.
A review of academic mathematics instruction for students with mild intellectual disability. Casey
Hord and Emily C. Bouck, 6108A, BRNG Hall, Purdue University, 100 N. University St., West
Lafayette, IN 47907.
Comparing teacher-directed and computer-assisted constant time delay to teaching functional
sight words for students with moderate intellectual disability. Mari Beth Coleman, Kevin J. Hurley,
and David F. Cihak, University of Tennessee, A416 Jane and David Bailey Education Complex, 1122
Volunteer Boulevard, Knoxville, TN 37996-3442.
Increasing comprehension for middle school students with moderate intellectual disability on
age-appropriate texts. Jordan Shurr and Teresa Taber-Doughty, Purdue University, Dept. of
Educational Studies, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098.
Address is supplied for author in boldface type.

6. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, 47(2), 127–138
© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Documenting Impact of Educational Contexts on Long-Term
Outcomes for Students with Significant Disabilities
Diane Lea Ryndak
Sandra Alper
University of Florida
University of Northern Iowa
Carolyn Hughes
John McDonnell
Vanderbilt University
University of Utah
Abstract: Follow-up studies of students with significant disabilities consistently indicate poor post-school
outcomes. Although existing research indicates that services in inclusive general education contexts can result
in positive short-term outcomes for these individuals during their school years, there are few investigations of the
lives of adults with significant disabilities who experienced inclusive education over extended periods of time.
Considering the lack of longitudinal studies, it currently is difficult to determine whether young adults lead more
successful lives relative to employment, residential situations, use of leisure time, and friendships and social
networks, as a function of inclusive education. This paper focuses on issues faced when conducting research to
document the impact of contexts on long-term outcomes for students with significant disabilities, especially when
addressing relative effectiveness of services in inclusive general education contexts and more restrictive contexts.
Recommendations for future research and related policy and funding are suggested.
In these times of accountability, when state
and federal legislatures are linking both financial support for schools and salaries for teachers and administrators to student outcomes,
attention is being turned to the short- and
long-term outcomes that are expected for students with disabilities. With increased access
to the general curriculum and inclusive general education contexts, students with disabilities are expected to make adequate yearly
progress and earn regular diplomas. For students with significant disabilities this trend is
resulting in many positive changes (e.g., increased acquisition of general education content; inclusion in district and state accountability measures). It also is raising questions
about the desired outcomes of educational
services for this group of students, as well as
the efficacy of various forms of curriculum
content, instructional practices, and instruc-
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Diane Ryndak, School of Special
Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood
Studies, PO Box 117050, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL 32611-7050.
tional contexts that comprise their educational experiences.
With the passage of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act (1975) the education system was mandated for the first time to
provide educational services for students with
significant disabilities (Federal Register,
1977). As these mandated services were implemented, schools struggled with articulating
the purpose of education for this set of students, as well as the curriculum content and
instructional practices that would lead to outcomes that reflected that purpose of education. As described in the literature from that
period, schools initially provided services for
students with significant disabilities based on
the curriculum content provided for students
without disabilities who were performing at
the same developmental level, demonstrating
the same developmental skills and milestones
(Williams & Gotts, 1977). For the most part,
however, this content was taught in settings
that segregated students with significant disabilities from classmates who did not have
disabilities and the contexts in which they received instruction (Brown et al., 1978).
Some school districts, however, had opted
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
127

7. to provide special education services for students with significant disabilities prior to the
1975 mandate. One of those districts began to
articulate a purpose of education for this set
of students, as well as study the long-term
outcomes for their graduates (Van Deventer
et al., 1981). The Madison (Wisconsin) Metropolitan Schools stated that the purpose of
education for students with significant disabilities was to assist in maximizing their independent functioning in the heterogeneous society
of adults without disabilities, including where
and how those adults work, live, spend leisure
time, and access the community. To determine if their services were meeting this goal,
the district studied where their graduates with
significant disabilities were spending day time
hours. Initially the district found that only 2%
of these graduates spent day time hours in a
non-sheltered work place, while 98% spent
day time hours in a sheltered work place or at
home. Since these outcomes did not reflect
the district’s stated purpose of education for
these students, the district changed the curriculum content taught and the instructional
practices implemented for their current students with significant disabilities. The changes
focused on teaching naturally-occurring (i.e.,
functional) activities in naturally-occurring
contexts (i.e., general education and community contexts) with same-age peers who did
not have disabilities. Thus, the district
changed both the curriculum content taught
and the context in which instruction occurred. After six years of implementing these
changes, the district found that 91% of the
new graduates spent day time hours in a nonsheltered work place, while only 9% spent day
time hours in a sheltered work place or at
home. The district concluded that these longterm outcomes more closely reflected their
purpose of education for their graduates with
significant disabilities, and that long-term student outcomes had improved after these
changes in the curriculum content taught and
the context in which the students received
instruction.
Over the decades, numerous studies have
been conducted to determine the long-term
outcomes for students with disabilities (Wagner, Blackorby, Cameto, & Newman, 1993;
Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levin, & Garza,
2006). Unfortunately, the methodologies used
128
/
for such studies have not provided outcome
data specifically related to graduates with significant disabilities. For example, the use of
data submitted to the U. S. Office of Education limits analysis to disability classification
and percent of time in general education.
Since federal disability classifications do not
include “significant disabilities” or “severe disabilities,” outcomes for students with significant disabilities must be extrapolated from
data on the existing categories, using prevalence data. In addition, the studies on longterm outcomes focus heavily on employment.
For individuals with significant disabilities
who have exited school services, however, the
focus must go beyond employment and include overall quality of life, including residential situations, use of leisure time, access to the
community, and social networks.
The issues faced when studying longitudinal
outcomes for students with significant disabilities are affected further by the call for research in special education to match the rigor
of research in non-educational fields, resulting in a delineation of quality indicators for
various methodologies (Cook, Landrum,
Cook, & Tankersley, 2008; Odom et al., 2005).
While describing the need for quality indicators, Odom and his colleagues stated: “Special
education research, because of its complexity,
may be the hardest of the hardest-to-do science. One feature of special education research that makes it more complex is the variability of the participants” (p. 139). We would
argue further that, while this is the case for
special education overall, it is even more evident when considering special education for
students with significant disabilities. Both the
low-incidence of significant disabilities and
the numerous combinations of disabilities affecting the students comprising this group
add to the complexity of the participants and
the individualized services they require. The
very nature of these complexities limits the
field’s ability to use randomized trials, large-N
studies, and norm-referenced assessments to
study the long-term outcomes for students
with significant disabilities.
This article has four purposes. First, we discuss social validity and the role of social validation methodology in the study of long-term
outcomes for students with significant disabilities. Second, we discuss the extent to which
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

