University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

(USC Thesis Other)

Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 1
MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COMMON CORE FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
WITH SIGNIFICANT COGNITIVE DISABILITIES

by

Arlene Hackl Platten

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2014

Copyright 2014 Arlene Hackl Platten

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 2
Acknowledgements
Writing a dissertation requires the support of many people with key insights into the
content and processes entailed and with deeply personal connections to the subject matter. I am
indebted to such individuals for helping to make my study possible. I would like to thank the
teachers of the moderate-to severe population for their time, effort, and interest in contributing
their commentaries and suggestions to improve instructional practices and content for these very
deserving students. I would like to thank Drs. Kaplan, Gallagher, and Carbone for their
constructive feedback on each stage of my project. I am grateful to Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for
instilling in me a deep concern regarding underserved diversity groups, and to Marlene Pugach
for providing a solid foundation in qualitative inquiry processes and pedagogy relative to the
target population. I also greatly appreciate the support of personal mentors Carl Pentis and Mary
Grace Carpenter, who motivated me to pursue this degree; and of fellow doctoral students,
Thomas Weinmann and Yulonn Harris, who strengthened my resolve to push forward and “fight
on” when the challenges seemed insurmountable.
Most especially I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my family. My son
Joseph provided the foundational inspiration for the entire project; his willingness to accompany
me and lead me in our curriculum-building adventure added high interest, deep purpose, and
boundless joy to my work. My husband Jeff and daughter Andrea provided great encouragement
and technical assistance; their patience and their understanding were endless and invaluable.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge my late parents Bruno and Josephine Hackl, whose steadfast
commitment to all their undertakings lovingly exemplified the value of hard work and
perseverance towards the highest outcomes.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2

List of Tables 5

Abstract 6

Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8

Background of the Problem 8

Statement of the Problem 11

Purpose of the Study 14

Research Questions 16

Theoretical Framework 16

Importance of the Study 18

Limitations and Delimitations 19

Definition of Terms 20

Organization of the Study 21

Chapter Two: Literature Review 23

Research Questions 24

Synthesis of the Literature 25

Access to the General Curriculum 26

The Mentality of Ableism and Lack of Social Capital 27

Placement vs Access 28

Absence of School Vision and Goals 29

Teacher Perceptions Concerning IDEA/NCLB 30

Limited Teacher Training and Efficacy 31

Misalignment of IEP Goals with General Curriculum Standards 33

Common Core State Standards Initiative 34

Support for CCSS 35

Application to Students with Disabilities 36

Current Controversies 37

Intent of the Standards as Defined by CCSS 40

Curriculum Criteria Overview 41

Curriculum Criteria Related to CCSS 42

CCSS Curriculum Criteria Related to Students with Disabilities 43

Curriculum Models, Adaptations, and Modifications for Special Needs Learners 43

Curriculum Mapping 44

Tools 45

Assessment 46

Teacher Preparation in the use of Program Adaptations 47

Teacher Practices and Perceptions 47

Presentation of Theories 50

Summary 53

Chapter Three: Research Methodology 54

Background and Purpose of the Study 54

Research Questions and Method 57

Sample 58

Research Procedure 59

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 4
Evaluation Form Preface 63

Interview Protocol 66

Time Line 67

Data Reduction 67

Validity 69

Reliability 69

Conclusion 70

Chapter Four: Results 71

Review of Problem 71

Research Questions 72

Overview of Research Methods 73

Data Summary 75

Survey Data 75

Question One: Survey Data Trends 78

Question One: Interview Data Relative to Survey 81

Combined Survey/Interview Themes 90

Question Two Data Summary 91

Thematic Categories 94

Teacher Perceptions of Curriculum’s Strengths 95

Perceived Curriculum Omissions 99

Potential Impediments to Delivery of Proposed Model 102

Program Impact on Teacher Approach to Common Core 106

Program Impact on School Community 108

Conclusion 110

Chapter 5: Discussion 113

Restatement of Problem 113

Review of Purpose and Research Questions 115

Methodology Overview 116

Findings, Implications, and Limitations 119

Research Question One 119

Research Question Two 123

Conclusion and Recommendations 128

References 130

Appendix A: Initial Survey 144

Appendix B: Curriculum Evaluation Form Preface 146

Appendix C: Curriculum Evaluation Form 147

Appendix D: Interview Protocol 149

Appendix E: Participant Recruitment Letter 151

Appendix F: Institutional Review Board Approval 152

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 5
List of Tables
Table 1: Initial Survey 61

Table 2: Curriculum Evaluation Form 64

Table 3: Teacher Background and Beliefs per Initial Survey 76

Table 4: Likert Data Summary of Responses to Proposed Curriculum Based on Evaluation
Criteria 91

