Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual ...daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual

Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild IntellectualDisability: Exploring Postschool Outcomes through the

NLTS2

Emily C. Bouck and Gauri JoshiPurdue University

Abstract: While students with mild intellectual disability receive less attention in research, their educationalprogramming is still important, including the curriculum they receive in school. This study analyzed theNational Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) as to the curriculum students with mild intellectualdisability received in high school as well as students’ postschool outcomes. Frequency distributions, crosstabulations and logistic regression were utilized to analyze secondary data from the NLTS2. Results indicatedfew students with mild intellectual disability received a functional curriculum and receipt of a functionalcurriculum did not influence postschool outcomes. The implications and future directions of these results arediscussed.

Students with mild intellectual disability oncecomprised the largest focus in special educa-tion and the category was often consideredthe foundation of the field (Bouck, 2007; Ed-gar, 1987; Polloway, 2006). But now it is apopulation in decline (Polloway), referred toby some as the forgotten generation (Fujiura,2003). Students with mild intellectual disabil-ity are now often given other category labels,such as learning disabilities, and lumped intothe category of high incidence disabilities ormild disabilities, despite not having mildneeds (Polloway, 2004; Smith, 2006). The re-sult of this melding is a loss of specific consid-eration for students with mild intellectual dis-ability in terms of curriculum, instructionalenvironments, and postschool outcomes (Pol-loway, 2004; 2005). In fact, Polloway (2004,2005) wrote a eulogy for the field of mildintellectual disability and cited a lack of atten-tion, research, and advocacy for this popula-tion of students and their educational needs.And yet, students with mild intellectual dis-ability still exist and continue to have educa-tional needs and concerns that need to be

addressed in research and practice. Attentionneeds to be paid to this group of students’educational services and their postschool out-comes.

Mild intellectual disability is “characterizedby significantly subaverage intellectual func-tioning, existing concurrently with relatedlimitations in two or more of the followingapplicable adaptive skill areas: communica-tion, self-care, home living, social skills, com-munity use, self direction, health and safety,functional academics, leisure, and work” (Pol-loway, Patton, Smith, & Buck, 1997, p. 298).Historically and collectively, students withmild intellectual disability struggled with shortattention spans and distractibility (Dunn,1973; Kirk, 1972; Thomas, 1996; Zeaman &House, 1963, 1979). Other characteristics of-ten associated with this population of studentsinclude difficulty transferring and generaliz-ing information, inputting information intomemory, and retrieving information frommemory (Belmont, 1966; Dunn; Kirk; Spitz,1973; Stephens, 1972; Thomas). In oppositionto the aggregation of students with mild intel-lectual disability with other high incidencedisability categories, Sabornie, Evans, and Cul-linan (2006) suggested how students withmild intellectual disability were different fromstudents with learning disabilities and emo-tional/behavior disorders in the domains of

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Emily C. Bouck, 5146 BRNG Hall,100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907.Email: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2012, 47(2), 139–153© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Functional Curriculum and Students with MID / 139

IQ and academic achievement/skills (i.e., stu-dents with mild intellectual disability hadlower IQs and lower academic achievement/skills).

Historically, students with mild intellectualdisability have experienced poor postschooloutcomes. Although aggregated, in the Na-tional Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS),Blackorby and Wagner (1996) found only a35% employment rate for students with intel-lectual disability. In 2009, from the NationalLongitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2)Newman, Wagner, Cameto, and Knokey indi-cated only 31.0% of students were currentlyemployed, although the data showed 51.8%had been employed sometime since they grad-uated from high school. Additionally, New-man et al. found only 14.1% of students withintellectual disability report living indepen-dently. For postsecondary institution atten-dance, Kaye (1997) reported 2.5% of studentswith intellectual disability participated insome form of postsecondary education; morerecent data from the NLTS2 indicated an in-crease to 13% (Newman, 2005b).

Functional Curriculum

Given the poor postschool outcomes, oneneeds to consider the educational program-ming students with mild intellectual disabilityreceive. In a survey of one state, secondaryspecial education teachers reported a range ofcurricular offerings for students with mild in-tellectual disability: 23.8% used a special edu-cation curriculum, 19% a functional curricu-lum, and 15.3% a general educationcurriculum; the remaining teachers usedsmall frequencies of other models (e.g., lowergrade level, vocational education, no curricu-lum) (Bouck, 2004a). Teachers in this studyreported being unsatisfied with the educa-tional programming for secondary studentswith mild intellectual disability and indicatedone of the greatest improvement needs fortheir program was a more appropriate curric-ulum (Bouck).

One curriculum advocated for secondarystudents with mild intellectual disability is afunctional curriculum (Bouck, 2004b; Edgar,1987; Kaiser & Abell, 1997; Patton, Cronin,Polloway, Hutchinson, & Robinson, 1989). Afunctional curriculum, sometimes referred to

as a life skills curriculum, is designed to teachfunctional life skills, or in other words, theskills necessary to live, work, and have fun inan inclusive community (Bouck; Brown et al.,1979). A functional curriculum is presumed toinclude the functional skills and applicationsof core subject areas (academics), vocationaleducation, community access, daily living, fi-nancial, independent living, transportation,social/relationships, and self-determination(Patton, Cronin, & Jairrels, 1997). A func-tional curriculum stems from the belief thatthe general academic curriculum fails to pro-vide students with mild intellectual disabilityan opportunity to develop skills they will needto be successful postschool and they would notdevelop these skills unless explicitly taught(Bouck; Sitlington, Frank & Carson, 1993).Hence, a functional curriculum approach ischaracterized by the consideration of teachingstudents with mild intellectual disability theskills to help them be productive members ofsociety, and support positive postschool out-comes.