8. social validity is evident in research on services
in inclusive general education contexts, and
on the teaching of social skills in high schools.
Third, we discuss the current status of research on inclusive education and post-school
outcomes, and the extent to which that research is socially valid in representing longterm outcomes for individuals with significant
disabilities in relation to their quality of life,
including employment, residential situations,
use of leisure time, access to the community,
and social networks. Finally, we make recommendations for future research and funding
support.
Social Validity and Long-Term Outcomes for
Students with Significant Disabilities
Definition and rationale for social validation.
The concept of social validity reaches far beyond the field of education. Perceptions of
the usefulness and satisfaction with consumer
products (e.g., automobiles, home appliances,
banking and credit card practices) have been
influential in business and manufacturing for
years. In the field of medicine, there are controversies as to whether medical practices
should be (a) standardized (i.e., quantified)
by diagnosis and not altered by a physician’s
clinical judgment based on patients’ characteristics, or (b) tailored by a physician to
match the characteristics of individual patients and the contexts in which they live
(Groopman, 2010).
The concept of social validity was first introduced in education by Kazdin (1977) and
Wolf (1978). In part, it was conceived as a
response to early concerns about whether or
not instructional practices based on applied
behavior analysis, with its emphasis on operationally defined behaviors and methods of influencing the consequences of responses,
were too controlling, unethical, or undesirable (Kennedy, 2005). Prior to the 1970s and
the development of values such as normalization, many persons with significant disabilities
were routinely institutionalized in congregate,
segregated, and dehumanizing settings. “Education” largely consisted of meaningless and
repetitive activities, such as putting puzzles
together, sorting objects, or stuffing envelopes
with blank pieces of papers. Research efforts
often were focused on demonstrating that
these individuals were capable of learning.
Unfortunately, little emphasis was placed on
the value and meaningfulness of the skills they
were being taught; rather, more emphasis was
placed on the assessment of a person’s disability than on the person’s demonstration of
competence as validated by learning new and
meaningful skills.
More recently, however, the importance of
documenting whether or not a particular educational intervention results in positive outcomes in reading, math, science, social, or
employment skills within the context of school
and community settings for all students has
been recognized. Equally important are the
reactions and perceptions of the intervention
by persons in these settings. For students with
significant disabilities, educational interventions involve teachers, students without disabilities, family members, administrators, and
community members. Questions concerning
the relevance of instructional content, instructional practices, and short- and long- term
outcomes of instruction, as well as consumer
satisfaction, are just as controversial today as
they have been for decades. Social validation
methodology was developed to better understand and interpret the larger social context
in which instruction and learning occur. It
represents an attempt to address the relevancy, effectiveness, usefulness, and appropriateness of curriculum content, instructional
methods, education supports, and outcomes
of instruction as perceived by various stakeholders in educational and other applied settings. Kennedy (2005) pointed out that social
validity is not objective, precise, or quantifiable; rather it is a subjective concept. Perceptions of educational interventions change,
therefore, relative to several variables, such as
the priorities of different stakeholders, time,
location, and social mores.
Social validity is particularly important
when attempting to evaluate the long-term
outcomes for students with significant disabilities. For nearly four decades, the dismal outcomes of post-school follow-up studies of students with disabilities, and particularly those
with significant disabilities, have indicated low
rates of employment, dependence on family
members or social welfare, few social contacts,
and long periods of inactivity (see National
Center on Disability and Social Security Administration, 2000). The results of these stud-
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
129

9. ies raise serious concerns about the social validity of education for these students.
Assessing social validity in education. Three
basic approaches have evolved to estimate social validity in education: (a) subjective evaluation, (b) normative comparison, and (c) sustainability of results. Subjective evaluation
involves the perceptions of instructional relevancy by some group or groups of stakeholders (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978). Students, family members, teachers, school administrators,
or community members may be asked to rate
the importance of instructional goals, methods, and outcomes. The advantage of subjective evaluation is that consumer input is gathered and valued. However, there are at least
two disadvantages to this method. First, different sets of stakeholders, as well as individual
people, have different perceptions of what is
meaningful and relevant at any point in time
(e.g., parents’ and teachers’ priorities for instructional objectives). Second, consumer perceptions of a particular intervention might be
unrelated to positive outcomes, particularly
long-term outcomes.
Normative comparison, sometimes referred
to as social comparison, involves comparing
the performance of students with disabilities
with some other reference group (e.g., sameage peers without disabilities) (Kazdin, 1977;
Van Houten, 1979; Wolf, 1978). Normative
comparison is always dependent on social
standards. Compare, for example, federal or
state mandated standardized age-normed tests
versus teacher criteria for individualized student performance within a particular classroom, or differential expectations of employers. Normative comparison is based on criteria
within a given context; however, a disadvantage centers on the question of whether or not
meeting “average” standards is always advantageous for a particular individual. Using normative comparisons can minimize the appreciation of unique human differences and lead
to expectations that all persons should be held
to the same standard. Finally, questions linger
as to what exactly would constitute an appropriate reference group for students with significant disabilities.
Sustainability of results refers to the question of whether or not the outcomes of instruction are maintained over time (Kennedy,
2002). This approach to social validation is
130
/
extremely important as we attempt to document the long-term efficacy of education in
inclusive general education contexts. Clearly,
studies have documented the short-tem effects
of services in inclusive general education contexts (e.g., Alper & Ryndak, 1992; Fisher &
Ryndak, 2001; Ryndak & Fisher, 2003). The
disadvantage is that many behavioral changes
are not maintained without sustained intervention. A host of intervening variables (e.g.,
different teachers, individual student characteristics, changing local standards, inconsistent support services) exacerbate the methodological difficulties of relating services in
inclusive general education contexts to postschool outcomes for persons with significant
disabilities (Ryndak, Ward, Alper, Montgomery, & Storch, 2010).
Failure to apply social validation methodology.
We argue that one factor contributing to the
poor post-school outcomes characteristic of
many adults with significant disabilities is the
failure of special education policy makers and
researchers to socially validate the prevailing
high school curricula, instructional strategies,
and service delivery models with respect to
long-term outcomes. Studies indicate that
those who have the most at stake with respect
to the post-school outcomes of secondary curricula (e.g., parents, students, employers) often have little or no input into the curriculum
goals, instructional procedures, and outcomes
that comprise the content and delivery of high
school programs for this population (e.g.,
Kolb & Hanley-Maxwell, 2003). Unless systems
change agents systematically apply social validation methodology and solicit the views of
participants most directly involved in the transition from school to adult life, and incorporate their perspectives into programmatic decisions, secondary curricula likely will fail to
effectively address the participants’ long-term
values, goals, and needs.
To illustrate, employment and follow-up
studies have indicated since the 1980s that the
primary cause of people with disabilities lose
their jobs is not because they cannot perform
required tasks, but because of difficulty fitting
in socially in the workplace (e.g., Brickey,
Campbell, & Browning, 1985; Butterworth &
Strauch, 1994; Chadsey, 2007; Greenspan &
Shoultz, 1981; Kochany & Keller, 1981; Wehman, Hill, Goodall, Cleveland, & Pentecost,
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

10. 1982). Social validation studies conducted in
employment settings indicate that employers
of people with disabilities have expectations
for their employees on the job (e.g., interacting with co-workers at breaks, requesting and
providing assistance, responding appropriately to constructive criticism) and that little
tolerance exists for behaviors such as yelling,
complaining, assaulting others, invading privacy, or interrupting meetings unannounced
(e.g., Agran, Salzberg, & Martella, 1991; McConaughy, Stowitschek, Salzberg, & Peatross,
1989; Salzberg, Agran, & Lignurgaris/Kraft,
1986). At the same time, employers do not
believe it is their job to teach expected social
skills; rather, employers typically hold that employees with or without disabilities should enter employment with “job-ready” social skill
repertoires so supervisors can focus on training requisite skills to maximize job performance (Butterworth & Strauch, 1994). We argue that if employers’ perspectives were
heeded, a critical component of secondary
programs for students with significant disabilities would be teaching socially validated social
skills. However, doing so does not appear to
be the case. For example, Guy, Sitlington,
Larsen, and Frank’s (2009) statewide study
revealed that employment training, in general, is limited in secondary education programs. Even when employment training is implemented, its main focus is teaching
technical skills versus job-related social skills.
Social Validity of Inclusive Education and
Teaching Social Skills in High Schools
Inclusive education in secondary general education classes and post-school outcomes. Research
indicates that receiving services in inclusive
secondary general education classes and demonstrating accepted social skills relate to postschool employment success for students with
significant disabilities (e.g., Baer et al., 2003;
Benz, Yovanoff, & Doren, 1997; Blackorby,
Hancock, & Siegel, 1993; Heal & Rusch, 1995;
Test et al., 2009; White & Weiner, 2004). A
fundamental argument supporting the inclusion of high school students with significant
disabilities in general education classes is that
these students need access to their general
education peers as models of expected social
behavior (e.g., Alwell & Cobb, 2009; Naraian,
2010). Being educated in separate, segregated
settings restricts opportunities to develop relationships and learn social skills needed for
everyday life in school and adult life. On the
other hand, interacting with their general education peers can promote acquisition of social skills when peers serve as models of expected behavior (e.g., Hughes et al., 2000).
The logical place to teach social skills valued on the job and in adult life is in a student’s high school environment where an
abundance of peers is found, who are competent in performing everyday social interactions. Indeed, studies show that general education peers can be effective teachers of
appropriate social skills for students with significant disabilities, and that these skills can
generalize to individuals and settings not associated with instruction (e.g., Hughes et al.,
2004; Hughes et al., 2000; Hunt, Alwell, Goetz,
& Sailor, 1990). Rather than wait until students are in a post-school employment setting,
researchers, employers, parents, and others
argue that social skills instruction should be
provided in secondary curricula for students
with intellectual and related disabilities (Kolb
& Hanley-Maxwell, 2003). Considering that
limited social skills is a characteristic of many
students with intellectual disabilities (The
AAIDD Ad Hoc Committee on Terminology
and Classification, 2010), high schools must
be responsible for teaching social skills to students with significant disabilities who have not
yet acquired these critical skills. The fact that
social skills instruction with peers is not occurring regularly in high school on a regular basis
(Carter & Hughes, 2007) is a blatant failure to
apply social validation methodology to the secondary curriculum in relation to long-term
outcomes of students with significant disabilities.
Social validation of teaching social skills: Parents’ perspectives.
As discussed earlier, one
method of social validation (i.e., subjective
evaluation) includes querying stakeholders
about their goals and expected short- and
long-term outcomes for a proposed or ongoing program. Particularly as youth get closer
to exiting school, there is a growing concern
among parents to have their children learn
social skills needed to get along on the job
and in the community. Their collective concerns are an example of social validation: par-
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
131