Table 5: Summary of Verbal Responses to Curriculum Evaluation Prompts 92

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 6
Abstract
This qualitative dissertation explored how high school students with significant cognitive
disabilities in the moderate to severe category may receive an appropriate, standards-based
education according to federal and state legislation given that they require fundamental living
skills as well. It examined the ways their academic and functional learning requirements may be
fulfilled through the development and implementation of a comprehensive curriculum consisting
of adapted Common Core State Standards, life skills, and community-based instruction. It
discussed the concept that students with cognitive disabilities require learning opportunities
across a variety of settings, consistent with ecological development theory.
The study posed two key questions: How can high school students with significant
cognitive disabilities access the Common Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science
through a life-skills oriented, community-based curriculum? How do special education teachers
perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of life skills and Common Core standards in
ELA, math, and science? A research-based thematic curriculum was generated and field-tested
on 7 educators of high school and middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities to
obtain their perceptions of its feasibility and utility. The educators completed an initial
background survey and then examined a voice-over PowerPoint curriculum sample using a
curriculum evaluation form to guide their review. Educators were subsequently interviewed to
determine their perceptions and check for alignment with previous responses.
Participants generally believed that students with significant cognitive disabilities could
meaningfully access adapted versions of the Common Core based on students’ level of ability
and the provision of necessary supports. Key implications were derived from the findings.
Teachers may need to engage in additional training and collaboration to generate customized
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 7
curricula or modify existing programs to bring about student success. Special education teachers
require the support of general education colleagues and local administration to enable the
development or implementation of a comprehensively appropriate curriculum for the target
population. More research is necessary to determine other ways the Common Core can be
adapted for a greater range of ability levels to ensure success for all.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Learning disability is increasingly viewed as part of the spectrum of dimensions linked to
the overarching theme of diversity. It is relevant to the larger diversity agenda in that it raises
the issue of equal access for students with disabilities along with marginalized groups within
race, ethnicity, and gender categories. Particular attention and effort are required to ensure that
students with learning disabilities, particularly significant cognitive disabilities, obtain equal
access to and opportunity within quality educational programs (Connor & Baglieri, 2009; Pliner
& Johnson, 2010). With the advent of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the legal
entitlement of special needs learners to attain them, it is all the more critical for researchers to
examine ways these students may access academic learning opportunities in a meaningful way
(Thurlow, 2010).
Background of the Problem
Federal legislation mandates that all students, including those with disabilities, be
enabled to access and progress in the general curriculum. To increase academic performance
levels of students with special needs, significant legal mandates--such as the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB)-- have been passed by the US
Department of Education (Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005). Because NCLB pertains to
all students in terms of annual yearly progress expectations and interim language arts and math
assessments, it ensures that educators are also held accountable for the academic performance of
special needs learners. The intent of both mandates is to generate learning programs that derive
their content and outcomes from the general curriculum to the fullest extent possible (Agran,
Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Cushing et al., 2005).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 9
With the adoption of Common Core State Standards (CCSS), access to the general
curriculum has a critical role in helping students with disabilities gain the knowledge and skills
specified by these standards (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2005). Although they may be far removed
from attaining the college and career-ready competencies addressed in the state standards,
students with significant cognitive disabilities (SSCDs) now have more post-secondary learning
and employment opportunities than ever according to their education and ability levels (Bowman
& Weisenkauf, 1998; Hart & Grigal, 2010; Pampay & Bambara, 2011, as cited in Kearns,
Kleinert, Harrison, Sheppard-Jones, Hall, & Jones, 2011). Further, those students placed in least
restrictive learning environments that allow for maximum association with typical peers are
found to have higher employment success upon their transition from school to work, regardless
of cognitive development level (White & Weiner, 2004). There is empirical and theoretical
support for access to general education contexts and curriculum as opposed to other school
programs or settings for this population (Jackson et al., 2008). The extent to which the students
of this population gain access and are facilitated to progress toward the general curriculum may
greatly affect their post-transitional lives.
Fundamental to the conception and implementation of instructional programs aligned
with the CCSS is the belief that such effort has merit in the case of special needs learners,
particularly as regards SSCDs (Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, 2001). Teachers are charged with
developing and modifying the instructional content to produce meaningful outcomes, and
educational agencies are accountable for making sure that students of all ability levels receive an
education that challenges and interests them according to the highest reasonable expectations
(Wehmeyer, et al., 2001). However, if teachers maintain an ableist viewpoint, predicated on the
idea that students with disabilities are largely unable to learn, they may develop low expectations
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 10
for persons with disability and contribute to their marginalization in schools and in the work
place (Connor & Baglieri, 2009; Herir, 2002). This viewpoint may also result in low teacher
motivation and disinclination to actively pursue an appropriate curriculum (Rueda, 2011).
In the interest of progress for all students, including those with significant cognitive
disabilities, there are essential criteria for an appropriate curriculum. According to the California
Department of Education (2013), a proposed course of study must evidence alignment with state
standards and principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). These principles comprise
sufficiently adapted materials and flexible content delivery formats including the use of
technology tools, clear guidelines for implementation, and a logical, coherent organization.
Accounting for the learning needs of students with disabilities, special education experts
layer in additional criteria concerning the need for embedded life skills and personal relevance.
This means that standards referenced in the curriculum must be judiciously selected for their
application to the interests and functional needs of the learners in terms of enhancing their
quality of life (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011; Dymond, Renzaglia, Gilson, & Slagor,
2007). Further, the attainment goals must be linked with fidelity to grade level content
standards, though they may differ due to the diverse learning needs of this population (Browder,
Wakeman, Flowers, Rickelman, Pugalee, & Karvonen, 2007).
In recognition of the right of all students to attain standards created to enhance the
activity of life, federal policy has increased its assessment requirements for SSCDs in ELA,
mathematics, and science (Ravitch, 2010, as cited in Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, &
Baker, 2006). West and Whitby (2008) state that even students with severe cognitive disability,
deemed as the 1% of the population for whom wide scale assessments are inaccessible, are
required to take alternative assessments linked to the aforementioned state content standards (as
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 11
cited in Ryndak, Moore, & Orlando, 2008). Though instructional programs serving this
population have typically emphasized functional life skills over academic learning to enhance
personal independence and the quality of life, the 1% population will not progress in the assessed
academic content areas absent a thoughtfully planned general education program (Browder et al.,
2006; Cortiella & Wickham, 2008; Dymond et al., 2007). It is highly questionable whether these
students are currently making gains in general education according to their unique learning needs
and capacities (Kearns et al., 2011).
Statement of the Problem
Ensuring that all learners make gains toward the general curriculum in accordance with
recently adopted Common Core State Standards presents a great challenge in terms of students
with significant cognitive disabilities. While many special needs learners require individualized
accommodations to gain academic knowledge—such as allowances for multiple means of
presentation and response, and different instructional supports (Bolt & Roach, 2009; Hitchcock,
Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Pugach, 2005)—it is not currently understood how the CCSS can
effectively be developed for students with disabilities to ensure their productive access or
academic success (Ravitch & Mathis, 2010; Thurlow, 2010). To add to the challenge, there is no
common mindset among special educators and educational researchers on how to satisfy general
curriculum mandates concurrent with facilitation of life skills development (Agran et al., 2002,
citing McDonnell, Thorson, & McQuivey, 2000; Dymond et al., 2007; Ryndak et al., 2008).
These concerns have yet to be adequately researched.
Assessment requirements and federal mandates aside, there remains a question as to
whether the CCSS-based general curriculum is actually warranted for or applicable to the target
population. Research indicates teachers often perceive that these students are not suited to the
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 12
content or contexts of general education (Ryndak, 2008 citing Newman, 2004; Schumaker, 2004;
Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2007) and, therefore, cannot derive value from
the general curriculum or its typical settings. However, this perception is inconsistent with the
premise that educational experiences should be made relevant to the needs and interests of the
student, not that the student must be “made” to fit the curriculum (Dewey, 1902; Schiro, 2013;
Tyler, 1949). It is also inconsistent with research on outcomes derived from educational
supports and services for students with significant special needs (Browder, Trela, Courtade,
Jimenez, Knight, & Flowers, 2010; Federal Register, 2004; Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer,
2008; Ryndak et al., 2008). For example, Browder et al. (2010) found evidence that this
population can acquire academic skills linked to secondary content with the proper supports and
adaptations. Wehmeyer et al. (2001) contend that the practices of adaptation, augmentation of
strategies, and curriculum alteration favoring principles of UDL could make a positive difference
in the learning outcomes for the SSCD population. In addition, the US Federal Register
unequivocally points to nearly 30 years’ worth of research and experience indicating that more
effective education for students with disabilities should be provided through high expectations
and the provision of access to the general curriculum in the mainstream classroom to the fullest
degree appropriate (2004). This finding strongly suggests the research-based belief on the part
of the federal government that students with significant disabilities deserve better educational
services than they have traditionally received.
Though studies show that students with severe cognitive disabilities typically perform
better in the general curriculum alongside typical peers, it is often difficult to arrange for the
necessary conditions to ensure student success (Hitchcock et al., 2002; Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-
Rinckner, & Agran, 2003). Such conditions include collaboration between general and special
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 13
education teachers (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczynski, 2002); a sufficiently adapted,
standards-based curriculum with age/grade-appropriate content for students with disabilities
(Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup, & Palmer, 2010), flexibly formatted materials, methods and informal
assessments aligned with suitably challenging goals according to the principles of universal
design for learning (Hitchcock et al., 2002) and strong teacher beliefs that such efforts are
worthwhile (Lee, Amos, Gradoudas, et al., 2006). When these conditions are unmet—
specifically at the high school level—academic learning experiences may cease altogether and be
replaced by a life-skills approach consisting predominantly of self-help learning and community-
based job skills (Wehmeyer et al., 2003). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2003),
high school students with significant cognitive disabilities spend considerably less time in
general education classrooms than their elementary and middle school counterparts, causing their
participation in the standards-based curriculum to become increasingly restricted (as cited in
Carter & Hughes, 2006). All of these obstacles make the attainment of rigorous Common Core
standards all the more unlikely.
A life skills program featuring community-based instruction (CBI) may have its
advantages to a degree. Linked to Social Efficiency ideology favoring pragmatic, utilitarian
outcomes (Schiro, 2013), it may result in independent function and eventual work benefits for
post-secondary SSCDs. But it is not, in itself, a curriculum (Dymond et al., 2007). If not
contextualized within general education learning experiences, it may deprive students with
significant cognitive disabilities their legal and human right to a broad-based education aligned
with CCSS competencies meant to ensure greater life opportunities. However, life skills can be
embedded in the general curriculum across a variety of settings (Browder et al., 2006; Jackson et
al., 2008) to ensure that students are progressing in the general curriculum concurrent to their
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 14
pursuit of self-determining, life-long competencies. Recognition that the community is a
resource for meaningful instruction comprising life skills and general curriculum objectives may
be a critical step in the development of a comprehensive curriculum benefiting the target
population (Beck, Broers, Hogue, Shipstead, & Knowlton, 1994). According to the research, this
step necessitates consistent collaboration between special and general educators (Beck et al.,
1994; Cawley et al., 2002).
From the research cited above, it may be concluded that students with significant