Postschool Outcomes

While a lack of research exists regarding theoutcomes of a functional curriculum for sec-ondary students with mild intellectual disabil-ity, research on a functional curriculum forstudents with disabilities in general suggestspositive results. For example, Benz, Lind-strom, and Latta (1999) and Benz, Lindstrom,and Yovanoff (2000) indicated students withdisabilities who participated in the YouthTransition Program, which involved life skills(i.e., vocational skills, including paid work ex-perience; independent living skills; personal-social skills; functional academics skills; andself-determination), experienced increasedgraduation rates, higher engagement in post-secondary outcomes of employment or educa-tion, and higher wages. In another study,Riches, Parmenter, Fegent, and Bailey (1993)surveyed students with disabilities in Australiawho graduated from high school. They com-pared responses of students who participatedin a transition project, in which the curricu-lum focused on vocational education, commu-nity access/living, functional academics, rec-reation and leisure, transportation andpersonal management, to those who did not

140 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-June 2012

participate in this program. One of the nota-ble outcomes of this study was employmentfor the students in the transition program asRiches et al. found 89% students who partici-pated in the program held at least one jobafter high school. Further, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) noted the value of a func-tional curriculum—operationally defined asthe merger of academics and vocational edu-cation, suggesting it was one of two effectivepractices for students with disabilities whenconsidering postschool outcomes related towork. Finally, Alwell and Cobb (2009), in areview of research on functional curriculumand outcomes of students with disabilities overtwo decades, suggested students benefitedfrom receiving a functional curriculum butthe research on functional curriculum primar-ily targeted students with more severe or lowincidence disabilities.

Yet, more than just curricula can impactstudents’ postschool outcomes. For example,Rabren, Dunn, and Chambers (2002), exam-ining transition data from former studentswith disabilities in one state, found disabilitycategory, gender, school geography, and em-ployment in school influenced students after-school success or lack thereof. Baer et al.(2003) reported differential effect of in-schoolinfluences when considering postschool out-comes of employment and postsecondary ed-ucation. They found participation in school-supported work experiences, vocationaleducation, having a particular disability andbeing educated in a rural school were positivepredictors of employment for students withdisabilities after school, while attendance at asuburban school and participation in a gen-eral education settings positively correlatedwith postsecondary education attendance.And, from the National Longitudinal Transi-tion Study data, Heal and Rusch (1995) re-ported male gender status and receiving lifeand academic skills as positive predictors ofemployment after school for students with dis-abilities.

Research Project

Currently there is a lack of attention to stu-dents with mild intellectual disability in re-search and practice (Bouck, 2007), which isunwarranted in these times of evidence-based

practices and a focus on achievement and out-comes in federal policy (Bouck, & Flanagan,2010; Individuals with Disabilities EducationImprovement Act, 2004; No Child Left Be-hind, 2002). Further, there is a lack of currentresearch connecting receipt of a functionalcurriculum to postschool outcomes for stu-dents with disabilities, particularly consideringthe often-overlooked population of studentswith mild intellectual disability. To addressthis gap in research, the authors sought toanswer the following research questions: (a)to what extent are students with mild intellec-tual disabilities getting exposure to functionalor life skills curriculum during their second-ary education program?, (b) what are the im-mediate and long-term (i.e., more than 2years) postschool outcomes for students withmild intellectual disability who receive a func-tional curriculum?, (c) how do the postschooloutcomes of students with mild intellectualdisability who receive a functional curriculumcompare to those receiving other curriculummodels?, and (d) what factors (i.e., curricu-lum, school geography) predict the ascertain-ment of more successful postschool outcomes(i.e., full-time employment, higher wages, in-dependent living) for students with mild intel-lectual disability?

Method

This study used the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2 (NLTS2) database to ex-plore students with mild intellectual disability,functional curriculum, and postschool out-comes (e.g., employment, postsecondary edu-cation, wages, and independent living)through a secondary analysis. We will discussinformation regarding the participants andprocedures used for this study and generalinformation regarding the NLTS2, however,we invite readers to refer to reports and infor-mation from the NLTS2 website (http://www.nlts2.org) and other published articles(Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, & Epstein,2005) for additional information specific tothe overall NLTS2 project.

National Longitudinal Transition Study

The National Longitudinal Transition Study(NLTS), funded by the Office of Special Ed-


ucation Programs and conducted by SRI In-ternational, focused on secondary studentswith disabilities receiving special educationservices (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, &Levine, 2005). It was a multiyear project, be-ginning in 1985, and sought to understandthese students’ secondary education, transi-tion to postschool, and outcomes postschool.Overall, the NLTS highlighted the poor post-school outcomes of students with disabilitiesand the need for change in areas of secondaryeducation and transition (Blackorby & Wag-ner, 1996).

The National Longitudinal TransitionStudy-2 (NLTS2) is the sequel to the NLTS. Itis a government-sponsored project to docu-ment the “characteristics, experiences, andachievement of youth with disabilities”through its examination of issues of secondaryeducation, transition, and postschool out-comes (Newman, 2005a). The NLTS2 repre-sents a comprehensive 10-year project; datacollection began during the 2000–2001 aca-demic year and the last wave of data com-pleted during the 2008–2009 academic year.The NLTS2 gathered data through multiplemeans: (a) parent and/or youth telephoneinterviews, (b) direct assessments of students,(c) teacher survey, (d) school program survey,(e) school information survey, and (f) studenttranscripts (SRI International, 2000b).

The NLTS2 represents a two-stage samplingprocedure (SRI International, 2000a; Wagneret al., 2005). First, Local Educational Agencies(LEA) and state-supported schools were ran-domly selected to participate. The selectionwas done in a stratified manner, to account forgeographic region, student enrollment (i.e.,enough respondents in each of the 12 possibledisability categories at the secondary level),and wealth of LEA/community. From this,students between the ages of 13 and 16 and inat least seventh-grade receiving special educa-tion services within the selected LEAs and spe-cial schools were randomly selected to partic-ipate (SRI International, n.d). However,students were selected to ensure a 3.6% stan-dard error in the disability categories with thehighest frequency of students (i.e., learningdisabilities, emotional/behavior disorders, in-tellectual disability, speech and language im-pairments, other health impairments, andhearing impairments) (SRI International;

Wagner et al.). The sampling of students wasalso weighted towards older students (i.e.,those aged 16 as compared to 13–15 year-olds)at the start of wave 1 (SRI International). Us-ing the weighted design of the study, a total of19,899,621 students receiving special educa-tion services from 12,435 LEAs participated inthe NLTS2 study (SRI International).

Participants

Participants in this project were students fromthe NLTS2 study, meaning they were students13–16 years of age in at least seventh-gradeand receiving special education services in2000. To be included in this secondary analy-sis, students from the NLTS2 database neededto meet the following criteria: (a) identifiedby school program as having a mild intellec-tual disability; (b) in school in wave 1 of datacollection and out of school in wave 2, inschool 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 whilein school. While analyses were run on studentswho met these characteristics in the sample,all data reported are weighted using theweights provided in the NLTS2 database torepresent the number of students in the pop-ulation (see Javitz & Wagner, 2003; Wagner etal., 2005 for more information on weightingthe data). Note, data with low unweightedcounts have not been reported in this analysis.