11. ents are saying that social skills are critical to
success in adult society (e.g., Hughes,
Brigham, & Cosgriff, 2010; Hughes, Killian, &
Fischer, 1996). Parents report (a) wanting
their high school-age children to learn to fit in
socially by learning critical social skills, and
(b) believing that classmates without disabilities can teach their children these skills
(Hughes et al.).
For example, upon hearing that his son
could participate in a peer mentoring program at his high school, one father said, “It’s
about time--we’ve needed this for so long.” He
expressed how critical it was for his son to
learn what is and is not appropriate behavior,
both to promote relationships with peers and
to learn what was expected on the job. One
mother expressed concerns that her son was
close to exiting high school but lacked socially
appropriate skills required in the work place.
She indicated that, “What we need now more
than anything is social skills,” and that this was
her top priority for her son’s participation in
the peer mentoring program. She followed up
by saying that society wants students to go on
to be “card-carrying, tax-paying citizens” and
in order to do so, it was critical that her son
learn the social behaviors expected in adult
life while he was still in high school.
Despite parents’ strong views on the value
of incorporating social skills instruction into
the school day for their children with significant disabilities, rarely is their input sought on
the content of secondary curricula and instructional activities (Kolb & Hanley-Maxwell,
2003). Further, unless instruction on social
skills occurs, there is little likelihood that
schools will provide the social interaction and
opportunities to learn social skills that parents
value, even when their children with significant disabilities have access to general education classmates (e.g., Carter, Hughes, Guth, &
Copeland, 2005; Hughes, Carter, Hughes,
Bradford, & Copeland, 2002). Unfortunately,
observational studies show that instruction on
social skills rarely occurs in general education
high school contexts (Carter et al.), suggesting that parents’ perspectives and goals are
not being incorporated into identifying relevant secondary curriculum content.
Applying social validation methodology to high
school curriculum. Parents, employers, and researchers are calling for opportunities for stu-
132
/
dents with significant disabilities to learn the
social skills needed for employment and other
aspects of adult life from their classmates without disabilities while in high school. For this to
occur, secondary curricula should be preparing students with significant disabilities for
employment and other aspects of adult life.
We argue that support should be provided by
funding agencies (e.g., Institute of Education
Sciences) to systematically conduct social validation research investigating the perspectives
of critical stakeholders toward instruction on
social interaction, and that these views be considered when identifying the secondary curriculum content for students with significant disabilities.
Underutilization of social validity in educational
research. The underutilization of social validity in educational research is related to the
overarching questions of the purpose of education. In general education for students without disabilities, controversy exists over the desired outcomes of education. Should the goal
of education be to develop well-rounded educated individuals with a broad base of knowledge, or to focus on job readiness for the
global economy? Similar questions have been
raised as to the purpose of inclusion in general education contexts. Should the primary
emphasis of inclusion be the development of
social skills and friendships, or should the
emphasis be broadened to include readiness
to work, live, and participate in the community? Our position is that both emphases are
crucial. Incorporating the development of social skills and friendships into the purpose of
education in general education contexts for
students with significant disabilities need not
jeopardize their development of skills needed
for employment and living in the community.
Unfortunately, disagreement on these questions compounds efforts to assess social
validity.
Finally, not all special education researchers are focused on the long-term goals of improving quality of life after school years. Many
scholars, understandably, emphasize effective
ways for students with disabilities to meet state
standards for grade-level performance in
math, reading, and science related to provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. Few
researchers have addressed the social validity
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

12. of inclusion in general education contexts relative to post-school outcomes.
Current Status of Research on Services in
Inclusive Contexts and Post-School Outcomes
While research examining inclusive education
for students with significant disabilities has
significantly increased over the last decade
(Halvorsen & Neary, 2009; Ryndak & Alper,
2003), the primary dependent variables used
in the majority of the research studies have
focused on short-term social and educational
outcomes. For example, in a research review
on promoting social interactions between students with significant disabilities and their
peers without disabilities, Carter and Hughes
(2007) concluded that creating common social and educational experiences between students with and without disabilities results in
increased acceptance of students with significant disabilities, increased frequency and
quality of social interactions between peers,
and the development of friendships during
and after school hours (Carter & Hughes).
However, they also point out that “In most
research studies, the long-term effects of interventions have not been evaluated, highlighting the need for longitudinal evaluations
that extend over the course of multiple semesters or school years” (p. 321).
Similarly, Hunt and McDonnell (2007) examined research on strategies for supporting
effective instruction to students with significant disabilities in general education classes.
They concluded that a number of studentand classroom-based interventions have
proven to be effective in promoting students’
acquisition of a variety of academic and functional skills. They also noted that a pervasive
weakness in this research literature was a lack
of attention by researchers to the generalization of skills to day-to-day activities, the maintenance of skills across time, and the longterm impacts on students’ overall quality of
life.
The intervention literature clearly documents that, as a field, we have effective strategies for increasing immediate social and educational outcomes for students with significant
disabilities in general education classes. The
assumption is that students’ participation in
general education classes, and their improved
social and education performance in these
contexts, will lead to better outcomes and enhanced quality of life after they exit school.
Unfortunately, the nature of the intervention
studies completed to date simply do not yet
allow for this conclusion.
Some evidence supporting the long-term
benefits of inclusive education can be found
in studies that have examined the status of
students after they leave school (Benz, Lindstrom, & Yovanoff, 2000; Benz et al., 1997;
Heal, Khoju, & Rusch, 1997; Ryndak, Ward,
Alper, Montgomery, & Storch, 2010; Ryndak,
Ward, Alper, Storch, & Montgomery, 2010;
Wagner et al., 1993; Wagner et al., 2006;
White & Weiner, 2004). For example, White
and Weiner conducted a correlational study
examining the relationship between educational placement and community-based instruction on employment outcomes for 104
young adults with significant disabilities. One
of the strongest predictors of paid, community
employment for these students following
school was the degree to which they were
included in general education contexts with
age-appropriate peers prior to graduation.
In a retrospective qualitative study, Ryndak,
Ward, Alper, Montgomery, and Storch (2010)
examined the impact of inclusive education
on two individuals with severe significant disabilities who attended the same self-contained
class when they were 15 years of age. Data
sources included: (a) observations at age 15
and 25; (b) interviews with the individuals
with significant disabilities, family members,
friends, and adult service providers; and (c)
educational and adult services records. One of
these individuals was identified as the “highest
functioning” student in their class and the
other was identified as the “lowest functioning” student. In subsequent school years the
“highest functioning” student remained in
self-contained classes while the “lowest functioning” student received services in general
education classes. Three years after exiting
the educational system the “lowest functioning” student consistently had been employed
as a judicial system government employee, living in an apartment with weekly support for
budgeting and independent functioning, and
participating within an extensive social support network. In contrast, the “highest functioning” student had lost numerous jobs and
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
133