cognitive disabilities have a right to a standards-based academic education that also encompasses
functional knowledge and skills contextualized in CBI. Because of general uncertainty regarding
effective programs and implementation processes, as well as some uncertainty as to whether such
programs are warranted, these learners may continue being deprived of a quality education as
mandated by law.
Purpose of the Study
Though many studies reference the need for SSCDs to access and progress in the general
curriculum to reap essential benefits, few address the curriculum components and structure that
would enhance the outcomes for this population. Some studies focus on a particular subject area,
such as ELA, mathematics, or science, and mention ways these may be integrated (Browder et
al., 2010). But there is a definite need for more studies focused on ways to incorporate self-help
and transition skills within general education (Agran et al., 2002; McDonnell, Thorson, &
McQuivey, 2000, as cited in Agran et al., 2002). Specifically, more research is needed on how
high school students with significant cognitive disabilities can access the general curriculum to
successfully facilitate their post-secondary transition to adulthood (Browder et al., 2007;
Dymond et al., 2007). What is needed most is, in the words of Agran et al. (2002), an approach
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 15
“involving not two curriculums, but one sufficiently broad to address the needs of all students”
(p. 132).
Taking into consideration the legal mandates of general curriculum access and functional
needs of students with cognitive disabilities in the moderate to severe (M/S) category, the
purpose of this study was twofold: to determine a curriculum that emphasized the relationship
between Common Core standards and the personal needs and interests of high school students
with significant cognitive disabilities, and to analyze teacher perceptions of the utility of this
type of curriculum design. The content area of emphasis was life science based on the local
ecology of the shoreline ecosystem. Incorporated in the curriculum were functional and
standards-aligned reading, writing, and mathematics lesson objectives tied to life science
concepts in a thematic approach. Though this curriculum was designed specifically for high
school SSCDs residing within a particular south bay community and was not fully generalizable
to students in different geographical locations, it was nonetheless intended to exemplify how the
standards-based general curriculum could be modified and adapted to serve the high school
SSCD population based on the local ecology of its prospective users.
Though SSCD students represent many types of disabilities, at varying levels of verbal
and quantitative skills, the population specifically addressed in this curriculum study consisted of
students ranging in ability from concrete symbolic to abstract symbolic (Beukelman & Mirenda,
2005; Browder et al., 2006). Specifically, the students of this population may have more
receptive than expressive language and rely on symbols and sight words to read and demonstrate
understanding of concepts. Achievement expectations may differ depending on the student’s
vocabulary and corresponding ability to understand and process symbols (Browder et al., 2007).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 16
Research Questions
To address the combined need for general curriculum access and life skills development
in a way that contributes to its fulfillment, it was important to consider the following research
questions:
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills oriented,
community-based curriculum?
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
Theoretical Framework
A life science curriculum oriented to the student’s local ecology was proposed for two
important reasons clarified here in terms of the learning theories to which they correspond.
Primarily, such a curriculum is meant to guide the teacher to begin where the students are (Tyler,
1949) in terms of the environment, capabilities and needs of the special student population to
which it is geared. The curriculum content must be concrete, familiar, sequential, and grounded
in Learner-Centered ideology (Schiro, 2013). It should be based on the actual living experiences
of students, gradually preparing them to take on more socially productive tasks and
responsibilities in the general setting—defined here as all the contexts where learning, living,
and working may occur within a community.
When the aforementioned criteria are in place, the curriculum is aligned with the
progressivist philosophy championed by Dewey (1938) and Kilpatrick (1941). It is personalized
and engaging. It considers the whole child, addressing the health and well-being of the
individual, and ensuring the best things in life or “the larger elements of happiness [more so]
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 17
than any other things whatsoever” (Wiggins, 2011, citing Spencer, 1861, p. 13). Such
motivational elements are essential to helping students formulate their knowledge, interests,
routinized tasks, and capacities whereby they will find their way in life and contribute
meaningfully to their society (Tyler, 1949; Wiggins, 2011). For high school students nearing the
end of their formal secondary education, said capacities are critical to future success.
Secondly, though the curriculum may be structured to provide a firm knowledge base, it
should emphasize active participation in the aforementioned contexts over knowledge
acquisition. Per Barab and Roth (2006, p. 3), whose research purports to “advance an ecological
theory of knowing,” the act of knowing is indeed an activity, contextualized and constructed in
the individual-environment interaction. Therefore, the curriculum content must not be a
collection of disjointed facts or concepts, but, rather, a thematic series of interactive learning
experiences deliberately connected to the situations and persons that give them meaning (Barab
and Roth, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Tyler, 1949). It should thus allow learning to take place
through dynamic, interrelated, and interdependent processes (Taba, 1962; Tyler, 1949). This may
preclude the problem of cognitive overload and ensure connectivity and transfer of knowledge to
long-term memory (Rueda, 2011).
In the sense that CBI-related learning experiences help frame the curriculum, said
curriculum may also be viewed through the lens of ecological development theory (Barab &
Roth, 2006). Ecological theory emphasizes learning through participation within one’s own
environmental network (Barab & Roth, 2006; Jackson et al., 2008), and is thus an extension of
sociocultural theory (Rueda, 2011). The latter, focusing on the cultural and social underpinnings
of learning, emphasizes the role of context in terms of the family background, the school, the
community, the self, and one’s peers in the social environment (Au, 2003). The study of the local
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 18
ecosystem, a key part of the California high school Content Standards (California Department of
Education [CDE], 2010) may allow the cultural and social development of students when
contextualized within a curriculum that provides meaningful access to collaborative learning
experiences across a variety of local settings.
The ecosystem topic is more readily teachable in its tangible, observable forms than
abstract concepts; for this reason, it is an appropriate subject for students with disabilities who
require hands-on experiences based on concrete phenomena in natural settings (Mastropieri &
Scruggs, 1992). The topic is arguably even more appropriate when related learning experiences
are thematically linked to ensure understanding (Tyler, 1949). To the extent that the curriculum
in its activities and experiences is linked to a universal theme—in this case, systems—it
encompasses ecological theory in that the parts and players of the learning environment may
interact to make learning possible.
Importance of the Study
This study attempted to demonstrate that the academic and functional needs of students
with significant cognitive disabilities could be interwoven with community-based instruction to
address Common Core State Standards in a meaningful way, as contextualized in learning
experiences and across settings relevant to the target population. It focused on how to
incorporate all educational requirements into one curriculum sufficiently broad-based to attend to
the needs of all learners (Agran et al., 2002). Because the above-referenced literature calls for
such a curriculum to ensure that SSCDs make progress according to their capabilities and their
future career goals, it was necessary to develop a broad-based curricular program and determine
teacher perceptions of its feasibility and utility. The information obtained from data collection
and analysis may serve to inform special education teachers regarding how similar Common
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 19
Core-based programs of study can be customized for their particular students. It may also serve
to inform researchers currently investigating this topic about additional possibilities for
standards-based curriculum development and functional learning opportunities relative to these
students. This study’s contribution to the field of special education research may be significant
given the historic dearth of emphasis on curriculum development featuring the interconnectivity
of CCSS, life skills, and local community-based instruction (Agran et al., 2002). In the proposed
curriculum, the focus on state science standards as foundational to thematic units of instruction
incorporating the above learning criteria adds another dimension to the study that may increase
its value when added to the research base.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study targeting curriculum development and implementation for high school
students with cognitive disabilities in the moderate to severe (M/S) category had several
limitations. The proposed model was generated for students capable of oral/receptive language
who function at the abstract or concrete symbolic reading level (Browder et al., 2007).
Therefore, it may not have had application to students with M/S disabilities who perform at
higher or lower levels. Teachers who reviewed the curriculum sample did not have access to the
entire curriculum, which may have made it difficult for them to ascertain key elements and
provide a comprehensive evaluation. While the model included specific learning activities and
lesson objectives tied to CCSS and life skills, with suggestions for potential modifications, it did
not include detailed lesson plans because of the anticipated diversity of the student body. Further,
the model was not tested on the students themselves, which arguably would have provided
valuable data on its strengths and weaknesses.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 20
The study also had its delimitations in terms of generalizability or external validity. The
community-based instructional components centered on the Los Angeles South Bay area may not
have had been fully generalizable to the local communities of all educators participating in the
study. Under these circumstances, some teachers may have felt the curriculum required too
much adaptation to be used effectively. Not all teachers have the same level of experience in
terms of curriculum design and implementation as evident from the teacher responses in this
study; therefore, they could not be expected to have the same perceptions as to the program’s
utility and feasibility.
Definition of Terms
To facilitate understanding of key terms utilized on a frequent basis in this study, it is
necessary to provide an operational definition for each. They are presented below in alphabetical
order, and sources from which they are used in the same context are also included:
• Common Core State Standards (CCSS), as discussed in Kearns, Kleinert, and Harrison et
al. (2011) are the recently developed nationwide academic content standards in English
language arts (ELA) and mathematics for grades K-12.
• Community-based instruction (CBI), as reported in Beck et al. (1994), is the concept of
functional skills taught in those local community settings where students are likely to
participate.
• Ecological development theory, as discussed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), is a concept in
which human development is paired with ecological versus behavioral or biological
factors; children’s behavior develops to match that of others within their local social and
cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, as cited in Jackson et al, 2008).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 21
• General education (GE) as discussed by Cawley et al. (2002) refers to the regular,
standards-based curriculum used in teaching the typical student population.
• Moderate to severe (M/S) disabilities as presented in Jackson, Ryndak, and Billingsley
(2000) refers to students with significant cognitive disabilities who require specialized
supports and instructional experts in order to acquire academic and functional skills
• Special education (SE) as discussed by Cawley at al. (2002) refers to education programs
with special modifications and provisions to benefit students with special learning needs
• Students with significant cognitive disabilities (SSCDs) as discussed in Dymond et al.
(2007) are those learners in the moderate to severe category as defined above.
• Universal design for learning (UDL), as presented in Hitchcock et al. (2002), refers to
curriculum featuring rigorous goals for all students, materials with flexible formats and
multiple representations of content, methods providing suitable learning opportunities
and supports for all students, and assessment that provides critical information on student
progress at regular intervals to enable instructional adjustments.
Organization of the Study
This study was organized in five chapters, each addressing a critical aspect of curriculum
focusing on CCSS for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In this chapter, the
problem was posed as to how students with significant cognitive disabilities could access
Common Core State Standards according to their legal entitlement and within the context of life
skills-oriented community-based instruction. In Chapter Two, a review of literature was
presented to examine the concept of access to the general curriculum for students with
disabilities, and to determine appropriate programs of study for them based on their entitlement
to the Standards and to instruction concerning their functional needs. Chapter Three discussed
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 22
the study methodology. A life science curriculum centered on students’ local ecology and a life
skills approach to Common Core State Standards was developed for high school SSCDs and
submitted, in part, to particular teachers of this population for evaluative review. Teachers were
selected based on their teaching experience with this population at the middle school and high
school levels and on their interest in curriculum design and development. Respondents were
surveyed for their knowledge and beliefs about curriculum for these students. They reviewed a
representative portion of the curriculum and recorded their initial impressions of the curriculum’s
utility on an evaluation guide with multiple choice and 1-4 Likert scale survey questions.
Following the evaluative review and the collection of survey documents, teachers were
interviewed on their perceptions regarding the utility of the proposed curriculum in their current
or future implementation of CCSS for this population. Because the evaluation process drew on
teacher impressions of the program’s overall feasibility (Satchwell & Loepp, 2002; Weston,