This secondary analysis of the NLTS2 in-volved 60,664 students with mild intellectualdisability. The majority of students with mildintellectual disability identified their ethnicityas Caucasian (62.4%, SE 5.7), followed by Af-rican-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%, SE4.8) and, of those who responded, the mostfrequently indicated family income (i.e., par-ent/guardians) was less than $25,000 per year.The average age of students in school was 17.2while the average age for out of school for thepostschool outcomes was 19.9, and 20.9 forthe long-term postschool outcomes (i.e., morethan two years out of school).

Data Collection

For this analysis, we pulled data from the firstfour waves of data collection (i.e., waves 1, 2,


3, and 4). The immediate outcomes reflectstudents who were out of school in wave 2, 3,or 4, while the “long term” outcomes reflectdata of students who were out of school ineither wave 3 or 4 and in school in waves 1 and2 (i.e., out for more than two years). We uti-lized the Parent/Youth survey at each of thefour waves, the School Characteristics surveycompleted at wave 1, and the Students’ SchoolProgram survey completed at waves 1 and 2.At wave 1, the Parent/Youth survey was a 60-minute phone interview completed by the par-ents of the participating students. For waves 2,3, and 4, students completed the 60-minutephone interview; parents completed it if thestudent was unable to do so. At all four waves,a mail survey was provided if a phone inter-view was not possible. The Parent/Youth sur-vey focused on selected questions pertainingto student characteristics, household charac-teristics, nonschool factors, family involve-ment, academic and school experiences, per-sonal/social issues, employment, citizenship,health, satisfactions, and behaviors (SRI Inter-national, 2000b).

The teacher most familiar with the student’soverall school program completed the Stu-dents’ School Program survey. This survey wasa mail survey and questions pertained to theschool program, transition, special educationservices, state and district assessments, accom-modations, provision of supports, perfor-mance, and parental involvement (SRI Inter-national, 2000b). Finally, school personnel,such as the principal, completed the SchoolCharacteristics survey. It was also a mail sur-vey, which elicited information regarding theschool and community, students, staff, pro-grams, special education policies and prac-tices, parental involvement, and backgroundinformation (SRI International).

Procedure

For the purposes of this analysis, we focusedon items from the multiple surveys that ad-dressed our research questions. Specifically,we included items representing the curricu-lum focus in students’ special educationclasses (e.g., life skills, academic) as well as ifthey received life skills in school and where(e.g., special education setting, general edu-cation setting). We also used a variable from

the database called “mental skills,” which wasthe sum of respondents’ assessment of thestudent’s ability to tell time on a clock withhands, read and understand common signs,count change and look up telephone num-bers in a phonebook and use the telephone.Each skill was assessed on four point ratingscale ranging from one (not at all well) to four(very well), resulting in a score ranging from 4to 16. In terms of postschool outcomes, vari-ables of interest included where students wereliving (i.e., independently vs. dependently),employment status, job type, wages received,and whether they attended postsecondary ed-ucation (i.e., four-year college, two-year col-lege, vocational/technical school). Other vari-ables related to demographics of the students(i.e., disability, gender, ethnicity) and school(i.e., geographical location, size, servicesnearby).

In addition to using the original NLTS2variables, some variable categories were re-coded. For instance, the variable related totype of student’s special education class orig-inally had four values (see Table 1 for a listvariables used in this study and their descrip-tion). Since the focus of this project was onlife skills, we recoded this variable into twocategories: receipt of life skills and receipt ofother (i.e., academic, basic academic, or studyskills). Similarly, the independent living vari-able consisted of fifteen categories. These fif-teen categories were recoded into three cate-gories: lived independently (i.e., on his/herown, with a roommate or spouse, college dor-mitory, and military housing), and lived de-pendently (i.e., with his/her parents, with an-other relative, a group home or assisted livingcenter, and a correctional facility/youth de-tention center). Finally, the wage variable wasrecoded from a continuous variable represent-ing the hourly pay students received at theirmost current or recent job to a dichotomousvariable, above or below minimum wage (i.e.,$5.15 at the time of data collection).

Data Analysis

Statistical procedures such as frequency distri-butions, cross tabulations and logistic regres-sion were utilized to analyze secondary datafrom the NLTS2. Specifically, to answer thefirst research question regarding exposure to


TABLE 1

Description of Variables used in Secondary Analysis

Variables NLTS2 Variable ID Description

Identification ofstudents

ID Randomized number assigned to eachstudent

Disability nprXD2a_09 Disability of studentEthnicity npXEth_Recod Ethnicity of each student (i.e., white;

African American; Hispanic; Asian/Pacific Islander; American Indian/Alaska Native; multiple races/other)

Age npXCurAge Student age at the time of datacollection

Income npXk15Cat Family income categories (i.e., $25,000or less; $25,001–$50,000; more than$50,000)

Gender npXGendHdr Gender of each student (male, female)Mental skills npXG4_[a-d] How well the student can tell time,

read signs, count change and lookup telephone numbers in aphonebook

Urbanicity wX_Urb3 Geographical location of the student’sschool (rural, suburban, or urban)

Type of specialeducation class

nprXD9 Focus of the non vocational specialeducation class (i.e., academic, lifeskills, basic academic skills, or studyskills)

Received life skills nprXA3h Student received life skills, social skillsinstruction

Instructional settingfor life skills

nprXA3h_(1-4) Instructional setting where studentreceived life skills (generaleducation, special education,individual instruction or communitysetting/different school)

Independent living npXP1a_01_A6a_01-15� Independent living (i.e., living on own,with a roommate), dependent living(i.e., living with parents, insupportive environment), or other(i.e., homeless)

Postsecondaryattendance

npXS3a_S4a_S5a_D4a1_D4a2_D4a3 Out-of-school student attended anytype of postsecondary school (i.e.,vocational, technical, two- year, orfour-year college)

Currently employed npXT7a_L7a_I2b Student has a paid job nowEver employed npXT6a_L6a_I2a If student worked for pay during the

last 2 yearsAbove minimum

wagenpXT8f1_T11f_L8f1_L11f_I3a� Out-of-school student earns more than

minimum wage($5.15)Full time

employmentnpXT8c_T11c_L8c_L11c Out-of-school student has a full-time

(�35 hours a week) or part-time job(�35 hours a week)

Note: * Indicates a larger variable(s) was collapsed to created fewer categories and/or combine data. Xindicates the Wave year (i.e., 1, 2). All in-school variables reflect variable name from wave 1 and all thepostschool outcomes refer to variable names from wave 2. There may be slight changes in the variable ID’s fromone wave to the next.


a functional curriculum during school, fre-quency distributions were conducted on bothresponses to the curriculum in students’ spe-cial education class as well as the reportedreceipt of life skills in school.