13. at the time was working at a sheltered workshop, was living with family members, and had
no social support network beyond family
members.
Finally, the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) I and the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) II funded by
the U. S. Department of Education have also
attempted to identify educational and school
factors that influence post-school outcomes
for students with disabilities. Findings from
these studies also suggest that taking courses
in the general education curriculum, especially vocational education courses, has a positive impact on students’ post-school outcomes (Wagner et al., 1993; Wagner et al,
2006).
Although the available evidence suggests
that inclusive education has a positive impact on post-school outcomes, most of the
published research studies on post-school outcomes were not designed to specifically examine the relationship between students’ participation in general education classes and the
general education curriculum, and their quality of life following school. Some of the limitations of the existing studies include:
●
●
●
●
●
The primary dependent variables of postschool adjustment are overly focused on
employment outcomes. Data on variables
linked to individuals’ levels of independence, self-determination, community participation, depth and breadth of social networks, and overall satisfaction with quality
of life are essentially nonexistent.
Measures of the characteristics of services in
inclusive general education contexts are
broad (i.e., number of general education
courses taken, amount of time in general
education classes) and do not address the
range, intensity, or quality of instruction
that students receive in these contexts.
The measures of academic performance
and social connectedness are weak if they
exist at all.
Measures of student and family characteristics are broad and often don’t address variables that might influence student performance during school or access to resources
after school (e.g., family income).
The impacts of community characteristics
(i.e., rural vs. urban; levels of unemploy-
134
/
●
●
●
ment; affordable housing) are frequently
not controlled for when drawing conclusions about students’ post-school outcomes.
The type, intensity, and quality of community
services and supports available to graduates
are rarely controlled for when drawing conclusions about post-school outcomes.
Measures of school and post-school experiences often are based on student and parent reports, or analysis of school or agency
records, rather than direct observation.
The number of students with significant disabilities, especially those with more significant disabilities, represents a small portion
of the sample which prevents a comprehensive analysis of the features of students’ educational experiences that might impact
post-school outcomes.
What these limitations point out is that
addressing the question of how inclusive education, and students’ access and progress in
the general education curriculum, impact
their post-school outcomes will require the
implementation of one or more national longitudinal studies that systematically track the
breadth, intensity, and quality of the participation of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in general education
classes and the general education curriculum
throughout their school years and into adulthood.
Discussion
We have addressed some of the methodological issues in documenting post-school outcomes for students with significant disabilities.
Specifically, we focused on the importance of
social validity, the need for more emphasis
during high school on social skills related to
employment and other long-term outcomes,
and the need for longitudinal studies focused
on young adults with significant disabilities.
Based on our review of the literature, the
following recommendations for practitioners
and researchers are offered.
Recommendations for Increasing Emphasis on
Social Validity
First, there is a need for more consumer input
during the school years about curriculum
goals. Too often, general and special educa-
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

14. tors, parents, and school administrators disagree. These issues are exacerbated by legislative mandates and the economy. Many times,
issues involving post-school outcomes are simply not addressed until shortly before or after
exiting school. In addition, there is a need for
more student input into their own educational program based on their desires for the
future. There is a great need to encourage
teachers, students, family members, administrators, and researchers to think ahead and
consider options for post-school options.
Second, implications for teacher preparation should be reconsidered. General education teachers need to be better trained to
adapt and accommodate curriculum for students with disabilities and recognize that not
all students can or should meet the same performance criteria. Many higher education faculty in elementary and secondary general education are more focused on curriculum
content of academic subjects rather than
meeting individual needs of diverse learners.
Most states mandate only a two to three credit
hour course in meeting the needs of diverse
learners for general education teacher licensure, and many of these courses focus primarily on students with mild disabilities. Unfortunately, student teachers all too often are
trained in non-inclusive settings with little or
no contact with students with significant disabilities.
Ryndak and Alper (2003) developed a
model for determining relevant curriculum
content for a student with significant disabilities that blends relevant general education
content and functional content. The primary
advantage of this model is that it enables students with significant disabilities to remain in
general education contexts and have access to
the general curriculum while, at the same
time, receive instruction that facilitates participation, as independently as possible, in context-based activities (e.g., in school, on the
job, in other aspects of adult life in the community). This model relies on collaboration
between special and general educators, as well
as the students, their family members, and
their social support network.
Third, mastering the technical and social
skills needed for successful post-school outcomes for students with significant disabilities
is, in part, contingent on the context of in-
struction. Instruction in the natural contexts
in which skills typically are used is a priority in
the education of secondary students with significant disabilities. Currently there are two
variables that impact the instructional contexts for these students. First, many researchers, schools, and parents differentiate the context for instruction based on a student’s age;
that is, through the age of 18 many students
with significant disabilities receive instruction
in the same contexts as their same-age peers
who do not have disabilities. Thus, if there is a
community-based employment training program for general education students in a high
school, a student with significant disabilities
might receive instruction on employment
skills with those general education students in
the same employment contexts. When general
education students exit school services at age
18, students with significant disabilities would
either receive community-based services (i.e.,
on the job, in residential situations, in the
community-at-large) through age 22, or attend post-secondary education programs on
university or college campuses.
In contrast, some researchers, schools, and
parents differentiate the context for instruction based on the curriculum content they
choose for the student to learn. For instance,
the emphasis of NCLB on meeting general
education academic standards might result in
maximizing students’ participation in academic contexts with their same-age peers in
both secondary and post-secondary settings;
emphasis on transitioning to adult life in the
community might result in maximizing a student’s participation in community-based contexts (e.g., employment sites, residential situations). John Dewey held that a child is best
prepared for life as an adult by being allowed
to blend what is learned in school with life
outside of school and experiencing that which
has meaning in his/her life. The dilemma
facing schools today is focusing on the individualized needs and future goals of a student
with significant disabilities, and maximizing
their educational experiences related to both
general education content and their functional needs. Additionally, the education system must struggle with the concept that the
effectiveness of education services for all students will not necessarily be based solely on
standardized state and district assessments.
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
135

15. Need for Longitudinal Studies
Design and implementation of a comprehensive longitudinal study for students with significant disabilities would require a significant
financial investment by the federal government and the participation of researchers
from a number of disciplines. This effort
would face a number of methodological challenges including obtaining a national representative sample; defining and quantifying the
critical dimensions of education in inclusive
general education contexts; obtaining reliable
and valid measures of student learning and
social adjustment during school; defining and
quantifying meaningful post-school outcomes;
and controlling for variation in school-based
and post-school services. However, such an
endeavor could have significant benefits in
informing educational policy for this group of
students for years to come.
Given the current state of research on the
impact of services in inclusive general education contexts, as well as the mandates in NCLB
(2001) and IDEA (2004) on students’ access
to and progress in the general curriculum, it
would seem prudent to ascertain what elements of students’ participation in the general
curriculum directly impacts their post-school
outcomes. We need to know whether learning
content from the general curriculum, learning social and functional skills that are linked
directly to students’ post-school contexts and
outcomes, participating in general education
classes and activities, or all three make a difference in the effectiveness of students’ educational programs. We also need to know
whether holding schools accountable only for
short-term learning and social outcomes is
having the intended impacts. We might find
that if we really want to improve the quality of
education for students with significant disabilities, then schools should instead be held responsible for whether students successfully
transition into post-secondary education or
employment, and participate fully in the social
and cultural networks of the community.
References
AAIDD Ad Hoc Committee on Terminology and
Classification (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th ed.).
136
/
Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Agran, M., Salzberg, C. L., & Martella, R. C. (1991).
Expectancy effects in social validation methodology: Are there differential expectations for employees with mental retardation? Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 425– 434.
Alper, S., & Ryndak, D.L. (1992). Hey, don’t forget
about us! Educating students with severe handicapping conditions in integrated elementary programs. Elementary School Administrators’ Journal, 92,
373–387.
Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Social and communicative interventions and transition outcomes
for youth with disabilities: A systematic review.
Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32,
94 –107.
Baer, R., Flexer, R., Beck, S., Amstutz, N., Hoffmon,
L., Brothers, J., & Zechman, C. (2003). A collaborative followup study on transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 7–25.
Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000).
Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children,
66, 509 –529.
Benz, M. R., Yovanoff, P., & Doren, B. (1997).
School-to-work components that predict postschool success for students with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 151–165.
Blackorby, J., Hancock, G. R., & Siegel, S. (1993).
Human capital and structural explanations of postschool success for youth with disabilities: A latent variable exploration of the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Brickey, M. P., Campbell, K. M., & Browning, L. J.
(1985). A five-year follow-up of sheltered workshop employees placed in competitive jobs. Mental Retardation, 20, 67– 83.
Brown, L., Branston, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S.,
Johnson, F., Wilcox, B., & Gruenewald, L. (1978).
A rationale for comprehensive longitudinal interactions between severely handicapped students
and nonhandicapped students and other citizens.
American Association for the Education of the Severely
and Profoundly Handicapped Review, 4, 3–14.
Butterworth, J., & Strauch, J. D. (1994). The relationship between social competence and success
in the competitive work place for persons with
mental retardation. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities,
29, 118 –133.
Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2007). Social interaction interventions: Promoting socially supported
environments and teaching new skills. In S. L.
Odom, R. H. Horner, M. E. Snell, & J. Blacher
(Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities
(pp. 310 –329). New York: The Guilford Press.
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