2004) this study may be considered as an initial field test of a life skills-oriented, community-
based curriculum focused on life science and incorporating essential Common Core State
Standards for English Language Arts (ELA) and mathematics. In Chapter Four, the results of the
study were reported by categorizing data according to emerging themes. Finally, Chapter Five
discussed the findings and their implications for current practice and future research.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
According to federal mandates, all students from grades K-12 have the right to a quality
education that promotes their advancement in a standards-based general curriculum. This
entitlement also applies to students with significant cognitive disabilities (Cushing, Clark, Carter,
& Kennedy, 2005). With the advent of the recently adopted Common Core State Standards, an
initiative specifically addressing students with disabilities of all levels clarifies that these
students deserve to meaningfully access the Standards along with their typical peers (CCSS
Initiative, 2010).
Though students with significant cognitive disabilities (SSCDs) may now take part in
special education programs under prescribed mandates, it is not a given that they are successfully
accessing and progressing in the general curriculum as stipulated by law (Hitchcock et al., 2002;
Wehmeyer, et al., 2003). In fact, the notion that they have basic access to that curriculum may
be inaccurate (Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). These students have
historically been taught functional life skills outside the general education teaching and learning
framework, and their learning experiences have been grounded in community-based instruction
(CBI) to address post-secondary transition skills—deemed as essential to employability—that
cannot be taught within the general education classroom (Dymond & Russel, 2004; Ayres et al.,
2011). Reflecting this reality, current research shows that students with intensive support
requirements for academic learning are less likely to be included in the general setting, and are
not as likely to be engaged in learning experiences associated with the general curriculum as
their less disabled peers (Wehmeyer et al., 2001). Yet, research also indicates that post-
secondary employment success rates are higher for those SSCDs who were provided general
education learning experiences within the least restrictive environment (LRE), including
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 24
consistent integration with their typical peers. Therefore, though the community-based life skills
approach is intended to enhance the post-secondary employability of students with disabilities,
its limitations can adversely affect employment outcomes, found to be lower in the case of
SSCDs who have been placed in restrictive settings throughout their school years as compared
with their integrated counterparts (White & Weiner, 2004). Clearly, this paradox calls for a
solution.
The adoption of Common Core State Standards requires general curriculum access for
SSCDs to be reexamined in a new and challenging way, given that said access plays a vital part
in helping these students gain knowledge and skills specified in the standards (Nolet &
McLaughlin, 2005). Though many specially challenged learners need multiple supports and
fine-tuned accommodations permitting varied means of presentation and response (Bolt &
Roach, 2009; Hitchcock et al., 2002; Pugach, 2005), it has yet to be determined how the CCSS
can be developed and implemented to ensure productive access leading to future employment
success (Ravitch & Mathis, 2010; Thurlow, 2010). Neither researchers nor teachers who serve
the special needs community of learners have come to terms on effective ways to integrate
general curriculum mandates and life skills development (Agran et al., 2002, citing McDonnell,
Thorson, & McQuivey, 2000; Dymond et al., 2007; Ryndak et al., 2008).
Research Questions
In recognition of the need to determine how the CCSS may be applied to the
SSCD population to maximize their future outcomes, it is necessary to pose the following
research questions:
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 25
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills oriented,
community-based curriculum?
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
Synthesis of the Literature
The purpose of this chapter is to examine, through a review of pertinent literature, the
concept of access to the general curriculum for students of the target population and to determine
appropriate programs of study for them based on their entitlement to the Standards and to
instruction concerning their functional needs. Though focused mainly on the Common Core, it
begins with the history of access leading up to the adoption of the standards in order to
effectively situate their role in special education. The review is organized in the following
sequence:
• Access to the general curriculum: the historical definitions of general curriculum access
and impediments to access
• The Common Core State Standards Initiative: definition of, rationale for, and
controversies surrounding the CCSS; the relationship of the new standards to special
education (CCSS, 2010)
• Curriculum criteria and their applications to special needs learners: requirements for
standards-based curriculum design according to state evaluation criteria and special
education experts (Browder et al., 2006; CDE, 2013)
• Curriculum models, modifications, adaptations: their impact on teacher preparation,
practices, perceptions, and access
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 26
• Presentation of Theories: learner-centered ideology in the context of the local ecology
and ecological development theory (Barab & Roth, 2006; Schiro, 2013) as the theoretical
framework for the curriculum design proposed in this study
It was the intent of this review to establish rationale for an investigation of the proposed
research questions in terms of gaps between the cited literature and the current curriculum needs
of the aforementioned student population. The review also accounts for the new state standards
and their implications for curriculum development.
Access to the General Curriculum
The concept “access to the general curriculum” is hard to define, much less
implement. An inconsistent or misconceived definition of access is evidenced or occasioned by
a number of salient issues: shifting notions of access throughout special education history
(Hitchcock et al., 2002), the mentality of ableism (Connor & Baglieri, 2009; Herir, 2002), the
lack of institutional support inherent in the educational system (Stanton-Salazar, 1997), the need
to differentiate placement and access (Hitchcock et al., 2002), a lack of school vision and goals
with regard to access (Agran et al., 2002), teacher doubts regarding student capabilities (Agran et
al., 2002; Lee et al., 2006), limited teacher training and efficacy concerning the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative (Browder &
Cooper-Duffy, 2003), and misalignment of individualized education program (IEP) goals with
general curriculum standards (Soukup et al., 2007).
As the concept of “general curriculum” changes with evolving legislation designed to
increasingly enhance opportunities for students with disabilities, the term “access” with reference
to general education has also shifted and has come to mean different things at different times to
school practitioners (Hitchcock et al., 2002). Prior to IDEA, students with disabilities were
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 27
denied a public education unless they could show the ability to benefit from a fixed general
curriculum devoid of supports or modifications. Much like the members of other
underprivileged minority groups, they had to be able to demonstrate the proper scholastic and
sociolinguistic potential, or socially sanctioned ways of learning and communicating, in order to
successfully access the general curriculum (Stanton-Salazar, 1997). In this instance, “access”
meant little more than legal entitlement to a merit-based general education including physical
“access” to learning spaces and buildings (Lippmann & Goldberg, 1973).
Over time, obstacles to a specialized education were decreased for students with
disabilities due to legislation such as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA)
of 1975, renamed IDEA in 1990. A greater understanding of the particular needs of students with
disabilities ensured the provision of the IEP, which led to the expansion of special education and
its systematized entry into the arena of public education (Benner, 1998; Yell, 1998). In this way,
“access” came to mean the legal right to programs, materials, methods, and plans that students
with disabilities needed in order to procure an education (Benner, 1998).
The Mentality of Ableism and Lack of Social Capital
Despite redefinition of access rights, new barriers to access emerged as special education
programs grew. Because of its status as separate from the general curriculum, students with
special needs were customarily taught apart from their non-disabled peers, ostensibly to be
“taken care of” or “fixed” well enough to suit their eventual entry (or re-entry) into the general
curriculum (Hitchcock et al., 2002). This practice calls to mind the medical model of disability,
in which persons with a disabling condition are provided “treatment” in lieu of repairing the
system whose rigid policies limit their well-being (Connor & Baglieri, 2009 citing Linton, 1998).
Here, “access” meant receiving “treatment” in the functional academic skills designed to help
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 28
students become mainstreamed into general education, but, historically, most students were still
not enabled to make this move and, therefore, remained isolated from their peers (Junkala &
Mooney, 1986).
The schools’ consideration of disability as an abnormality to be held separate or even
eradicated suggests the mentality of ableism (Herir, 2002). Characterized by the devaluation of
disability, such ableism reinforces a negative view of disability, contributing all the more to
reduced educational attainment, and resulting in isolation demonstrated by lack of access to a
meaningful education (Campbell, 2008; Hehir, 2002). Under these circumstances, students with
disabilities are not honored for their diversity, but rather appear as a low-status subordinate
group lacking the necessary funds of knowledge—discourse in terms of adequate language
development, subject-area knowledge, networking skills, problem-solving skills, and technical
knowledge—to obtain sufficient social capital or cohesive school network support. Yet, it is
precisely this institutional support that is required to procure the resources and opportunities
essential to academic advancements for these students (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Placement vs Access
Perhaps due to the mistreatment of learners with disabilities in isolated settings, there has
been considerable uneasiness with the separation of special education and general education on
the part of all concerned. As this uneasiness mounted over time, it gave rise to a “general
education initiative” to meet the educational needs of all students--including those with
disabilities (Lipsy & Gartner, 1989)—and provide each student access to an appropriately
challenging curriculum. In its initial version, and through subsequent reauthorizations (in 1990,
1997, and 2004), IDEA identifies and supports the right of students with disabilities to make
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 29
academic gains toward the general curriculum through their inclusion in the general classroom
setting with their non-disabled peers.
Yet, placement in the general setting alone cannot be defined as “access.” As Hitchcock
et al. explain, “equal protection of the rights of students with disabilities cannot be guaranteed by
mere physical placement of students in a classroom setting alongside age mates without
disabilities” (2002, p. 11). While SSCDs have been found to benefit greatly from collaboration
with typical peer-tutors as evidenced by improved response to academic challenges and
decreased levels of impeding behaviors, this peer interaction must be combined with curriculum
modifications for progress to occur (McDonald, Mathot-Buckner, Thorson, & Fister, 2001).
Often, these modifications do not take place as necessary. This is because the general
curriculum itself does not consider the particular needs of diverse learners in its original,
inflexible design (Hitchock et al., 2002). Nor does “access” itself denote “progress” in the
general curriculum as required by IDEA (Weymeyer et al., 2003). Placement and access are thus
not synonymous and need to be differentiated, perhaps by considering placement as an initial
step in the provision of access.
Absence of School Vision and Goals
Given its evolving history, defining access to the general education curriculum is indeed
a confusing task, and the term is currently not well understood or correctly interpreted in terms
of the IDEA mandate (Agran et al., 2002). School practitioners continue to have varied notions
of general curriculum access, and many interpret access to mean little else than physical entry in
the general education classroom. This lack of appropriate definition may explain why few
institutional agents—special and general education teachers, schools, or school districts—have
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 30
clear processes or policies on how to effect access according to the special needs of learners with
disabilities (Agran et al., 2002).
The lack of school-wide vision and goals with respect to access is exemplified in several
studies. For example, in a comprehensive K-12 study of special education programs in Iowa,
over half of teacher respondents reported that their school district had no clear plan for
promoting access to the general education for students with severe disabilities. Furthermore,
they identified resistance from general educators and administrators as significant obstacles to
access (Agran et al., 2002). Other studies note that, when special education students are involved
in the general curriculum, general education teachers are the dominant instructors, and make few
if any modifications for students with disabilities. This responsibility is left solely to the special
education teacher (Lee et al., 2010) despite research on the effectiveness of—and the need for—a
team approach to ensure progress in the general curriculum (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).
As yet, there is typically no school-wide consensus about what skills should be emphasized and
incorporated in general education to benefit students with severe disabilities (Billingsley &
Albertson, 1999; Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Additionally, too few schools have created
frameworks that describe strategies or the necessary supports for helping students gain access
(Lee et al., 2006).
Teacher Perceptions Concerning IDEA/NCLB
Teachers are charged with developing and modifying the instructional content to produce
meaningful outcomes, but their responses to IDEA/NCLB initiatives are uneven. Many
educators working with students with severe disabilities doubt that access is achievable or that
the focus on access is sensible (Lee et al., 2006). In the 2002 study conducted by Agran et al.
(2002), 85% of teachers who involved their students with severe disabilities in general education
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 31
classes did not necessarily consider access to the general curriculum appropriate for them, and
did not think these children should be held accountable to the same standards as their peers.