For the second and third research questionsregarding postschool outcomes, we ran fre-quency distributions on the postschool out-come variables of interest (e.g., employment,independent living, postsecondary educationattendance, wages). The frequency distribu-tions of these variables were conducted forstudents with mild intellectual disability whoreceived a functional curriculum and studentswith mild intellectual disability who received adifferent curriculum (non-functional curricu-lum). To compare the postschool outcomes ofthese two groups, an F test was conducted.Note, this F-test was provided with the NLTS2dataset. Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine,and Marder (2007), suggested the F test canbe used to identify the existence of statisticallysignificant differences between groups ratherthan just merely looking at the differencesbetween observed and expected frequencies.

Finally, to answer research question fourregarding what factors predict more success-ful postschool outcomes for students withmild intellectual disability a logistic regressionwas utilized. Logistic regression is used in aregression model for analyzing dichotomousvariables (Peng, Lee, & Ingersoll, 2002). Bi-nary categories (0 � no and 1 � yes) werecreated for all the six outcomes of interest(i.e., independent living, ever attended a post-secondary education institution, currently em-ployed, ever employed, received above mini-mum wage, or working full time), for bothimmediate and long-term outcomes. Includedin each logistic model were the following in-dependent variables: curriculum (functionalvs. non-functional), mental skills (sum of pa-rental reporting of four skills on a scale of 1–4with a range of 4–16), gender (male vs. fe-male), family/parental income (�$25,000,$25,000–$50,000, �$50,000), ethnicity (Cau-casian, African-American, Hispanic, Asian,American Indian, Multi/Other), and schoollocation (rural, urban, suburban).

For each univariate logistical regressionanalysis, a Goodness of Fit test (i.e., G2 � �2[loglikehood(R) � loglikehood (F)], or inother words, the �2loglikehood of the re-

duced model [i.e., without the variable of in-terest] minus the �2loglikehood of the fullmodel) was conducted to determine if eachparticular variable should be included in themodel. Note, the Goodness of Fit is comparedto the �2 table with an alpha of .05 and appro-priate degrees of freedom to determinewhether or not to reject the null hypothesis(i.e., exclude the variable of interest). Thus,the full model with all six predictors was con-ducted for each of the six dependent variablesfor both immediate and long-term outcomes.Then, each predictor was removed individu-ally to assess its significance to the model.

Results

Given the nature of survey and interview data,responses to questions were not available forevery individual. Also, not all questions wereanswered with the same frequency as individ-ual responses may not have been gatheredbecause a particular question was not asked(i.e., skip logic was imposed) or because therespondent chose not to answer the question.Hence, data are reported out of the numberwho responded to the question rather thanthe number of the complete dataset (i.e.,60,664 for students with mild intellectual dis-ability).

Exposure to Functional Curriculum

Functional curriculum was reported as thecurricular focus of students’ non-vocationalspecial education class for approximately one-fifth of the students with mild intellectual dis-ability (17.5%, SE 3.8). For the majority of thestudents with mild intellectual disability, aca-demic skills was the main focus (60.1%, SE5.4), followed by basic academic skills (19.2%,SE 4.0). Outside of a functional curriculum,almost 75% students with mild intellectual dis-ability received life skills, including socialskills, at school (74.3%, SE 4.1). The majorityof those who indicated where they receivedlife skills (N � 45,086), reported it was in aspecial education setting (76.7%, SE 5.9), fol-lowed 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 curricu-lum were not different from students who


received a non-functional curriculum inschool in terms of parent assessed “mentalskills.” The average mental skills of studentswith mild intellectual disability who received afunctional curriculum were 10.6 (SE 0.6),while students who received a non-functionalcurriculum (i.e., academic skills, basic aca-demic skills or study skills) averaged 11.8 (SE0.3). These differences were not found to bestatistically significantly different (p � .05).Among the students who received a non-func-tional curriculum, students who received astudy skills curriculum averaged the highestmental skills (15.1, SE 0.6), followed by thosewho received an academic skills curriculum(12.0, SE 0.5) and a basic academic skills cur-riculum (10.9, SE 0.8).

Postschool Outcomes

Less than 10% of students with mild intellec-tual disability who received a functional cur-riculum lived independently after exitingschool (8.7%, SE 5.4) (see Table 2 for thepercent, standard error, and population sizefor each postschool outcome). For studentswho received a non-functional curriculum justover 10% reported living independently(13.8%, SE 4.5). While the majority of stu-dents with mild intellectual disability reported

they experienced paid employment, (71.5%,SE 10.5 for those who received a functionalcurriculum and 62.3%, SE 6.7 for those whoreceived a non-functional curriculum), alarger percentage of students who received afunctional curriculum indicated they werecurrently employed (64.0%, SE 12.9 vs. 45.0%,SE 7.6). Regardless of in-school curricular fo-cus, the majority of students with mild intel-lectual disability earned more than the mini-mum wage, which was $5.15 at the time of datacollection. Specifically, 56.9% (SE 17.4) ofthose who received a functional curriculumand 85.1% (SE 7.2) of those who received anon-functional curriculum earned more than$5.15 per hour. In the final postschool out-come examined, 12.6% (SE 7.2) of studentswho received a functional curriculum at-tended any postsecondary educational institu-tion (i.e., business/vocational/technical, two-year, or four-year college) since leaving highschool. This rate more than doubled for stu-dents who received a non-functional curricu-lum (27.1%, SE 5.4). In terms of differences inpostschool outcomes between students withmild intellectual disability who received afunctional curriculum and those who receiveda non-functional curriculum, no statisticallysignificant differences existed for any out-come (p � .05).