16. Carter, E. W., Hughes, C., Guth, C. B., & Copeland,
S. R. (2005). Factors influencing social interaction among high school students with intellectual
disabilities and their general education peers.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 366 –
377.
Chadsey, J. (2007). Adult social relationships. In
S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M.E. Snell, & J.
Blacher (Eds.), Handbook of developmental disabilities (pp. 449 – 466). New York: Guilford Press.
Cook, B. G., Landrum, T. J., Cook, L., & Tankersley,
M. (2008). Introduction to the special issue: Evidence-based practices in special education. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 67– 68.
Federal Register. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, August 23, 1977.
Fisher, D., & Ryndak, D. L. (Eds.) (2001). Foundations of inclusive education: A compendium of articles
on effective strategies to achieve inclusive education.
Baltimore, MD: TASH.
Greenspan, S., & Shoultz, B. (1981). Why mentally
retarded adults lose their jobs: Social incompetence as a factor in work adjustment. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 2, 23–38.
Groopman, J. (2010, February 11). Health care:
Who knows best? The New York Review of Books,
117, 12–15.
Guy, B. A., Sitlington, P. L., Larsen, M. D., & Frank,
A. R. (2009). What are high schools offering as
preparation for employment? Career Development
for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 30 – 40.
Halvorsen, A. T., & Neary, T. (2009). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for success. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Heal, L. W., & Rusch, F. R. (1995). Predicting employment for students who leave special education high school programs. Exceptional Children,
61, 472– 487.
Heal, L. W., Khoju, M., & Rusch, F. R. (1997).
Predicting quality of life of youths after they leave
special education high school programs. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 279 –299.
Hughes, C., Brigham, N. B., & Cosgriff, J. C. (2010).
A social interaction program for high school students with autism and intellectual disabilities. Unpublished raw data.
Hughes, C., Carter, E. W., Hughes, T., Bradford, E.,
& Copeland, S. R. (2002). Effects of instructional
versus non-instructional roles on the social interactions of high school students. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities, 37, 146 –162.
Hughes, C., Fowler, S. E., Copeland, S. R., Agran,
M., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Church-Pupke, P. P.
(2004). Supporting high school students to engage in recreational activities with peers. Behavior
Modification, 28, 3–27.
Hughes, C., Killian, D. J., & Fischer, G. M. (1996).
Validation and assessment of a conversational interaction intervention. American Journal on Mental
Retardation, 100, 493–509.
Hughes, C., Rung. L. L., Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran,
M., Copeland, S. R., & Hwang, B. (2000). Selfprompted communication book use to increase
social interaction among high school students.
The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 25, 153–166.
Hunt, P., & McDonnell, J. (2007). Inclusive education. In S. L. Odom, R. H. Horner, M. Snell, & J.
Blacher (Eds.), Handbook on Developmental Disabilities (pp. 269 –291). New York: Guilford Press.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1990).
Generalized effects of conversation skill training.
Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 250 –260.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108 – 446, 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1400 et seq.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied
significance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427– 452.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennedy, C. H. (2002). The maintenance of behavior as an indicator of social validity. Behavior Modification, 26, 594 – 606.
Kochany, L., & Keller, J. (1981). An analysis and evaluation of the failures of severely disabled individuals
in competitive employment. In P. Wehman, Competitive employment: New horizons for severely disabled individuals (pp. 181–198). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Kolb, S. M., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (2003). Critical
social skills for adolescents with high incidence
disabilities: Parental perspectives. Exceptional Children, 69, 163–179.
McConaughy, E. K., Stowitschek, J. J., Salzberg,
C. L., & Peatross, D. K. (1989). Work supervisors’
ratings of social behaviors related to employment
success. Rehabilitation Psychology, 34, 3–15.
Naraian, S. (2010). “Why not have fun?” Peers make
sense of an inclusive high school program. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 14 –30.
National Center on Disability and Social Security
Administration. (2000). Transition and post-secondary outcomes for youth with disabilities: Closing the gap
to post-secondary education and employment. Washington, DC: Author.
No Child Left Behind Act, 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et.
Seq (2992). PL 107–110.
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner,
R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005).
Research in special education: Scientific methods
and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children,
71, 137–148.
Ryndak, D. L., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and
instruction for students with severe disabilities in inclu-
Impact of Educational Contexts
/
137

17. sive settings. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn and
Bacon.
Ryndak, D. L., & Fisher, D. (Eds.) (2003). The foundations of inclusive education: A compendium of articles on effective strategies to achieve inclusive education
(2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Ryndak, D. L.,Ward, T., Alper, S., Montgomery, J., &
Storch, J. F. (2010). Long-term outcomes of services for two persons with significant disabilities
with differing educational experiences: A qualitative consideration of the impact of education experiences. Education and Training in Autism and
Development Disabilities, 45(3), 323–338).
Ryndak, D. L., Ward, T., Alper, S., Storch, J. F., &
Montgomery, J. (2010). Long-term outcomes of
services in inclusive and self-contained settings
for siblings with comparable significant disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 38 –53.
Salzberg, C. L., Agran, M., & Lignugaris/Kraft, B.
(1986). Behaviors that contribute to entry-level
employment: A profile of five jobs. Applied Research in Mental Retardation, 7, 299 –314.
Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler,
C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidenced-based secondary transition predictors for
improving postschool outcomes for students with
disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160 –181.
Van Deventer, P., Yelinek, N., Brown, L., Schroeder,
J., Loomis, R., & Gruenewald, L. (1981). A follow-up examination of severely handicapped
graduates of the Madison Metropolitan School
District from 1971–1978. In L. Brown, K. Baumgart, I. Pumpian, J. Nisbet, A. Ford, A. Donnellan,
M. Sweet, R. Loomis, & J. Schroeder (Eds.), Educational programs for severely handicapped students,
Vol. XI. Madison, WI: Madison Metropolitan
School District.
Van Houten, R. (1979). Social validation: The evo-
138
/
lution of standards of competency for target behaviors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12,
581–591.
Wagner, M., Blackorby, J., Cameto, R., & Newman,
L. (1993). What makes a difference? Influences on
postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities. The third
comprehensive report from the National Longitudinal
Transition Study of Special Education Students.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., &
Garza, N. (2006). An overview of findings from the Wave
2 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2.
Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved June
24, 2009, from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/
2006_08/nlts2_report_2006_08_complete.pdf
Wehman, P., Hill, M., Goodall, P., Cleveland, V. B.,
& Pentecost, J. (1982). Job placements and follow-up of moderately and severely handicapped
individuals after three years. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 5–15.
White, J., & Weiner, J. S. (2004). Influence of least
restrictive environment and community based
training on integrated employment outcomes for
transitioning students with severe disabilities.
Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 21, 149 –156.
Williams, W., & Gotts, E. A. (1977). Selected considerations on developing curriculum for severely
handicapped students. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, &
N. Certo (Eds), Educational programming for the
severely and profoundly handicapped. Reston, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for
subjective measurement, or how applied behavior
analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
Received: 3 February 2011
Initial Acceptance: 6 April 2011
Final Acceptance: 25 May 2011
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

18. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, 47(2), 139 –153
© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual
Disability: Exploring Postschool Outcomes through the
NLTS2
Emily C. Bouck and Gauri Joshi
Purdue University
Abstract: While students with mild intellectual disability receive less attention in research, their educational
programming is still important, including the curriculum they receive in school. This study analyzed the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) as to the curriculum students with mild intellectual
disability received in high school as well as students’ postschool outcomes. Frequency distributions, cross
tabulations and logistic regression were utilized to analyze secondary data from the NLTS2. Results indicated
few students with mild intellectual disability received a functional curriculum and receipt of a functional
curriculum did not influence postschool outcomes. The implications and future directions of these results are
discussed.
Students with mild intellectual disability once
comprised the largest focus in special education and the category was often considered
the foundation of the field (Bouck, 2007; Edgar, 1987; Polloway, 2006). But now it is a
population in decline (Polloway), referred to
by some as the forgotten generation (Fujiura,
2003). Students with mild intellectual disability are now often given other category labels,
such as learning disabilities, and lumped into
the category of high incidence disabilities or
mild disabilities, despite not having mild
needs (Polloway, 2004; Smith, 2006). The result of this melding is a loss of specific consideration for students with mild intellectual disability in terms of curriculum, instructional
environments, and postschool outcomes (Polloway, 2004; 2005). In fact, Polloway (2004,
2005) wrote a eulogy for the field of mild
intellectual disability and cited a lack of attention, research, and advocacy for this population of students and their educational needs.
And yet, students with mild intellectual disability still exist and continue to have educational needs and concerns that need to be
Correspondence concerning this article should
be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, 5146 BRNG Hall,
100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907.
Email: bouck@purdue.edu
addressed in research and practice. Attention
needs to be paid to this group of students’
educational services and their postschool outcomes.
Mild intellectual disability is “characterized
by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related
limitations in two or more of the following
applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self direction, health and safety,
functional academics, leisure, and work” (Polloway, Patton, Smith, & Buck, 1997, p. 298).
Historically and collectively, students with
mild intellectual disability struggled with short
attention spans and distractibility (Dunn,
1973; Kirk, 1972; Thomas, 1996; Zeaman &
House, 1963, 1979). Other characteristics often associated with this population of students
include difficulty transferring and generalizing information, inputting information into
memory, and retrieving information from
memory (Belmont, 1966; Dunn; Kirk; Spitz,
1973; Stephens, 1972; Thomas). In opposition
to the aggregation of students with mild intellectual disability with other high incidence
disability categories, Sabornie, Evans, and Cullinan (2006) suggested how students with
mild intellectual disability were different from
students with learning disabilities and emotional/behavior disorders in the domains of
Functional Curriculum and Students with MID
/
139

19. IQ and academic achievement/skills (i.e., students with mild intellectual disability had
lower IQs and lower academic achievement/
skills).
Historically, students with mild intellectual
disability have experienced poor postschool
outcomes. Although aggregated, in the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS),
Blackorby and Wagner (1996) found only a
35% employment rate for students with intellectual disability. In 2009, from the National
Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2)
Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey indicated only 31.0% of students were currently
employed, although the data showed 51.8%
had been employed sometime since they graduated from high school. Additionally, Newman et al. found only 14.1% of students with
intellectual disability report living independently. For postsecondary institution attendance, Kaye (1997) reported 2.5% of students
with intellectual disability participated in
some form of postsecondary education; more
recent data from the NLTS2 indicated an increase to 13% (Newman, 2005b).
as a life skills curriculum, is designed to teach
functional life skills, or in other words, the
skills necessary to live, work, and have fun in
an inclusive community (Bouck; Brown et al.,
1979). A functional curriculum is presumed to
include the functional skills and applications
of core subject areas (academics), vocational
education, community access, daily living, financial, independent living, transportation,
social/relationships, and self-determination
(Patton, Cronin, & Jairrels, 1997). A functional curriculum stems from the belief that
the general academic curriculum fails to provide students with mild intellectual disability
an opportunity to develop skills they will need
to be successful postschool and they would not
develop these skills unless explicitly taught
(Bouck; Sitlington, Frank & Carson, 1993).
Hence, a functional curriculum approach is
characterized by the consideration of teaching
students with mild intellectual disability the
skills to help them be productive members of
society, and support positive postschool outcomes.
Postschool Outcomes
Functional Curriculum
Given the poor postschool outcomes, one
needs to consider the educational programming students with mild intellectual disability
receive. In a survey of one state, secondary
special education teachers reported a range of
curricular offerings for students with mild intellectual disability: 23.8% used a special education curriculum, 19% a functional curriculum, and 15.3% a general education
curriculum; the remaining teachers used
small frequencies of other models (e.g., lower
grade level, vocational education, no curriculum) (Bouck, 2004a). Teachers in this study
reported being unsatisfied with the educational programming for secondary students
with mild intellectual disability and indicated
one of the greatest improvement needs for
their program was a more appropriate curriculum (Bouck).
One curriculum advocated for secondary
students with mild intellectual disability is a
functional curriculum (Bouck, 2004b; Edgar,
1987; Kaiser & Abell, 1997; Patton, Cronin,
Polloway, Hutchinson, & Robinson, 1989). A
functional curriculum, sometimes referred to
140
/
While a lack of research exists regarding the
outcomes of a functional curriculum for secondary students with mild intellectual disability, research on a functional curriculum for
students with disabilities in general suggests
positive results. For example, Benz, Lindstrom, and Latta (1999) and Benz, Lindstrom,
and Yovanoff (2000) indicated students with
disabilities who participated in the Youth
Transition Program, which involved life skills
(i.e., vocational skills, including paid work experience; independent living skills; personalsocial skills; functional academics skills; and
self-determination), experienced increased
graduation rates, higher engagement in postsecondary outcomes of employment or education, and higher wages. In another study,
Riches, Parmenter, Fegent, and Bailey (1993)
surveyed students with disabilities in Australia
who graduated from high school. They compared responses of students who participated
in a transition project, in which the curriculum focused on vocational education, community access/living, functional academics, recreation and leisure, transportation and
personal management, to those who did not
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

20. participate in this program. One of the notable outcomes of this study was employment
for the students in the transition program as
Riches et al. found 89% students who participated in the program held at least one job
after high school. Further, Phelps and HanleyMaxwell (1997) noted the value of a functional curriculum— operationally defined as
the merger of academics and vocational education, suggesting it was one of two effective
practices for students with disabilities when
considering postschool outcomes related to
work. Finally, Alwell and Cobb (2009), in a
review of research on functional curriculum
and outcomes of students with disabilities over
two decades, suggested students benefited
from receiving a functional curriculum but
the research on functional curriculum primarily targeted students with more severe or low
incidence disabilities.
Yet, more than just curricula can impact
students’ postschool outcomes. For example,
Rabren, Dunn, and Chambers (2002), examining transition data from former students
with disabilities in one state, found disability
category, gender, school geography, and employment in school influenced students afterschool success or lack thereof. Baer et al.
(2003) reported differential effect of in-school
influences when considering postschool outcomes of employment and postsecondary education. They found participation in schoolsupported work experiences, vocational
education, having a particular disability and
being educated in a rural school were positive
predictors of employment for students with
disabilities after school, while attendance at a
suburban school and participation in a general education settings positively correlated
with postsecondary education attendance.
And, from the National Longitudinal Transition Study data, Heal and Rusch (1995) reported male gender status and receiving life
and academic skills as positive predictors of
employment after school for students with disabilities.
Research Project
Currently there is a lack of attention to students with mild intellectual disability in research and practice (Bouck, 2007), which is
unwarranted in these times of evidence-based
practices and a focus on achievement and outcomes in federal policy (Bouck, & Flanagan,
2010; Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act, 2004; No Child Left Behind, 2002). Further, there is a lack of current
research connecting receipt of a functional
curriculum to postschool outcomes for students with disabilities, particularly considering
the often-overlooked population of students
with mild intellectual disability. To address
this gap in research, the authors sought to
answer the following research questions: (a)
to what extent are students with mild intellectual disabilities getting exposure to functional
or life skills curriculum during their secondary education program?, (b) what are the immediate and long-term (i.e., more than 2
years) postschool outcomes for students with
mild intellectual disability who receive a functional curriculum?, (c) how do the postschool
outcomes of students with mild intellectual
disability who receive a functional curriculum
compare to those receiving other curriculum
models?, and (d) what factors (i.e., curriculum, school geography) predict the ascertainment of more successful postschool outcomes
(i.e., full-time employment, higher wages, independent living) for students with mild intellectual disability?
Method
This study used the National Longitudinal
Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) database to explore students with mild intellectual disability,
functional curriculum, and postschool outcomes (e.g., employment, postsecondary education, wages, and independent living)
through a secondary analysis. We will discuss
information regarding the participants and
procedures used for this study and general
information regarding the NLTS2, however,
we invite readers to refer to reports and information from the NLTS2 website (http://
www.nlts2.org) and other published articles
(Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein,
2005) for additional information specific to
the overall NLTS2 project.
National Longitudinal Transition Study
The National Longitudinal Transition Study
(NLTS), funded by the Office of Special Ed-
Functional Curriculum and Students with MID
/
141