Paradoxically, however, these teachers still believed that access to the general education
curriculum leads to raised expectations for students with moderate to severe disabilities, and
promotes the incorporation of life skills into the general curriculum.
It is possible that ableism may account for the dissonance between the opposing values of
the teacher respondents; indeed, the unwillingness to hold special needs learners accountable
because of moderate to severe disability can be deemed as an attitude that contributes to their
disablement (Connor & Baglieri, 2009) since it presupposes they are not capable of academic
achievement in the general setting. Teacher values notwithstanding, a diversified or
marginalized group of learners such as students with severe disabilities rely heavily upon these
very teachers and other institutional agents for the support they need to progress in school and in
society (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
Limited Teacher Training and Efficacy
Another explanation for teacher reticence to hold students accountable may be based on
teacher skill and experience levels. The teachers who did not deem access appropriate despite
their belief it would raise expectations may not understand what can be gained from access or
how access can be accomplished. Though there is much literature on effective practices to
develop quality education programs for SSCDs, practitioners do not regularly utilize these
practices (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Special education teachers surveyed in many states
where strong efforts are made to shape quality education programs revealed, through self-
reporting, that the use of best practices—inclusion, data-based instruction and instructional
supports, and home-school communication—is often contingent on teacher skill and degree of
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 32
implementation difficulty. In addition, they cite time constraints and lack of administrative
support as obstacles to research-based best practices (Ayres, Meyer, Erevelles, & Park-Lee,
1994). Surveys of general educators also indicated limited evidence-based practices in terms of
specific strategies such as time delay or picture cues (Agran & Alper, 2000). Many of the
impediments to meaningful learning call for additional teacher assistance and preparation.
In spite of all the evidence-based practices documented in NCLB, and its provision for
qualified staff to utilize them (Shick, Williams, & Kupermintz, 2005), the inclusion of students
with severe disabilities in the general curriculum apparently stems from a values- or teacher
judgment-based policy instead of a data-based policy (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). Yet, as
Browder and Cooper-Duffy point out, even if the inclusion of students with significant disability
in standards-based academic programs is undertaken within a values-oriented policy, it calls on
educators to create the means by which SSCDs will move from access to progress within the
general curriculum. They go on to suggest that teachers target specific skills for mastery and
align academic engagement with functional skills development, providing opportunities to
practice skills in various settings. They further suggest that, as teachers gain more experience
and training in the aforementioned best practices, they will be more inclined to hold students
accountable to the general standards (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).
To the extent that accountable inclusion of SSCDs in general education remains a
function of teacher beliefs and values, the role of teacher efficacy--the extent or strength of one's
belief in one's own ability to complete tasks and reach goals--is relevant to this discussion.
Bandura (1977), who provided the framework for studying the theory of efficacy, argued that
human behavior derives from beliefs regarding outcome expectations. Indeed, professional
experience helps inform beliefs. Yet there hasn’t been enough attention directed to providing
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 33
teacher support or training to effectively boost professional experience levels (Agran et al, 2002).
In addition, general education teachers have consistently expressed their concerns about
inadequate preparation and collaboration to properly serve students with disabilities in their
classrooms (Agran et al., 2002). Arguably, if teachers doubt their ability to ensure progress in
inclusive settings due to lack of support or on-going training, they may not hold SSCDs
accountable despite their beliefs that inclusive practices promote access. Current research shows
that training is greatly needed in several areas: curriculum modification, application of principles
of UDL offering a wide array of multi-media instructional formats (Rose & Meyer, 2002;
Spooner, Baker, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, & Harris, 2007), appropriate IEP goal formation,
and effective ways to embed curriculum modifications and functional academic skills within the
general education classroom (Agran et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2010; Wehmeyer et al., 2003).
Misalignment of IEP Goals with General Curriculum Standards
Difficulties school practitioners have in adequately interpreting and promoting access are
reflected in studies done by Giangreco, Dennis, Edelman, and Cloninger (1994) and more
recently by Soukup et al. (2007) concerning the Individualized Education Program (IEP)
document. The IEP is a critical set of statements describing a student’s individualized learning
outcomes and services based on documented levels of student performance. It is expected to
describe exactly how students with disabilities will be engaged with and advance in the general
curriculum, taking into account their unique needs (Wehmeyer et al., 2003). However, IEPs are
frequently too extensive, non-specific, inconsistent, and not sufficiently related to general
curriculum contexts—often listing goals for educational providers instead of for students—and
addressing basic functional skills more than academic progress. They offer questionable
direction in terms of curriculum planning in general education settings (Giangreco et al., 1994;
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 34
Wehmeyer et al., 2003; Soukup et al., 2007). Further, their misalignment with the general
curriculum is often reflected in a disproportionate amount of instructional focus on an alternative
“life skills” curriculum, causing students to be relegated to a separate setting. Thus, IEPs often
do not ensure a proper fit between learner needs and IDEA-mandated learning contexts, and this
mismatch is also an obstacle to access (Soukup et al., 2007; Wehmeyer et al., 2003).
It is clear from the literature that students with significant cognitive disabilities are not
necessarily facilitated to engage or progress in the general curriculum as mandated by law. It
must be the object of ongoing and future research to determine how to increase social capital and
institutional resources for these students. Disability itself is often overlooked in literature
focusing on access to a quality education for marginalized groups (Connor & Baglieri, 2009).
According to Herir (2002), more inquiry within educational circles concerning the adverse
effects of ableism is essential, as disabled students are possibly viewed as incapable of meeting
standards or acquiring academic skills. From these statements, it follows that the study of
curriculum design and implementation intended to enable this population to meet academic
standards is warranted.
Common Core State Standards Initiative
The Common Core State Standards initiative is an effort organized by various states to
create a uniform set of clear educational performance expectations for all students in
kindergarten through grade 12 in English language arts and mathematics. These standards have
been developed to ensure that all students finishing high school are ready to enter two- or four-
year college programs, or enter the workforce. Through the National Governors Association
(NGA) and the Council of Chief State Officers (CCSSO), the nation’s governors and education
commissioners self-acclaim as taking the lead in crafting these standards, with the input of
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 35
teachers, parents, school administrators, and education experts. They point out that, as different
from previous state standards specific to each individual state, the Common Core State Standards
are consistent across the nation; thus, their intent is to promote equal access to clear expectations
for all students regardless of ability level or location (CCSS Inititative, 2010).
To ensure retention of those standards it deemed superior to the Common Core, the
California Department of Education has made its own additions in ELA and mathematics (Plank,
2012). In 2012, the California State Senate, through Senate Bill 1 from the Fifth Extraordinary
Session, established an Academic Content Standards Commission (ACSC) to develop standards
in mathematics and ELA. The bill stated that 85% of the standards were to consist of the CCSS,
with up to 15% additional material, and directed the State Board of Education (SBE) to adopt or
reject the recommendations of the ACSC. As a result, a slightly adapted version of the national
CCSS was created for California, including such additions as the requirement for formal
presentations in grades 2 through 12 and analysis of text features in informational text in grades
6 through 12 (CDE, 2012).
Support for CCSS
Since their adoption, the notion of national standards has garnered some support. Many
scholars identify what they perceive to be the benefits of a national curriculum: shared
expectations offering consistency across the nation, a standards-based focus on educational
reform, efficiency regarding the development of instructional materials and assessments, and the
potential for higher-quality, electronically-delivered assessments (Plank, 2012; Porter,
McMaken, Hwang, and Yang (2011). Per Au (2013), liberal Democrats “are fully on board with
the CCSS” (p. 4). Also, the members of the NGA and CCSSO themselves indicate that the
Standards are more constructivist in nature, and more centered on higher-order thinking skills
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 36
than the standards of previous years. Their focus on skills rather than specific content allows
local school districts and policy makers to decide on specific content according to local needs
and concerns (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010, as cited in Au, 2013). Further, the Standards seem to have been
framed with the interests of all students in mind, including those with disabilities, as the
expectations are the same for everyone (Porter et al., 2011; Thurlow, 2010).
Application to Students with Disabilities
Arguably, the new standards enhance the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), under which students with special learning needs must be facilitated and
challenged to progress within the general curriculum to achieve success in their post-secondary
college or career endeavors (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). The CCSS adoption ushers in a
unique opportunity for students with learning disabilities, including those with significant
cognitive disabilities, to gain greater access to rigorous academic content standards. This is
because their implementation is expected to result in a sharper focus on research-based
instructional practices to improve achievement in ELA and math for each student, regardless of
ability level (CCSS Initiative, 2010)
According to Thurlow (2010), the adoption of the Common Core State Standards should
be interpreted, from its inception, as allowing for the greatest range of learners to engage in
standards-based curriculum. This means that all appropriate accommodations should be utilized
to permit maximum participation, including various forms of assistive technology and
communication supports. Teachers and support staff must be prepared to deliver high-quality
instruction, sufficiently adapted to multiple learning needs, to help students acquire CCSS-based
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 37
knowledge according to their age and grade. In fact, these provisions have always been
requirements per IDEA (1997; 2004, as cited by Wehmeyer, 2006).
Despite the fact that government mandates exist to support access to CCSS, researchers
point out that these mandates do not guarantee progress for SSCDs. In order to be academically
connected to the grade-level appropriate, standards-based content, SSCDs will likely need much
more support than what is currently provided (Thurlow, 2010). Despite their right to access,
SSCDs are not being provided the same accommodations and curriculum modifications that
would enable them to benefit from access (Wehmeyer, 2006). Carter and Hughes (2006, as cited
in Ryndak et al., 2010) describe progress toward implementation of access-based education
practices—despite a long-standing focus on legally required provisions and services—to be
“slow, sporadic, and uneven, (p. 201). Further, not all experts agree on the skills or concepts that
should be used to extend academic content standards to the 1% population (Ayres et al., 2011;
Browder et al., 2007). Some believe that content standards show little application to students
with disabilities (Adleman & Taylor, 2013, as cited in Au, 2013; Ayres et al., 2010; Ford,
Davern, & Schnorr, 2001, as cited in Browder et al., 2007). Though educators have increased
their learning expectations for SSCDs over the past decades (Browder et al., 2007), low
expectations for this population have historically minimized the content to which they have been
exposed (Thurlow, 2010).
Current Controversies
Much of the current literature on CCSS questions the advantages of the Standards not
only for the SSCD population, but also for learners in general. Citing superficial and inadequate
research to justify the adoption of the Standards, some scholars state that the evidence-based
claims of NGA and CCSSO have done little more than advance government rhetoric and
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 38
political agendas rather than offer a solid, peer-reviewed foundation for the recommended
educational policies (Au, 2013; Ravitch & Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2011).
Complaints against the Standards emanate from many scholars. Analyzing the research
of Porter et al. (2011) on the Common Core ELA standards, Beach (2011) found that the CCSS
lack an integrated curriculum focus, possibly due to the typical standards classifications of
reading, writing, speaking, listening, and vocabulary development referenced in most state
standards. A number of experts say this can lead to the coverage of many topics with minimal
depth of thinking and reduced teacher autonomy (Beach, 2011; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Porter
et al., 2011; Wiggins, 2011). Additionally, the CCSS classifications may appear as a
repackaging of current frameworks rather than a creative reinvention of them (Wiggins, 2011),
as they do not focus the curriculum on the understanding and production of student texts (Beach,
2011).
Conservatives have varying reasons for their disapproval of the Standards. These reasons
range from a fear of government control and criticism of government over-spending to over-
standardization of a non-focused curriculum and potential misuse of student data without
parental consent. By contrast, many leftist progressive educators claim the CCSS allow them to
discover ways to do essential work because the Standards lack the sort of curriculum prescription
characterizing previous standards (Au, 2013). However, as Au questions, if “CCSS are better
than the bad standards we had before, does that make them inherently good?” (2013, p. 5). The