TABLE 2

Immediate Postschool Outcomes for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability by Curricula Received

Postschool Outcomes

Functional Curriculum Non-Functional Curriculum

N % SE N % SE

Independent living 8,879 8.7 5.4 41,545 13.8 4.5Postsecondary attendance 9,112 12.6 7.2 39,612 27.1 5.4Currently employed 6,257 64.0 12.9 34,324 45.0 7.6Ever employed 6,772 71.5 10.5 37,430 62.3 6.7Above minimum wage 4,669 56.9 17.4 16,832 85.1 7.2Full-time employment — — — 18,690 38.7 9.5

Note: The percent is based on those in each category who responded to the question (i.e., some individualsdid not have responses to every question). Ever employed refers to whether students were employed any timeafter they left high school. Currently employed refer to whether students were employed currently when theyresponded to the interview/survey. The wage variable was calculated based on current or most recent wages ofparticipating youth, in case students were currently unemployed. Minimum wage was $5.15 at the time of datacollection. Postsecondary attendance includes attendance at vocational school, two-year college, or four-yearcollege. Please also note data with low unweighted count are not reported (i.e., represented by dashes in thetable).


“Long Term” Postschool Outcomes

In terms of “long-term” postschool outcomes(i.e., more than two years after participantsleft school), more students with mild intellec-tual disability who received a non-functionalcurriculum responded as having ever experi-enced paid employment as compared to thosewho received a functional curriculum inschool (54.0%, SE 10.1 vs. 49.7%, SE 23.1) (seeTable 3). A similar frequency of respondentsin both curricular categories reported theywere currently employed (non-functional:43.9%, SE 11.1; functional: 40.4%, SE 17.9). Interms of wages received, almost all studentswho received a non-functional or a functionalcurriculum in school reported they earnedmore than minimum wage (96.2%, SE 3.0 vs.95.4%, SE 3.1 respectively). Finally, a slightlyhigher frequency of students with mild intel-lectual disability who received a non-func-tional curriculum attended postsecondary in-stitutions as compared to those who received afunctional curriculum (25.6%, SE 9.5 vs.21.5%, SE 12.8). Similar to the examination ofdifferences in frequencies for the immediatepostschool outcomes, none of the long-termpostschool outcomes examined for studentswho received a non-functional curriculumwere statistically significantly different than

those of students who received a functionalcurriculum (p � .05).

Experiences Predicting Success

The logistic regression analyzing the six im-mediate postschool outcomes represented bybinary dependent variables (i.e., independentliving, currently employed, ever employed,ever attended a postsecondary institution,above minimum wage, and full time work)resulted in receipt of a functional curriculumnot being a statistically significant predictorfor any outcome (p � .05). Thus, receipt of afunctional curriculum versus a non-functionalcurriculum was not a factor influencing stu-dents’ postschool outcomes. In fact, none ofthe factors examined (curriculum, mentalskills, gender, family income, ethnicity, andschool location) were predictors for the im-mediate postschool outcomes of students withmild intellectual disability (p � .05). Similarresults were found for the six long-term post-school outcomes, with the exception of thedependent variables “currently employed”and “ever attended a postsecondary institu-tion.” Gender was a statistically significant pre-dictor for being currently employed, withmales more likely to be employed at the time

TABLE 3

Long term Postschool Outcomes for Students with Mild Intellectual Disability by Curricula Received

Postschool Outcomes

Functional Curriculum Non-Functional Curriculum

N % SE N % SE

Independent living — — — 15,273 19.4 8.6Postsecondary attendance 4,295 21.5 12.8 16,348 25.6 9.5Currently employed 3,687 40.4 17.9 13,766 43.9 11.1Ever employed 3,806 49.7 23.1 16,348 54.0 10.1Above minimum wage 1,634 95.4 3.1 7,468 96.2 3.0Full-Time Employment — — — 8,823 78.7 12.9

Note: The percent is based on those in each category who responded to the question (i.e., some individualsdid not have responses to every question). Ever employed refers to whether students were employed any timeafter they left high school. Currently employed refer to whether students were employed currently when theyresponded to the interview/survey. The wage variable was calculated based on current or most recent wages ofparticipating youth, in case students were currently unemployed. Minimum wage was $5.15 at the time of datacollection. Postsecondary attendance includes attendance at vocational school, two-year college, or four-yearcollege. Please also note data with low unweighted count are not reported (i.e., represented by dashes in thetable).


of the interview (3.23 times more likely to becurrently employed). Income was a statisticallysignificant predictor for the long-term out-come “ever attended a postsecondary institu-tion,” with students who attended a postsec-ondary institution more likely to report higherincomes.

Discussion

This study was a secondary analysis of theNLTS2 data focusing on issues of a functionalcurriculum for high school students with mildintellectual disability. Specifically, we analyzedreceipt of a functional curriculum in school bystudents with mild intellectual disability, thepostschool outcomes (i.e., independent living,employment, postsecondary attendance) ofstudents with mild intellectual disability, andthe relationship between curricular focus inschool and postschool outcomes for this pop-ulation. The results reveal three main findingsfor students with mild intellectual disability:(a) a low frequency receive a functional cur-riculum as their curricular focus in specialeducation, (b) some positive postschool out-comes were found, but there is still work to bedone to improve success, and (c) receipt of afunctional curriculum in school does not im-pact students’ postschool outcomes.

The most significant result may be the lackof impact of receipt of a functional curricu-lum on postschool outcomes for students withmild intellectual disability. The lack of influ-ence was apparent with the logistic regressionanalysis, as the binary variable of curriculum(i.e., functional or non-functional) was not apredictor in any of the postschool outcomemodels (i.e., independent living, ever at-tended a postsecondary education institution,currently employed, ever employed, aboveminimum wage, or working full time), andthis was for both immediate postschool out-comes as well as long-term postschool out-comes. Hence, whether a student with mildintellectual disability received a functionalcurriculum in school or a non-functional cur-riculum (i.e., academics, basic academics,study skills), it did not impact his or her post-school outcomes. The lack of impact of cur-riculum was also supported by the lack ofstatistically significant differences betweencurricular focus in frequency of postschool

outcomes for students with mild intellectualdisability (refer to Tables 2 and 3).