21. ucation Programs and conducted by SRI International, focused on secondary students
with disabilities receiving special education
services (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, &
Levine, 2005). It was a multiyear project, beginning in 1985, and sought to understand
these students’ secondary education, transition to postschool, and outcomes postschool.
Overall, the NLTS highlighted the poor postschool outcomes of students with disabilities
and the need for change in areas of secondary
education and transition (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996).
The National Longitudinal Transition
Study-2 (NLTS2) is the sequel to the NLTS. It
is a government-sponsored project to document the “characteristics, experiences, and
achievement of youth with disabilities”
through its examination of issues of secondary
education, transition, and postschool outcomes (Newman, 2005a). The NLTS2 represents a comprehensive 10-year project; data
collection began during the 2000 –2001 academic year and the last wave of data completed during the 2008 –2009 academic year.
The NLTS2 gathered data through multiple
means: (a) parent and/or youth telephone
interviews, (b) direct assessments of students,
(c) teacher survey, (d) school program survey,
(e) school information survey, and (f) student
transcripts (SRI International, 2000b).
The NLTS2 represents a two-stage sampling
procedure (SRI International, 2000a; Wagner
et al., 2005). First, Local Educational Agencies
(LEA) and state-supported schools were randomly selected to participate. The selection
was done in a stratified manner, to account for
geographic region, student enrollment (i.e.,
enough respondents in each of the 12 possible
disability categories at the secondary level),
and wealth of LEA/community. From this,
students between the ages of 13 and 16 and in
at least seventh-grade receiving special education services within the selected LEAs and special schools were randomly selected to participate (SRI International, n.d). However,
students were selected to ensure a 3.6% standard error in the disability categories with the
highest frequency of students (i.e., learning
disabilities, emotional/behavior disorders, intellectual disability, speech and language impairments, other health impairments, and
hearing impairments) (SRI International;
142
/
Wagner et al.). The sampling of students was
also weighted towards older students (i.e.,
those aged 16 as compared to 13–15 year-olds)
at the start of wave 1 (SRI International). Using the weighted design of the study, a total of
19,899,621 students receiving special education services from 12,435 LEAs participated in
the NLTS2 study (SRI International).
Participants
Participants in this project were students from
the NLTS2 study, meaning they were students
13–16 years of age in at least seventh-grade
and receiving special education services in
2000. To be included in this secondary analysis, students from the NLTS2 database needed
to meet the following criteria: (a) identified
by school program as having a mild intellectual disability; (b) in school in wave 1 of data
collection and out of school in wave 2, in
school in wave 2 and out of school in wave 3,
or in school in wave 3 and out in wave 4; and
(c) receiving special education services while
in school. While analyses were run on students
who met these characteristics in the sample,
all data reported are weighted using the
weights provided in the NLTS2 database to
represent the number of students in the population (see Javitz & Wagner, 2003; Wagner et
al., 2005 for more information on weighting
the data). Note, data with low unweighted
counts have not been reported in this analysis.
This secondary analysis of the NLTS2 involved 60,664 students with mild intellectual
disability. The majority of students with mild
intellectual disability identified their ethnicity
as Caucasian (62.4%, SE 5.7), followed by African-American (30.5%, SE 5.5), Hispanic
(4.5%, SE 2.7) and multiracial or other (2.1%,
SE 1.7). The majority were male (66.1%, SE
4.8) and, of those who responded, the most
frequently indicated family income (i.e., parent/guardians) was less than $25,000 per year.
The average age of students in school was 17.2
while the average age for out of school for the
postschool outcomes was 19.9, and 20.9 for
the long-term postschool outcomes (i.e., more
than two years out of school).
Data Collection
For this analysis, we pulled data from the first
four waves of data collection (i.e., waves 1, 2,
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

22. 3, and 4). The immediate outcomes reflect
students who were out of school in wave 2, 3,
or 4, while the “long term” outcomes reflect
data of students who were out of school in
either wave 3 or 4 and in school in waves 1 and
2 (i.e., out for more than two years). We utilized the Parent/Youth survey at each of the
four waves, the School Characteristics survey
completed at wave 1, and the Students’ School
Program survey completed at waves 1 and 2.
At wave 1, the Parent/Youth survey was a 60minute phone interview completed by the parents of the participating students. For waves 2,
3, and 4, students completed the 60-minute
phone interview; parents completed it if the
student was unable to do so. At all four waves,
a mail survey was provided if a phone interview was not possible. The Parent/Youth survey focused on selected questions pertaining
to student characteristics, household characteristics, nonschool factors, family involvement, academic and school experiences, personal/social issues, employment, citizenship,
health, satisfactions, and behaviors (SRI International, 2000b).
The teacher most familiar with the student’s
overall school program completed the Students’ School Program survey. This survey was
a mail survey and questions pertained to the
school program, transition, special education
services, state and district assessments, accommodations, provision of supports, performance, and parental involvement (SRI International, 2000b). Finally, school personnel,
such as the principal, completed the School
Characteristics survey. It was also a mail survey, which elicited information regarding the
school and community, students, staff, programs, special education policies and practices, parental involvement, and background
information (SRI International).
Procedure
For the purposes of this analysis, we focused
on items from the multiple surveys that addressed our research questions. Specifically,
we included items representing the curriculum focus in students’ special education
classes (e.g., life skills, academic) as well as if
they received life skills in school and where
(e.g., special education setting, general education setting). We also used a variable from
the database called “mental skills,” which was
the sum of respondents’ assessment of the
student’s ability to tell time on a clock with
hands, read and understand common signs,
count change and look up telephone numbers in a phonebook and use the telephone.
Each skill was assessed on four point rating
scale ranging from one (not at all well) to four
(very well), resulting in a score ranging from 4
to 16. In terms of postschool outcomes, variables of interest included where students were
living (i.e., independently vs. dependently),
employment status, job type, wages received,
and whether they attended postsecondary education (i.e., four-year college, two-year college, vocational/technical school). Other variables related to demographics of the students
(i.e., disability, gender, ethnicity) and school
(i.e., geographical location, size, services
nearby).
In addition to using the original NLTS2
variables, some variable categories were recoded. For instance, the variable related to
type of student’s special education class originally had four values (see Table 1 for a list
variables used in this study and their description). Since the focus of this project was on
life skills, we recoded this variable into two
categories: receipt of life skills and receipt of
other (i.e., academic, basic academic, or study
skills). Similarly, the independent living variable consisted of fifteen categories. These fifteen categories were recoded into three categories: lived independently (i.e., on his/her
own, with a roommate or spouse, college dormitory, and military housing), and lived dependently (i.e., with his/her parents, with another relative, a group home or assisted living
center, and a correctional facility/youth detention center). Finally, the wage variable was
recoded from a continuous variable representing the hourly pay students received at their
most current or recent job to a dichotomous
variable, above or below minimum wage (i.e.,
$5.15 at the time of data collection).
Data Analysis
Statistical procedures such as frequency distributions, cross tabulations and logistic regression were utilized to analyze secondary data
from the NLTS2. Specifically, to answer the
first research question regarding exposure to
Functional Curriculum and Students with MID
/
143