implication is that, while the CCSS may be an improvement over individual state standards in the
view of some, better is not good enough.
Current literature mentions additional controversies concerning the adoption of the CCSS
that are worthy of notice. One is the shifting of public education money to profit-based
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 39
companies specializing in the production of educational materials and services (Burch, 2009).
Capital investment in public education has risen substantially over the last decade due to the
increased need for materials and test preparation (Rich, 2013, as cited in Au, 2013). With the
advent of CCSS, conservative groups such as the Fordham Institute, the Pioneer Institute, and the
American Principles Project are cited as projecting CCSS testing and preparation costs to exceed
$10 billion, with the latter two groups predicting a cost of approximately $16 billion over seven
years (Accountability Works, 2012; Murphy, Regenstein, & McNamara, 2012, as cited in Au,
2013). In some literature, there is speculation that those who formulated the standards seek to
benefit those educational media companies with which they are politically affiliated, though said
companies may be labeled as non-profits or foundations to appear as benefactors (Brooks &
Dietz, 2012; Pennington, Obenchain, Papola, & Kmitta, 2012). Further, Brooks and Dietz
(2012) report that many districts expect teachers to utilize preparation materials created by the
same companies that produce testing measures, thereby limiting teacher creativity and decision-
making while boosting the revenues of selected corporations.
Another concern surrounding the new standards is the centralization, or federalization of
educational policy. Besides the contention that a uniform set of standards may lead to reduced
empowerment of educators at the local level (Au, 2013; Tienken, 2011), the literature also raises
questions about the merits of standardization in terms of student outcomes. Per Tienken (2011),
there is no evidence supporting the notion that nationalization of standards leads to higher test
scores, or that performance on standardized tests predicts future economic growth or success for
individual students. Adding to the concerns of many educators is the premise that national core
standards may lead to a standardized curriculum, and that students are not well served when they
are expected to learn the same things regardless of their own life circumstances, interests, or
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 40
needs (Eisner, 2004; Ravitch & Mathis, 2010; Tienken, 2011; Wiggins, 2011). In their critique
of the standards, Ravitch and Mathis claim that “not all of education’s purposes are utilitarian
and economic” (2010, p. 7), citing the value of education for a meaningful life as an example.
This view appears to be corroborated by Wiggins (2011) as well as Tyler (1949), both of whom
argue for personalized and relevant learning through which a student develops his own interests
and talents—not only for the betterment of society--but for the sake of his own fulfillment.
Extending this point to education as a vehicle for the pursuit of personal happiness, Wiggins
offers the following quote from Spencer (1861): “As vigorous health and its accompanying high
spirits are larger elements of happiness [more so than] any other things whatsoever, then
teaching how to maintain them is a teaching that yields in moment to no other whatsoever” (as
cited in Wiggins, 2011, p. 30). In addition, in Eisner’s words (2004), education must enable
students “to learn how to invent themselves—to learn how to create their own minds” (p. 9).
Thus, to the extent that the Standards are seen and implemented in a uniform way, their value
and relevance to the overall well-being of the individual student, particularly those with special
learning needs, may be disputed.
Intent of the Standards as Defined by CCSS
Regardless of all aforementioned concerns, a review of the introduction to the CCSS
(2010) defines the standards in a way that suggests a disinclination to prescribe a standardized,
non-integrated curriculum. In the section titled “What is Not Covered by the Standards,” it is
clearly stated that the Standards do not define how teachers should instruct, but rather, what “all
students are expected to know and be able to do” (CCSS, 2010, p. 5). The section also explains
that it is beyond the capacity of the Standards to enumerate all the content students should learn,
and that the Standards merely constitute the foundation of a student’s course of study.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 41
Addressing concerns over lack of integrated focus, the Introduction portion of the California
CCSS states that each standard need not be seen as a separate entity, and that several standards
can be targeted in an integrated approach applied to a single, rich learning activity. Further, the
particular delivery methods or instructional materials necessary to effectively teach diverse
learners—of ability levels ranging from intellectually advanced to significantly learning
disabled—are not defined by the standards. Therefore, the Standards “must be complemented by
a well-developed, content-rich curriculum consistent with the expectations laid out in this
document” (CCSS, 2010, p. 5). This statement may be interpreted to mean that for all students,
the development of meaningful curriculum is left up to the local decision-making processes
involving the teacher, the school, and the district. For students with significant disabilities, the
implementation of the curriculum must allow for the use of various forms of technology or
supports needed to ensure maximum engagement of students with special education needs
(CCSS, 2010).
The recent adoption of the CCSS represents a new opportunity to examine academic
learning opportunities for students with significant cognitive disabilities who may have
previously been excluded from educational experiences on the general curriculum. It invites
educators and educational researchers to determine practical ways that the entitlement of this
population to a comprehensive quality education may be fulfilled.
Curriculum Criteria Overview
To develop curriculum meeting state approval, the California Department of Education
has specified criteria for the evaluation of curricular programs based on the adoption of
curriculum frameworks for grades K-12 by the State Board of Education (SBE). According to
the CDE’s (2012) document titled “Instructional Materials in California: An Overview of
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 42
Standards, Curriculum Frameworks, Instructional Materials Adoptions, and Funding”, the
frameworks are drawn from national educational research and the knowledge base associated
with specific content areas. They provide a firm foundation for instructional planning by
mapping the scope and sequence of content that all students need to acquire. As such, they serve
as guidelines for the local selection of curricular materials and delivery methods, and typically
incorporate curriculum evaluation criteria. It is the duty of the Instructional Quality Commission
(IQC) to supervise the development of these frameworks and evaluation criteria for instructional
materials prior to recommending them to the SBE for adoption. Though there are no official
state adoptions for instructional materials for grades 9 through12, the same evaluation criteria
formulated for K-8 materials adoptions may be applied to instructional programs and materials
used in high schools (CDE, 2012).
Curriculum Criteria Related to CCSS
A recent CDE publication on curriculum evaluation criteria clarifies that the current state
frameworks and instructional materials are not as yet aligned to the CCSS. In fact, the CDE
acknowledges that it will take years to achieve this task. In the interim, the CDE has provided
criteria to bridge the separation between currently functioning instructional programs and
California CCSS requirements:
• Alignment with and coverage of the California CCSS for a given grade level, along with
the existing state-adopted grade-level programs and materials
• Material that meets the Standards for Social Content adopted by the SBE
• Error-free content
• Assessment tools providing sufficient evidence for evaluating progress on the CCSS
• Clear guidance for providing effective instruction to all learners
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 43
• Clear guidance on the use and integration of supplemental material
CCSS Curriculum Criteria Related to Students with Disabilities
A close review of CDE curriculum criteria clarifies that instructional materials must
comply with CDE social content to the extent that they portray the diversity of the state’s
population and depict ways that people make various contributions according to their attributes
and differences. Content must be sensitive and responsive to the needs of students who have
specific learning challenges. It must show evidence of universal access (CDE, 2012). Clear
reference to the necessary instructional supports for students with disabilities includes
instructional programs based on the principles of UDL in order to facilitate effective progress for
these students (CDE, 2010). Such programs must be based upon solid educational theory and
employ a range of adapted materials, engagement strategies, alternate methods of
communication, and instructional delivery methods (Browder et al., 2006; Hardman & Dawson,
2008; Hitchcock et al., 2002) so that learners can make meaningful gains in the Standards.
All of the above elements are essential for meaningful access to the general curriculum.
The model proposed in this study attempts to incorporate these criteria to facilitate teaching and
learning within the special education community.
Curriculum Models, Adaptations, and Modifications for Special Needs Learners
In order to deliver content to students with significant learning disabilities, curriculum
must be mapped and substantial modifications, adaptations, and supports identified to ensure
grade-level content access. Progress must be carefully monitored through ongoing assessment.
Such factors as considered in recent research are delineated in this section for the sake of clarity.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 44
Curriculum Mapping
Browder et al. (2006) identify seven steps for planning appropriate curriculum for
students with significant cognitive disabilities:
• Chart the strands of the general curriculum for the student’s grade level
• Identify the state standards for said grade level
• Collaborate with general educators to identify priority standards and matching objectives
for each content area and see how the standards are usually taught (Cawley et al., 2002;
Gardner et al., 2003)
• Plan alternative achievement goals accounting for student’s symbolic level of
communication (Gately, 2004)
• Ensure the original standard content has been upheld after it has been adapted
• Make the skills relevant by incorporating the interest and values of the student (Dewey,
1938; Kilpatrick, 1941; Tyler, 1949; Wiggins, 2011)
• For the IEP, identify key objectives needed to meet the selected targets
The above steps link to the following criteria offered by Browder et al. (2007) for
instruction and assessment. These include academic content linked to the state frameworks and
national standards (CDE, 2013); content linked to student’s chronologically-based grade level;
differentiation as necessary across grade levels for multi-aged groupings of students (Tomlinson,
2002); fidelity to original grade level standards and aligned performance objectives (Browder et
al., 2007); multiple levels of access accommodating different levels of symbolic communication
(Downing, 2006; Gately, 2004); and achievement focus promoting access to the learning
experiences, materials, and instructional settings associated with the grade level but with the
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 45
accommodations, adaptations, presentations, and supports needed to support student engagement
in the general curriculum (Wehmeyer et al., 2001).
Tools
Precise examples of the above-mentioned strategic tools are also provided in the literature
referencing curriculum models for this population. Adaptations are defined as attempts to alter
the presentation of the instructional plan or the way information is displayed to foster the
student’s involvement with and positive response to the curriculum. These alterations may take
the form of larger font-size graphics, a variety of informational text features to highlight key
information, internet-based technology using unique presentation processes and hyperlinks to
video sources, voice-over readings, and pictorial or iconic representations of key terms (Browder
et al., 2006; Wehmeyer et al, 2001). Further, curriculum models may incorporate augmentation
strategies to extend the curricular learning activities with alternative methods of communication
for students with limited speech (Browder et al., 2006). They may also provide metacognitive
processing opportunities (Wehmeyer et al., 2001, citing Knowlton, 1998) involving self-
management, self-regulation, self-determination such as decision-making, and self-advocacy
(Wehmeyer et al., 2001).
Of particular note in the literature on accommodations is the use of such tools as picture
symbols and communication devices to facilitate reading and calculators to assist in functional
math activities. Though some students with moderate to significant learning disabilities are at
the pre-symbolic level, many learn at the concrete or abstract symbolic level. To access reading
material content, they often need to experience the representation in pictorial form or hear it on a
communication device, whether a spoken slide presentation or electronic communication board
(Browder et al., 2006; 2008; Wehmeyer et al., 2001). There are a variety of ways reading
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 46
material may be made accessible by using pictures, objects, signs, and symbols to reduce the
cognitive demands of the learning task at hand (Downing, 2006). For math activities, students
should be provided an integrated curriculum approach that stresses the use of calculators and
computers and ensures application to real-life situations (Patton, Cronin, Bassett, & Koppel,
1997). According to Vygotsky (1978), all of these tools are useful in representational activity
and assist in the co-construction of knowledge, which can be applied to future problem-solving
activity. They have come to be associated with the principles of UDL to the extent that they are
utilized as needed in the planning and implementation of curriculum for special needs learners.
Assessment
Besides the facilitation of student learning, there is another major reason teachers must
effectively employ curriculum for this population of learners. Regardless of disability level, all
students must be assessed on ELA, math, and science standards. The Smarter Balanced
Education Consortium is developing a computer-adaptive test that will feature built-in
accommodations for the California Modified Assessment (CMA). The National Center and State
Collaborative is developing the alternative assessment to be used with SSCDs, which may
replace the currently used California Alternative Performance Assessment (CAPA) in 2015.
(CDE, 2014). Regardless of the particular assessment measure, assessment and instruction must
be aligned with the original content based upon the Standards, which calls for ongoing
collaboration between general and special educators. Thus, assessment and instruction are
inextricably linked, and teachers can use student responses to appropriately adapted lesson
activities to gauge student progress in learning the standards (Browder et al., 2010; Wehmeyer et
al., 2011).