Despite the lack of statistical significanceregarding receipt of a functional curriculumand postschool outcomes, we cannot con-clude students with mild intellectual disability(a) do not benefit from receiving a functionalcurriculum or (b) should not be providedwith a functional curriculum. The results needto be interpreted in light of the limitationswith the secondary analysis. For example, thesurvey, from which the variable representingthe curricular focus of students’ non-voca-tional special education class, did not includequestions that might shed additional light onunderstanding the issues surrounding curric-ulum and postschool outcomes for studentswith mild intellectual disability. The surveyasked about the curriculum in students’ non-vocational special education class (i.e., aca-demics, basic academics, study skills, or lifeskills) but did not provide information regard-ing how much functional curriculum studentsreceive (i.e., number of classes, hours a week).Perhaps differences depend on the amountand/or frequency with which students withmild intellectual disability received a func-tional curriculum, but this could not be ascer-tained from the data. Related, the survey didnot ask about the nature of the functionalcurriculum and Bouck (2009) suggested dif-ferent models for functional curriculum existand that not all address aspects of a functionalcurriculum with equal attention or a focustowards the unique needs of students withmild intellectual disability.

It is worth noting that the results of thisanalysis were not consistent with previous re-search suggesting a relationship between re-ceipt of functional curriculum and positivepostschool outcomes for students with disabil-ities in general (Benz et al., 1999; Benz et al.,2000; Heal & Rusch, 1995; Phelps & Hanley-Maxwell, 1997; Riches et al., 1993). In fact, nofactors examined were found to impact theimmediate postschool outcomes of studentswith mild intellectual disability, which alsoconflicts with previous research (Baer et al.,2003; Rabren et al., 2002) except gender,which was influential in the long-term out-comes of “currently employed” and incomefor “attending postsecondary education.”While the previous research focused on stu-


dents with disabilities in general or an aggre-gation of disability categories (e.g., mild), thisresearch focused exclusively on studentswhose primary disability classification wasmild intellectual disability. Perhaps there issomething qualitatively and quantitatively dif-ferent about students with mild intellectualdisability with respect to postschool outcomesand the factors impacting their outcomes(e.g., curriculum, school location, income,gender). Note, students with mild intellectualdisability had lower mental skills (functionalcurriculum—10.6 and non functional curric-ulum—11.8) than students with learning dis-abilities (14.1), emotional behavior disorders(14.5), and all other disability categories otherthan multiple disabilities (9.8) (Wagner, Ca-meto, & Newman, 2003).

Students with mild intellectual disabilityperhaps face challenges to postschool out-comes that are different from other disabilitypopulations and these challenges may not beovercome by curricular focus, whatever thatmay be. For example, in comparing the out-comes from the NLTS2 of students with mildintellectual disability to the outcomes of stu-dent with learning disabilities and emotionaldisabilities (two common categories mild in-tellectual disability is aggregated within re-search; Edgar, 1987; Jones, 1996), 26.1% ofstudents with mild intellectual disability at-tended a postsecondary institution (regardlessof curriculum) as compared to 34% of stu-dents with emotional/behavior disorders and47.3% of students with learning disabilities(Newman et al., 2009). Similarly, 49.1% ofstudents with mild intellectual disability wereemployed postschool as compared to 63.6% ofstudents with learning disabilities (42.3% forstudents with emotional/behavior disorders).Finally, 12.1% of students with mild intellec-tual disability are living independently as com-pared to 21.5% of students with emotional/behavioral disorders and 28.8% of studentswith learning disabilities (Newman et al.).

Although receipt of a functional curriculumdid not result in students having statisticallybetter postschool outcomes (i.e., higher ratesof independent living, higher rates of employ-ment, etc.), it also did not result in themexperiencing lower postschool outcomes, sta-tistically speaking. Thus, a functional curricu-lum remains a viable option to consider. Yet,

the results indicated less than one-fifth of stu-dents with mild intellectual disability reportedreceiving a functional curriculum in school.While the low frequency may not be surprisingtoday, given the focus on the general educa-tion curriculum and participation in generallarge-scale assessments following No ChildLeft Behind (NCLB, 2002) and the Individu-als with Disabilities Education ImprovementAct (IDEA, 2004), the data on in-school cur-ricular focus predate the impact of NCLB andIDEA on education. The relatively small fre-quency reporting a functional curriculum isaligned with the reported decrease in atten-tion on a functional curriculum in the 1990s(Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, & Shri-kanth, 1997). Further, the data align with sur-vey data from a single state study regardingthe frequency of curricular focus for highschool students with mild intellectual disabil-ity—19.0% (Bouck, 2004a).

Implications for Practice

The results of this study hold implications forpractice. The results suggest the need to focuson issues of transition for secondary studentswith mild intellectual disability and particu-larly targeting areas of postschool success,such as independent living. There is a need tofocus on what students with mild intellectualdisability plan on doing after high school andhow practitioners can help them achievethose goals, including curriculum choices.The results also suggest that as a field we needto engage in deeper discussion around thecurriculum students are receiving. Althoughthe results indicate receiving a functional cur-riculum did not predict better postschool out-comes, it also did not “hurt” the students (i.e.,lower postschool outcomes). Yet lacking fromthis analysis is the social validity of teachers,parents, and student regarding curricular im-plementation. This analysis did not addresswhat key stakeholders feel students should bereceiving as a curriculum and what they see asbeneficial to post school success. Student andparents may find value in a functional curric-ulum not captured by outcomes; previous re-search suggested parents express concernsabout the lack of acquisition of functional lifeskills by their child with a disability (Love &Malian 1997; Olson, 2004).


Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations apply to this analysis. First,this is a secondary analysis of the NLTS2 dataand hence experiences the limitations of theoriginal design, which includes the self-re-ported nature of surveys. Related, missingdata existed for the secondary analysis—bothin terms of responses to some of the questionsfor all who participated in the study (i.e., re-spondents elected not to answer or skip logicwas imposed so a question was never asked torespondents), as well as attrition occurredthroughout the waves of data collection. Theattrition is evident when examining the “long-term” postschool outcomes. Whereas over6,000 students with mild intellectual disabilitywho received a functional curriculum inschool responded to employment outcomequestions (i.e., ever and currently employed),only around 3,000 responded to the “long-term” employment questions. Although the“long-term” outcomes drew from only twowaves of data (i.e., waves 3 and 4), this doesnot completely explain the smaller n. Thosewho responded to the “long-term” employ-ment questions appeared to be those whowere not as successful, as the ever employedfrequency went from 71.5% to 49.8%. Thissuggests individuals with more successful out-comes might have been less likely to respondto the survey and this may be related to thedesign of the NLTS2. The “long-term” out-comes may need to be interpreted with cau-tion.