23. TABLE 1
Description of Variables used in Secondary Analysis
Variables
NLTS2 Variable ID
Identification of
students
Disability
Ethnicity
ID
Age
npXCurAge
Income
npXk15Cat
Gender
Mental skills
npXGendHdr
npXG4_[a-d]
Urbanicity
wX_Urb3
Type of special
education class
nprXD9
Received life skills
nprXA3h
Instructional setting
for life skills
nprXA3h_(1-4)
Independent living
npXP1a_01_A6a_01-15‫ء‬
Postsecondary
attendance
npXS3a_S4a_S5a_D4a1_D4a2_D4a3
Currently employed
Ever employed
npXT7a_L7a_I2b
npXT6a_L6a_I2a
Above minimum
wage
Full time
employment
npXT8f1_T11f_L8f1_L11f_I3a‫ء‬
nprXD2a_09
npXEth_Recod
npXT8c_T11c_L8c_L11c
Description
Randomized number assigned to each
student
Disability of student
Ethnicity of each student (i.e., white;
African American; Hispanic; Asian/
Pacific Islander; American Indian/
Alaska Native; multiple races/other)
Student age at the time of data
collection
Family income categories (i.e., $25,000
or less; $25,001–$50,000; more than
$50,000)
Gender of each student (male, female)
How well the student can tell time,
read signs, count change and look
up telephone numbers in a
phonebook
Geographical location of the student’s
school (rural, suburban, or urban)
Focus of the non vocational special
education class (i.e., academic, life
skills, basic academic skills, or study
skills)
Student received life skills, social skills
instruction
Instructional setting where student
received life skills (general
education, special education,
individual instruction or community
setting/different school)
Independent living (i.e., living on own,
with a roommate), dependent living
(i.e., living with parents, in
supportive environment), or other
(i.e., homeless)
Out-of-school student attended any
type of postsecondary school (i.e.,
vocational, technical, two- year, or
four-year college)
Student has a paid job now
If student worked for pay during the
last 2 years
Out-of-school student earns more than
minimum wage($5.15)
Out-of-school student has a full-time
(Ն35 hours a week) or part-time job
(Ͻ35 hours a week)
Note: * Indicates a larger variable(s) was collapsed to created fewer categories and/or combine data. X
indicates the Wave year (i.e., 1, 2). All in-school variables reflect variable name from wave 1 and all the
postschool outcomes refer to variable names from wave 2. There may be slight changes in the variable ID’s from
one wave to the next.
144
/
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

24. a functional curriculum during school, frequency distributions were conducted on both
responses to the curriculum in students’ special education class as well as the reported
receipt of life skills in school.
For the second and third research questions
regarding postschool outcomes, we ran frequency distributions on the postschool outcome variables of interest (e.g., employment,
independent living, postsecondary education
attendance, wages). The frequency distributions of these variables were conducted for
students with mild intellectual disability who
received a functional curriculum and students
with mild intellectual disability who received a
different curriculum (non-functional curriculum). To compare the postschool outcomes of
these two groups, an F test was conducted.
Note, this F-test was provided with the NLTS2
dataset. Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine,
and Marder (2007), suggested the F test can
be used to identify the existence of statistically
significant differences between groups rather
than just merely looking at the differences
between observed and expected frequencies.
Finally, to answer research question four
regarding what factors predict more successful postschool outcomes for students with
mild intellectual disability a logistic regression
was utilized. Logistic regression is used in a
regression model for analyzing dichotomous
variables (Peng, Lee, & Ingersoll, 2002). Binary categories (0 ϭ no and 1 ϭ yes) were
created for all the six outcomes of interest
(i.e., independent living, ever attended a postsecondary education institution, currently employed, ever employed, received above minimum wage, or working full time), for both
immediate and long-term outcomes. Included
in each logistic model were the following independent variables: curriculum (functional
vs. non-functional), mental skills (sum of parental reporting of four skills on a scale of 1– 4
with a range of 4 –16), gender (male vs. female), family/parental income (Ͻ$25,000,
$25,000 –$50,000, Ͼ$50,000), ethnicity (Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian,
American Indian, Multi/Other), and school
location (rural, urban, suburban).
For each univariate logistical regression
analysis, a Goodness of Fit test (i.e., G2 ϭ Ϫ2
[loglikehood(R) Ϫ loglikehood (F)], or in
other words, the Ϫ2loglikehood of the re-
duced model [i.e., without the variable of interest] minus the Ϫ2loglikehood of the full
model) was conducted to determine if each
particular variable should be included in the
model. Note, the Goodness of Fit is compared
to the ␹2 table with an alpha of .05 and appropriate degrees of freedom to determine
whether or not to reject the null hypothesis
(i.e., exclude the variable of interest). Thus,
the full model with all six predictors was conducted for each of the six dependent variables
for both immediate and long-term outcomes.
Then, each predictor was removed individually to assess its significance to the model.
Results
Given the nature of survey and interview data,
responses to questions were not available for
every individual. Also, not all questions were
answered with the same frequency as individual responses may not have been gathered
because a particular question was not asked
(i.e., skip logic was imposed) or because the
respondent chose not to answer the question.
Hence, data are reported out of the number
who responded to the question rather than
the number of the complete dataset (i.e.,
60,664 for students with mild intellectual disability).
Exposure to Functional Curriculum
Functional curriculum was reported as the
curricular focus of students’ non-vocational
special education class for approximately onefifth of the students with mild intellectual disability (17.5%, SE 3.8). For the majority of the
students with mild intellectual disability, academic skills was the main focus (60.1%, SE
5.4), followed by basic academic skills (19.2%,
SE 4.0). Outside of a functional curriculum,
almost 75% students with mild intellectual disability received life skills, including social
skills, at school (74.3%, SE 4.1). The majority
of those who indicated where they received
life skills (N ϭ 45,086), reported it was in a
special education setting (76.7%, SE 5.9), followed by a general education setting (13.1%,
SE 4.7), community setting (6.5%, SE 3.4),
and then multiple settings (2.2%, SE 1.0).
Students who received a functional curriculum were not different from students who
Functional Curriculum and Students with MID
/
145

25. TABLE 2
Immediate Postschool Outcomes for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability by Curricula Received
Functional Curriculum
Non-Functional Curriculum
Postschool Outcomes
N
%
SE
N
%
SE
Independent living
Postsecondary attendance
Currently employed
Ever employed
Above minimum wage
Full-time employment
8,879
9,112
6,257
6,772
4,669
—
8.7
12.6
64.0
71.5
56.9
—
5.4
7.2
12.9
10.5
17.4
—
41,545
39,612
34,324
37,430
16,832
18,690
13.8
27.1
45.0
62.3
85.1
38.7
4.5
5.4
7.6
6.7
7.2
9.5
Note: The percent is based on those in each category who responded to the question (i.e., some individuals
did not have responses to every question). Ever employed refers to whether students were employed any time
after they left high school. Currently employed refer to whether students were employed currently when they
responded to the interview/survey. The wage variable was calculated based on current or most recent wages of
participating youth, in case students were currently unemployed. Minimum wage was $5.15 at the time of data
collection. Postsecondary attendance includes attendance at vocational school, two-year college, or four-year
college. Please also note data with low unweighted count are not reported (i.e., represented by dashes in the
table).
received a non-functional curriculum in
school in terms of parent assessed “mental
skills.” The average mental skills of students
with mild intellectual disability who received a
functional curriculum were 10.6 (SE 0.6),
while students who received a non-functional
curriculum (i.e., academic skills, basic academic skills or study skills) averaged 11.8 (SE
0.3). These differences were not found to be
statistically significantly different (p Ͼ .05).
Among the students who received a non-functional curriculum, students who received a
study skills curriculum averaged the highest
mental skills (15.1, SE 0.6), followed by those
who received an academic skills curriculum
(12.0, SE 0.5) and a basic academic skills curriculum (10.9, SE 0.8).
Postschool Outcomes
Less than 10% of students with mild intellectual disability who received a functional curriculum lived independently after exiting
school (8.7%, SE 5.4) (see Table 2 for the
percent, standard error, and population size
for each postschool outcome). For students
who received a non-functional curriculum just
over 10% reported living independently
(13.8%, SE 4.5). While the majority of students with mild intellectual disability reported
146
/
they experienced paid employment, (71.5%,
SE 10.5 for those who received a functional
curriculum and 62.3%, SE 6.7 for those who
received a non-functional curriculum), a
larger percentage of students who received a
functional curriculum indicated they were
currently employed (64.0%, SE 12.9 vs. 45.0%,
SE 7.6). Regardless of in-school curricular focus, the majority of students with mild intellectual disability earned more than the minimum wage, which was $5.15 at the time of data
collection. Specifically, 56.9% (SE 17.4) of
those who received a functional curriculum
and 85.1% (SE 7.2) of those who received a
non-functional curriculum earned more than
$5.15 per hour. In the final postschool outcome examined, 12.6% (SE 7.2) of students
who received a functional curriculum attended any postsecondary educational institution (i.e., business/vocational/technical, twoyear, or four-year college) since leaving high
school. This rate more than doubled for students who received a non-functional curriculum (27.1%, SE 5.4). In terms of differences in
postschool outcomes between students with
mild intellectual disability who received a
functional curriculum and those who received
a non-functional curriculum, no statistically
significant differences existed for any outcome (p Ͼ .05).
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012