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 47
Teacher Preparation in the use of Program Adaptations
Scholars write that collaboration between general and special education is essential to
bring about curriculum adaptations with high-quality content. This is partly due to increased
inclusion of students with learning disabilities in general education. Said collaboration involves
preplanning instruction in accordance with UDL principles and merging the knowledge, skills,
and pedagogy bases of special and general education domains (Bellamy, Fowler, & Hale, et al,
2002; Browder et al., 2006) without compromising the distinct characteristics of each (Bellamy
et al., 2002).
Browder et al. (2006) report that they explored the incorporation of UDL elements in the
training of preservice teachers seeking their credentials in elementary or special education. They
found that before training, 87% of teaching candidates were unfamiliar with UDL. Following
training based on case studies and lesson plan development, both sets of candidates improved
their inclusive planning. To the authors, this suggests that giving teachers a firm template for
planning can immediately enhance their ability to formulate ideas for successful inclusive
instruction and determine effective ways of teaching from the lesson’s inception, rather than
“after the fact” (Browder et al, 2006, p. 313)
Teacher Practices and Perceptions
The above teacher training account raises questions as to whether special education
teachers adapt general education curriculum for SSCDs in a meaningful way and whether they
perceive utility in planning for SSCD access to general education standards.
Access as defined by physical setting. Current studies show that teachers of SSCDs
have misconceptions about what constitutes meaningful access to the general curriculum in the
first place. Teachers do not agree on what access is or how to achieve it, particularly for high
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 48
school students with significant disabilities (Agran, Alper, &Wehmeyer, 2002; Dymond et al.,
2007). In a study conducted in one high school to ascertain general and special education
teachers’ perceptions of access, almost half of the 25 respondents believed access meant physical
location where instruction takes place, in opposition to the viewpoint of many researchers who
believe access must also include content standards, age-appropriate materials, and quality
instruction (Jackson, Ryndak, & Billingsley, 2000; Wehmeyer, 2006). Consistent with the views
of some researchers (Browder et al., 2006), most believed the general setting was not the only
location where general curriculum learning experiences could occur, and nearly half thought
location selection should vary with the student’s needs (Dymond et al, 2007). However, very
few respondents considered environments other than formal classrooms (e.g. community
locations, offices, or work sites) as potential places of learning. To Dymond et al. (2007), this
limited view contradicts the literature on learning for SSCDs across multiple settings to promote
generalization (Halle, Chadsey, Lee, & Renzaglia, 2004, as cited in Dymond et al., 2007) and
CBI targeting functional living skills deemed as inaccessible in the classroom context (Beck et
al., 1994; Renzaglia, Karvonen, Drasgow, & Stoxen, 2003, as cited in Dymond, 2007). Further,
the perspective fails to consider the merits of ecological development theory applied to SSCDs as
previously discussed in this chapter (Barab & Roth, 2006; Jackson et al., 2010).
Access to standards. Teachers also expressed varying views of the value of state
standards in the development of curriculum for this population. Some felt it was necessary to
use grade level standards; others believed in a curriculum based on standards from lower grade
levels; and 28% questioned if general curriculum standards had any role at all in the case of these
students (Dymond et al., 2007). The latter view is widely represented in research literature on
teachers’ perceptions of the utility of general curriculum implementation for SSCDs (Agran,
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 49
Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Wagner et al. 2007, as cited in Ryndak et al., 2008). The majority of
respondents could agree only on the idea that standards could serve as a guide for setting up
educational programs, though less than half felt that they needed to be aligned with IEP goals.
Only 25 percent emphasized supplementing the general curriculum standards with life skills
instruction. Per studies done by Dymond et al. (2007), access to the general curriculum should
be gained through CBI, community participation and independent living skills, though few study
respondents evidenced a realization of this in their discussions with the researchers.
Implementing CBI properly requires collaboration between special and general education
teachers to determine relevant learning objectives that allow students to access general
curriculum standards along with life skills (Beck et al, 1994).
Field-testing. From the above research findings, it is clear that teacher perspective plays
a critical role in curriculum decision-making and implementation. Essential to any attempt at
reforming or creating instructional programs for all students, including those with significant
cognitive disabilities, is the perceived relevance of the program or lesson content in accordance
with teacher beliefs and preferred practices. Ultimately, this cannot be assessed until the
proposed program is reviewed and implemented as a field test, and teacher input or feedback
provided on program effectiveness and limitations (Abrams, Pedulla, & Medaus, 2003;
Satchwell & Loepp, 2002; Weston, 2004).
To meet all the learning requirements of students with significant cognitive disabilities,
curriculum design and development must take into account a plethora of essential factors as
evidenced in the above-mentioned criteria. Inasmuch as researchers can identify and
successfully field-test these criteria and educators are able to implement them in the development
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 50
of instructional programs, students of the target population may succeed in meeting state
standards as they acquire functional skills to effectively navigate their respective communities.
Presentation of Theories
In order to determine a proper approach toward curriculum development for students with
significant disabilities, especially those at the high school level, it is also important to review the
literature in terms of a suitable theoretical framework. This is necessary to help organize and
contextualize the various pieces of information that apply to instructional planning. Of essence
in the case of SSCDs is meaningful engagement or active participation in relevant learning
activities beyond mere utilitarian, Social Efficiency-oriented purposes (Browder et al., 2006;
Dymond et al., 2007; Eisner, 2004; Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Tyler, 1949; Wiggins, 2011).
Such engagement is prioritized in the progressivist philosophy of education (Kilpatrick, 1941),
learner-centered theory (Schirro, 2013), and in ecological development theory (Barab & Roth,
2006; Jackson et al., 2008).
In their discussion of ecological development theory, Barab and Roth (2006) make a
strong case for setting students up in interactive situations leading to the acquisition of valuable
knowledge such that the learner will willingly take part in those situations. To their way of
thinking, an essential function of education is to determine “curricular contexts that extend
themselves meaningfully into the personal life-worlds of individuals” (p. 7). Ecological theory
emphasizes learning through participation within one’s own environmental network (Barab and
Roth, 2006; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Jackson et al., 2008), and is, thus, an extension of
sociocultural theory (Rueda, 2011). Sociocultural theory stresses the function of context in terms
of the family background, the school, the community, the self, and others in the social
environment as it emphasizes the cultural and social foundations of learning, (Au, 2003). The
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 51
position of ecological development and sociocultural theorists appears consistent with that of
Schirro (2013) and Wiggins (2011) who stress the importance of learning experiences tailored to
the student’s capabilities and preferred pursuits based on learner-centered theory. Wiggins also
emphasizes curriculum topics such as mental health, hands-on creativity, health-related
physiology, and civic action within the local community (2011)—all of which are critical to the
personal “life-worlds” of students as defined by Barab and Roth (2006).
In relationship to the aforementioned points, Hall (2013) presents several reasons to study
and understand the local ecosystem. For example, he states, “Since all of us have to live to some
degree in a natural or at least partly natural ecosystem, then considerable pleasure can be derived
by studying the environment around us” (pp. 5-6). He also posits that, since humans appear to be
altering the natural environment in many ways, the study of ecology can help learners understand
the changes and the implications of their own actions (Hall, 2013). Simply put, a study of the
local ecology has personal, humanistic merit as well as potential for environmental impact at the
local level.
The above-referenced writings suggest that life science is a relevant subject for students
with disabilities. In fact, scholars who have studied the academic performance of high school
students with disabilities have noted that a hands-on science curriculum implemented through
meaningful activities can be linked to the development of daily living skills and bring delight and
meaning to selected learning concepts (Browder et al., 2006). This is achieved to the degree that
lesson activities provide for observation, classification, communication, self-awareness, and life
science learning experiences associated with healthy living (Browder et al., 2006; Browder et al.,
2010; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992), such as a gardening project in conjunction with the study of
solar energy (Browder et al., 2006). Science, then, is considered by these researchers as a
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 52
vehicle to providing real-life activities within a context of academic learning according to state
frameworks. If science curriculum is properly planned, it may serve to bridge the gap between a
life skills approach and a general education approach. This is crucial to the post-transition
success of students currently at the high school level who need to develop essential knowledge
and skills necessary for employment and functional living (Ayres et al., 2011; Cortiella &
Wickham, 2008; White & Weiner, 2004).
The study of science is also highly amenable to thematic instruction, or the linking of
many subjects and concepts through a chosen theme in an interdisciplinary teaching approach
(Gardner, Wissick, Schweder, & Canter, 2003). Research on the learning processes of students
with disabilities shows that a thematic unit approach, in which lessons are linked to foster
connections and understanding (Tyler, 1949), is instrumental in meeting the learning needs of
students with significant learning challenges (Browder et al., 2006; Mastropieri & Scruggs,
1992; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1994). Indeed, one of the guidelines offered for textbook
evaluation and adoption practices recommended by Stein, Stuen, Carnine, and Long (2001) is the
strategic and intentional integration of skills and concepts centered on “big ideas.” This type of
organization is essential for mastery of a given subject and arguably all the more so for students
who may be easily overwhelmed by too much unrelated content. It may help prioritize the most
crucial skills and concepts and prevent rapid coverage of an unmanageable breadth of topics
(Browder et al., 2007). In addition, thematic units provide a way to combine student interests
with general curriculum skills such that students may be more motivated to perform
academically. Because they are implemented across the curriculum, thematic units allow more
opportunity for students to execute skills-based objectives aligned with general curriculum
standards (Gardner et al, 2003).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 53
An effective, well-planned curriculum that will appropriately serve students with
significant cognitive disabilities requires a theoretical foundation that has direct application to
the program’s content and purpose. Such a foundation may contribute to the research that
justifies the development and implementation of the curriculum. In this inquiry, the proposed
curriculum is based on life science learning experiences comprising the general standards
contextualized in the study of the local community ecology. Ecological development theory is
therefore the ideal framework for the inquiry.
Summary
It is evident from the research presented in this chapter that teachers who serve students
with significant cognitive disabilities, particularly at the high school level, struggle with defining
and providing for their gainful access to the general curriculum. These students are entitled to
progress in general education towards the new Common Core State Standards, and yet there is
very little conclusive research pointing to how this challenge should be met. Because these
students also require life skills to achieve success in their post-transition years, they must also
receive instruction that promotes their full participation within their respective communities.
How, therefore, can these students be educated to develop community-based life skills within the
Common Core-based general curriculum? How may teachers perceive the utility of a curriculum
that is meant to deliver life skills and academic standards within the context of the local
community and its ecology? To answer these questions, a research methodology is proposed in
the following chapter.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 54
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Background and Purpose of the Study
Students with significant learning challenges, including those with moderate to severe
(M/S) disabilities, have a right to make gains toward the general curriculum based on their age
and grade under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). This means they must be provided
with relevant educational opportunities to ensure their future success (IDEA, 2004). This right is
also addressed and reinforced in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative (2010).
The Initiative references the ongoing examination and development of research-based pedagogy
and content delivery to help improve the access of all students to high-level standards in English
language arts (ELA) and mathematics, as well as social studies and science through links to ELA
standards. In special recognition of students with disabilities, the Initiative unequivocally calls
for the teaching and assessing of the Standards with the appropriate services and supports, annual
IEP goals aligned to standards, and specialized teachers. The language of the Initiative clearly
calls for curriculum modification based on principles of UDL, emphasizing appropriate program
adaptations and flexible methods and materials for teaching and assessing (Hitchcock et al.,
2002). It sets high performance and mastery expectations for students regardless of ability level.
Despite its emphasis on academic rigor, the CCSS Initiative does not specify how the
Standards are taught and the precise programs through which students benefit (2010). Therefore,
educators must determine how the Standards will be implemented, and face an extra challenge
with respect to students with significant cognitive disabilities (SSCDs). Though special
education experts have emphasized the need for provision of access to content standards, there is
a distinction to be drawn between access and progress. This distinction is important because the
SSCD population will likely not learn the high-level Common Core standards-based content
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 55
without the appropriate instructional programs (Browder et al., 2006; Wehmeyer, 2006). That
said, there is a credible body of evidence suggesting that SSCDs can and do progress in general
education contexts and curriculum versus other settings and programs (Ayres et al., 2011;
Jackson et al., 2008). Long-term results for those students who receive instruction in general
education settings are far more promising than for those who do not (Ryndak, Morrison, &
Sommerstein, 1999; White & Weiner (2004). Thus, it appears that the CCSS Initiative, if
properly approached by special educators, has the potential to make a positive impact on the
SSCD population.
Based on the writing of educational scholars and policy makers, there are common
notions as to the criteria necessary for solid curriculum design. These criteria include alignment
with state standards; the principles of UDL such as adapted materials and flexible content
delivery formats; clear guidelines for successful implementation; and an organized, coherent
structure (CDE, 2013; Tyler, 1949). For students with significant cognitive disabilities,
additional criteria may apply, such as embedded functional life skills (Dymond et al., 2007),
personal relevance (Ayres et al., 2011; Tyler, 1949), and provision for communication needs of
students at various symbolic levels of language function based on receptive and expressive
language capabilities (Browder et al., 2007).
Also, SSCDs may need a functional or life skills approach to promote independence and
a high-quality future life. Arguably, this approach should focus on access to community-based
instruction (CBI) including services, facilities, and activities relevant to the individual (Cortiella
and Wickham, 2008; Dymond et al., 2007). Such an approach may alleviate concerns—whether
substantiated or not—that general curriculum access mandates preclude the attainment of
community-based life skills or essential individualized support (Ayres et al., 2011; Dymond &
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 56
Orelove, 2001; Ryndak et al., 2008). An instructional program based on the student’s local
ecology oriented to meeting specific learning needs across meaningful general education
contexts has significant merit in the case of SSCDs (Jackson et al., 2008). It is the purpose of
this qualitative study to propose such a program and ascertain its overall utility in terms of
teacher perceptions.
A life science curriculum grounded in English language arts and math standards and
oriented to the student’s needs and interests within the local ecology is a potential solution to
curriculum development concerns facing educators (Barab & Roth, 2006). It would require the
curriculum content to be concrete, familiar, sequential, and grounded in Learner-Centered
ideology (Schiro, 2013). It would be based on the actual living experiences of students, gradually
preparing them to take on more socially productive tasks and responsibilities in the general
setting, defined here as all the contexts where learning, living, and working may occur within a
community (Barab & Roth; Jackson et al., 2008). As an example, the topic of local ecosystems
is an appropriate subject for students with disabilities who require hands-on experiences based
on concrete phenomena in natural settings (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1992). The topic may be
deemed as even more suitable when related learning experiences are connected to ensure
retention and comprehensibility (Tyler, 1949).
Despite all that is known about the learning needs of students with severe cognitive
disabilities, there is some confusion as to how SSCDs can gain meaningful access to both high-
expectations content in the general curriculum context and essential supports including life skills
(Ryndak et al., 2008). To exacerbate the problem, there is commonly a lack of shared
understanding or collaboration among special and general education teachers on how to meet all
the above criteria to appropriately provide for the varied educational needs of SSCDs (Dymond
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 57
et al., 2007; Ryndak et al., 2008). More contributions to the field as to how high school students
with severe cognitive disability can receive a meaningful education encompassing both academic
success and community-based life skills are needed at this time according to available studies
(Browder et al., 2007; Dymond et al., 2008; Wehmeyer, 2006). This study aimed to contribute
additional information to current research by reporting and analyzing teacher responses to a
research-based curriculum model that is meant to account for the comprehensive learning needs
of students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Research Questions and Method
Current research points to the need for curriculum development that will address the
above-mentioned concerns and demonstrate how SSCDs at the high school level can be
accommodated with the appropriate instructional program. To carry out this work, critical
questions must be formulated to help steer research methodology:
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills oriented,
community-based curriculum?
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
For the purpose of this study, a life-skills oriented, community-based curriculum focusing
on life science and aligned with grade-level CCSS in ELA and mathematics was created
according to current research on the functional and academic needs of high school students with
significant disabilities. Representative sections of this curriculum were offered to teachers for an
evaluative review. The review was the basis for an interview eliciting teacher impressions of this
curriculum, which emphasized relationship between the CCSS and life skills for students with
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 58
significant cognitive disabilities who function at the abstract or concrete symbolic reading level
(Browder et al., 2007). The study constituted an initial field test of the curriculum’s
implementation feasibility and limitations, and the outcomes had implications for future
curriculum design and development (Satchwell & Loepp, 2002; Weston, 2004) aligned with
Common Core State Standards for the target population.
This study was qualitative in nature. It was intended to determine a practical solution to
the problem of insufficient curriculum content for high school students with significant cognitive
disabilities. The qualitative methods presented in this chapter afforded the opportunity to speak
with--and obtain detailed, pertinent information from--practitioners in the field of special
education who work with these students. Through the various research instruments, it was
possible to triangulate the apparent findings and gain greater understanding of them (Bogdan &
Biklen, 2007; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
Sample
To properly investigate the above research questions, it was necessary to select a sample
of special educators to obtain their views of the current curriculum offerings for high school
students with significant cognitive disabilities, their beliefs about CCSS access for this
population, and their input on the proposed curriculum. Because the curriculum proposed in this
inquiry was concerned with the local ecology of the southern California shoreline, purposeful
sampling occurred among public high school special education teachers from South Bay beach
cities or adjacent areas who typically taught in special day classes. The teachers spanned several
experience levels and years of service. All except one had taught for at least six years, with the
range of experience being between 6 and 20 years. The only exception was a first-year teacher
selected for her interest in the study and recent assignment to a high school classroom that served
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 59
students with moderate to severe disabilities (M/S). All teachers were selected as practitioners
who primarily emphasized functional skills in self-contained classes even as they attempted to
address the general curriculum, particularly the Common Core Standards. Four of the 7 teachers
taught high school students with M/S disabilities. One taught a mild-to-moderate (M/M) class
but supervised the M/S class at her high school, and two were middle school teachers of the M/S
population.
Research Procedure
Prior to conducting the actual inquiry, a pilot study was conducted with doctoral students
who were co-members of a thematic research group investigating Common Core State
Standards. The purpose of the pilot study was to help determine the content validity of the
procedure and interview protocols that follow in this section (Maxwell, 2013). Adjustments to
the procedure and protocols were made according to the recommendations of the doctoral cohort.
Following the pilot phase, special education teachers recommended by colleagues and
school administrators for their experience and capability teaching students with significant
cognitive disabilities at the middle school and high school levels were contacted to apprise them
of the inquiry and assess their interest in responding to the study. Those who expressed interest
were informed of the procedural steps as follows:
• Participation in an initial survey to collect baseline data regarding teacher’s background
experience, current level of practice, beliefs regarding appropriate curricular emphases
for the SSCD population, and needed supports
• Examination of a representative sample of the proposed curriculum and evaluation
form/guideline document
• Teacher review/evaluation of proposed curriculum
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 60
• Participation in a post-evaluation interview to determine overall impressions of the
proposed curriculum in terms of utility and impact potential
The initial survey, exemplified in Table 1, included multiple choice and Likert scale questions
ranging from 1 to 4. Teachers were asked to respond to the survey immediately prior to
receiving the curriculum sample and evaluation guide, exemplified in Table 2. At that point the
survey was collected and a post-review interview location, date, and time were arranged. The
curriculum sample was presented as a voiceover PowerPoint providing an overview and step-by-
step guide to selected lesson activities and materials hand-delivered on a flash drive. Teachers
were also emailed an evaluation guide in the form of a survey designed similarly to the initial
survey. Its purpose was to enable teachers to record initial responses to the curriculum content
and structure. Within approximately 10 days, a post-evaluation interview was held to ascertain
teachers’ perceptions of the curriculum in terms of utility, suitability, and shortcomings.
Immediately prior to the interview, the evaluation guide was collected and reviewed.
Interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner according to a pre-established
interview protocol as demonstrated in the section following Table 2. This was done to ensure
focus on the inquiry issue of how SSCDs may be facilitated to progress in the general curriculum
based on their age and grade, as well as gain life skills essential to independent living within
their present and future communities (Merriam, 2009). The questions were formulated to help
the respondents reflect on and discuss their beliefs, relative to their own experience, about the
learning needs and entitlements for special education students, and to ascertain how the sample
CCSS-based curriculum design might affect their approach to instructional planning. Per
Merriam (2009), the questions consisted of various types including background and
demographic, experience and behavior, opinion and values, and knowledge. Field notes were
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 61
taken during and after the interviews to augment thick, rich description provided in the interview
sessions (Merriam, 2009).
Table 1
Initial Survey
Survey Item
(Background knowledge and
attitudes)
Content Relevance Research
1. How many years have you
worked in special
education?
2. What positions have you
taken in this field?
3. On a scale of 1-4, what is
your experience level with
students in the moderate
to severe category of
cognitive disability? (4=
high, 3= medium, 2=low,
1=none)