Another limitation pertained to the phras-ing of questions and the lack of control duringsecondary analyses. For example, there was adifferentiation in questions between receivinga functional curriculum in a special educationclass and receiving life skills. Further, wheninquiring about receipt of life skills, the ques-tion was phrased to be life skills, includingsocial skills. While social skills are a compo-nent of life skills they are not the heart of lifeskills (e.g., skills for students to be successfulin life or independent). It was assumed morestudents with disabilities receive social skillsthan life skills, and hence the variable inquir-ing about receipt of life skills in general wasdifficult to use. We could not be certain ifstudents received life skills or just social skills.Additionally, the lack of statistically significant

results for the variable of interest—functionalcurriculum—could be viewed as a limitation.However, we choose to view it as an importantfinding warranting further consideration. Fi-nally, the lack of significant predictors for thelogistic regression models is problematic andsuggests additional research is needed to un-derstand what factors do impact the post-school outcomes of students with mild intel-lectual disability, given the lack of effect ofcurriculum, mental skills, and standard demo-graphic variables.

Future research should continue to explorethe impact of curricula on the postschool out-comes and in-school experiences for studentswith mild intellectual disability as well as sec-ondary students with other types of disabilities(e.g., learning disabilities, moderate/severeintellectual disability). Although this analysissuggested a lack of statistical differences in thepostschool outcomes for students who re-ceived a particular curricular focus as well asthe curriculum received variable was not afactor predicting outcomes in the logistic re-gression, the impact of curriculum still war-rants further examination. For example, whatreally constitutes a functional curricular ap-proach or a basic academics approach? Ateacher most knowledgeable with the stu-dents’ program indicated the curricular focus,but the nuances of the curricular approachwere not explored in the NLTS2 survey. Fur-ther research should understand and charac-terize curricular approaches as well as the re-lationship between experiencing a particularcurricular focus and postschool outcomes. Re-lated, research should examine what factorsdo impact the postschool outcomes of stu-dents with mild intellectual disability, giventhe lack of predictive relationship of the vari-ables examined in this analysis.

Additionally, future research should analyzethe in-school experiences of secondary stu-dents with mild intellectual disability ingreater depth. The majority of reports andresearch studies from the NLTS2 aggregatestudents with mild intellectual disability withstudents with moderate/severe disabilities(Newman et al., 2009; Yu, Newman, & Wag-ner, 2009), which does a disservice to under-standing the education of this population ofstudents. Much research in general aggregatesstudents with mild intellectual disability with


other high incidence disabilities and refers tothe grouping as students with mild disabilities(Edgar, 1987; Jones, 1996; Polloway, 2004;Smith, 2006). Seldom do we know about theeducation of student with mild intellectualdisability.

References

Alwell, M., & Cobb, B. (2009). Functional life skillscurricula intervention for youth with disabilities:A systematic review. Career Development for Excep-tional Individuals, 32, 82–93. DOI: 10.1177/0885728809336656.

Baer, R. M., Flexer, R. W., Beck, S., Amstutz, N.,Hoffman, L., Brothers, J., et al. (2003). A collab-orative follow-up study on transition service utili-zation and post-school outcomes. Career Develop-ment for Exceptional Individuals, 26, 7–25.

Belmont, J. M. (1966). Long term memory in men-tal retardation. International Review of Research inMental Retardation, 4, 219–255.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Latta, T. (1999).Improving collaboration between schools and vo-cational rehabilitation: The youth transition pro-gram model. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation,13, 55�63.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000).Improving collaboration between schools and vo-cational rehabilitation: The youth transition pro-gram model. Exceptional Children, 66, 509�529.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinalpost school outcomes of youth with disabilities:Findings from the national longitudinal transi-tion study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399–413.

Bouck, E. C. (2004a). Exploring secondary specialeducation for mild mental impairment: A pro-gram in search of its place. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 25, 367–382.

Bouck, E. C. (2004b). The state of curriculum forsecondary students with mild mental retardation.Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,39, 169–176.

Bouck, E. C. (2007). Lost in translation: Educatingsecondary students with mild mental impairment.Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 79–87.

Bouck, E. C. (2009). Functional curriculum modelsfor secondary students with mild mental impair-ment. Education and Training in Developmental Dis-abilities, 44, 435–443.

Bouck, E. C., & Flanagan, S. M. (2010). Functionalcurriculum � evidence-based education?: Consid-ering secondary students with mild intellectualdisabilities. Education and Training in Autism andDevelopmental Disabilities, 45, 487–499.

Brown, L., McLean, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S.,Pumpian, I., Creto, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979).

A strategy for developing chronological age-ap-propriate and functional curricular content forseverely handicapped adolescents and youngadults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.

Dunn, L. M. (1973). Children with mild generallearning disabilities. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.), Excep-tional children in the schools (pp. 125–188). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in specialeducation: Are many of them justifiable? Excep-tional Children, 53, 555–561.

Fujiura, G. (2003). Continuum of intellectual dis-ability: Demographic evidence for the “forgottengeneration.” Mental Retardation, 41, 420–429.

Heal, L. W., & Rusch, F. R. (1995). Predicting em-ployment for students who leave special educa-tion high school programs. Exceptional Children,61, 472–487.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improve-ment Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446 (2004).

Javitz, H., & Wagner, M. (2003). Analysis of poten-tial bias in the sample of local education agencies(LEAs) in the National Longitudinal TransitionStudy – 2 (NLTS2) sample. A report from theNational Longitudinal Transition Study-2(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Re-trieved from http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_analysis_bias_sample.pdf

Jones, C. J. (1996). An introduction to the nature andneeds of students with mild disabilities. Springfield,IL: Thomas.

Kaiser, D., & Abell, M. (1997). Learning life man-agement in the classroom. Teaching ExceptionalChildren, 30, 70–75.

Kaye, H. S. (1997). Education of children with disabil-ities. (Report No. EC305866 ). San Francisco, CA:University of California, San Francisco (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED412668).

Kirk, S. A. (1972). Educating exceptional children. Bos-ton: Houghton Mifflin.

Love, L. L., & Malian, I. M. (1997). What happens tostudents leaving secondary special education ser-vices in Arizona? Implications for educationalprogram improvement and transition services. Re-medial and Special Education, 18, 261–269.

Newman, L. (2005a). Family involvement in theeducation of secondary-school-age students withdisabilities. Family Involvement Research Digests. Re-trieved April 27, 2010, from http://www.hfrp.org/publications-resources/browse-our-publications/family-involvement-in-the-education-of - secondary - school -age- students-with-disabilities

Newman, L. (2005b). Postsecondary education par-ticipation of youth with disabilities. In M. Wagner,L. Newman, R. Cameto, N. Garza, and P. Levine,(Eds.), After high school: A first look at the postschoolexperiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the


National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2).Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrievedfrom http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_ch4.pdf

Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey,A. M. (2009). The post-high school outcomes of youthwith disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A reportof findings from the National Longitudinal TransitionStudy-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009–3017). Menlo Park,CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/nlts2_report_2009_04_complete.pdf

Nietupski, H., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., &Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular re-search in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 insix selected journals. The Journal of Special Educa-tion, 31, 59–60.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No.107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Olson, L. (2004). Enveloping expectations. QualityCounts in 2004: Count Me In: Special Education in anEra of Standards. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.com/sreports/qc04/article.cfm?slug�17ovrvw.h23

Patton, J. R., Cronin, M. E., & Jairrels, V. (1997).Curricular implications of transition: Life skills asan integral part of transition education. Remedialand Special Education, 18, 294–306.

Patton, J. R., Cronin, M. E., Polloway, E., A.,Hutchinson, D., & Robinson, G. (1989). Curricu-lar considerations: A life skills orientation. InG. A. Robinson, J. R. Patton, E. A. Polloway, & L.Sargent (Eds.), Best practices in mild mental retarda-tion (pp. 21–38). Reston, VA: Division on MentalRetardation, Council for Exceptional Children.

Peng, C. J., Lee, K. L., & Ingersoll, G. M. (2002). Anintroduction to logistic regression analysis andreporting. Journal of Educational Research, 96, 3–14.

Phelps, L. A., & Hanley-Maxwell, C. (1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: Areview of outcomes and practices. Review of Edu-cational Research, 67, 197–226.

Polloway, E. A. (2004). A eulogy for MMI. DDDExpress, 14, pp. 1, 8.

Polloway, E. A. (2005). Mild retardation: The statusof a category of exceptionality. In J. J. Hoover, &R. Hills (Eds.), 21st century issues in special educa-tion: Meeting diverse needs (pp. 35–46). Boulder:University of Colorado, BUENO Center.

Polloway, E. A. (2006). Mild mental retardation: Aconcept in search of clarity, a population insearch of appropriate education and supports, aprofession in search of advocacy. Exceptionality,14, 183–190.

Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., Smith, T. E. C., & Buck,G. H. (1997). Mental retardation and learningdisabilities: Conceptual and applied issues. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 297–308, 345.

Rabren, K., Dunn, C, & Chambers, D. (2002). Pre-dictors of post-high school employment amongyoung adults with disabilities. Career Developmentfor Exceptional Individuals, 25, 25–40.

Riches, V., Parmenter, T., Fegent, M., & Bailey, P.(1993). Secondary education: A follow-along study ofstudents with disabilities in transition in New SouthWales . North Ryde, New South Wales: MacquarieUniversity. (ERIC Document Reproduction Ser-vices No. ED358627).

Sabornie, E. J., Evans, C., & Cullinan, D. (2006).Comparing characteristics of high-incidence dis-ability groups: A descriptive review. Remedial andSpecial Education, 27, 95–104.

Sitlington, P., Frank, A. R., & Carson, R. (1993). Adultadjustment among high school graduates with milddisabilities. Exceptional Children, 59, 221–233.

Smith, J. D. (2006). Speaking of mild mental retar-dation: It’s no box of chocolates, or is it? Excep-tionality, 14, 191–204.

Spitz, H. H. (1973). Consolidating facts into theschematized learning and memory of educableretardates. In N. R. Ellis (Eds.), International Re-view of Research in Mental Retardation, Vol. 6 (pp.149–168). New York: Academic Press.

SRI International. (2000a). National LongitudinalTransition Study II (NLTS2): Sampling Plan. Re-trieved from http://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_sampling_plan.pdf

SRI International. (2000b). National LongitudinalTransition Study II (NLTS2): Study design, time-line, and data collection plan. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nlts2.org/studymeth/nlts2_design_timeline.pdf

SRI International. (n.d.). Supporting statement for pa-perwork reduction act submission Part B: Collections ofinformation employing statistical methods. Depart-ment of Education Information Collection Sys-tem. Retrieved from http://edicsweb.ed.gov/edics_files_web/03698/Att_Supporting%20Statement%20Part%20B.doc

Stephens, W. E. (1972). Equivalence formation byretarded and nonretarded children at differentmental ages. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,77, 311–313.

Thomas, G. E. (1996). Teaching students with mentalretardation: A life goal curriculum planning guide.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Newman, L. (2003).Youth with disabilities: A changing population. A re-port of findings from the National Longitudinal Tran-sition Study (NLTS) and the National LongitudinalTransition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRIInternational. Retrieved from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2003_04-1/index.html

Wagner, M., Kutash, K., Duchnowski, A. J., & Ep-stein, M. H. (2005). The Special Education Ele-mentary Longitudinal Study and the National


Longitudinal Transition Study: Study designs andimplications for children and youth with emo-tional disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behav-ioral Disorders, 13(1), 23–41.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P.(2005). Changes Over Time in the Early PostschoolOutcomes of Youth with Disabilities. A Report of Find-ings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study(NLTS) and the National Longitudinal TransitionStudy-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI Interna-tional. Retrieved October 9, 2009, from http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2005_06/nlts2_report_2005_06_complete.pdf

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., &Marder, C. (2007). Perceptions and expectations ofyouth with disabilities. A special topic report of findingsfrom the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2(NLTS2) (NCSER 2007–3006). Menlo Park, CA:SRI International. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pdf/20073006.pdf

Yu, J., Newman, L., & Wagner, M. (2009). Secondaryschool experiences and academic performance of studentswith mental retardation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI Inter-national. Retrieved March 31, 2010 from http://www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2009_07.pdf

Zeaman, D., & House, B. J. (1963). The role ofattention in retardate discrimination learning. InN. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency:Psychological theory and research (pp. 159–223).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zeaman, D., & House, B. J. (1979). A review ofattention theory. In N. R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook ofmental deficiency: Psychological theory and research(pp. 63–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Received: 24 March 2011Initial Acceptance: 20 May 2011Final Acceptance: 15 July 2011


Documents

Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual ...daddcec.org/Portals/0/CEC/Autism_Disabilities/Research/... · Functional Curriculum and Students with Mild Intellectual