Development of teacher experience
level

Determination of knowledge and
skill
(Fink, 2013)
Surveys help
determine attitudes,
values, beliefs, and
behaviors of
respondents relative
to the inquiry

(Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009)
4. What type of instructional
program is most valuable
for this population?
a) life skills
b) general curriculum
with modifications
c) a combination of
general curriculum
and life skills
d) other (please specify)

Development of values and
opinions

(Creswell, 2009;
Fink, 2013;
Merriam, 2009)

5. Where should the instructional
program take place?
a) In the general education
classroom
b) In the special education
classroom
c) In both the general
education classroom and the
special education classroom
d) Across a variety of
settings that afford educational
experiences

Development of values and
opinions

(Creswell, 2009;
Fink, 2013;
Merriam, 2009)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 62
Table 1, continued
Survey Item
(Background knowledge and
attitudes)
Content Relevance Research
6. To your knowledge, how are
the CCSS implemented for this
population? (Short answer)

Development of teacher knowledge

Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009

7. How do you define access to
the general curriculum?
a) engagement in the
general curriculum and CCSS
b) exposure to the general
curriculum and CCSS
c) physical placement in
general education settings
d) any combination of the
above

Development of teacher beliefs and
knowledge

Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009

8. Which of these choices best
describes your core beliefs about
students in the category of severe
special needs?
a) All students can
progress in selected CCSS on the
general curriculum with the
proper supports and instructional
approaches.
b) Some students can
progress in selected CCSS
standards, depending on the
nature of the disability and
the supports/program provided
c) These students cannot
be expected to progress on the
general curriculum but
d) should be included with
typical peers in extracurricular
activities

Development of teacher perceptions
based on beliefs

(Creswell, 2009;
Merriam, 2009;
Fink, 2013)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 63
Table 1, continued
Survey Item
(Background knowledge and
attitudes)
Content Relevance Research
9. In your estimation, what
supports or services could
increase the likelihood of success
for this population? Check all
that apply.
a) more age-appropriate
materials aligned with Common
Core/general curriculum
standards
b) more teacher training
on standards-based curriculum
design/implementation
c) more technology-based
tools to access curriculum content
d) more community
service training for this
population of students
e) more emphasis on
student self-help and personal
responsibility

Development of need for curriculum
based on teacher knowledge and
values

(Fink, 2013;
Merriam, 2009;
Creswell, 2009)

The Curriculum Evaluation Form shown in Table 2 was introduced to teachers with the
Evaluation Form Preface, a portion of which is exemplified as follows:
Evaluation Form Preface
Like all students, high school students with significant cognitive disabilities are entitled
to a curriculum permitting their meaningful access to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS)
in English language arts, math, and science. Yet, this population may also require a life skills
approach contextualized in community-based instruction to develop the functional competencies
necessary for future success. The curriculum you have agreed to review is an attempt to
integrate Common Core standards with life skills through learning experiences within the
students’ local community. The purpose of this evaluation form is to determine your perceptions
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 64
of the curriculum’s alignment with CCSS, its implementation feasibility, and overall utility. A
follow-up interview will be conducted to ensure accuracy and understanding of your positions on
the issues addressed. Your responses will serve to inform an overall inquiry on curriculum
design and implementation for the aforementioned special needs population.
Table 2
Curriculum Evaluation Form
Curriculum
Evaluation
Survey Item
Content Relevance

Source
For questions 11-21, please
rate the curriculum you
have reviewed on a scale of
1-4 as follows: (4—entirely;
3—mostly; 2—somewhat;
1—minimally or not at all)
These questions are needed to
ascertain the utility of the
curriculum in terms of providing
for the needs of special
education learners in the
moderate to severe category

11. Content is organized
around central “big ideas”
vs. a large number of topics
to be covered (2001; Tyler,
1949)
Perception of the curriculum’s
adherence to curriculum
evaluation standards in terms of
content suitability

(Stein et al., 2001;
Tyler, 1949)
12. Curriculum materials
provide opportunities for
teachers to scaffold
instruction to provide for
differentiated needs

Perception of the curriculum’s
provision for adaptability
(Stein et al., 2001)
13. Skills and concepts are
strategically integrated to
promote understanding

Perception of utility for students

(Stein et al., 2001)
14. The materials provide
sufficient opportunities for
ongoing formative
assessment

Perception of assessment
function
(CDE, 2013)

15. The curriculum satisfies
the student’s educational
and personal needs/interests

Perception of CCSS and life skill
connectivity
(Ayres et al., 2011; Browder
et al., 2006; Tyler, 1949)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 65
Table 2, continued
Curriculum
Evaluation
Survey Item
Content Relevance

Source
16. Instructional materials
and objectives are aligned
with the CCSS and state
frameworks
Perception of alignment with
CCSS
(CDE, 2013; Tyler, 1949)
17. Clear guidelines for
successful implementation
are provided
Perception of utility
18. Curriculum as a whole
applies application of
principles of universal
design for learning (UDL),
including a wide array of
adapted material and
graphic, multi-media
instructional formats

Perception of applicability to the
SSCD population

(Browder et al., 2006; CDE,
2013)
19. Curriculum activities
promote the student as a
contributing member of his
or her community

Perception of potential for
student engagement

(CDE, 2013; Tyler, 1949)
20. This curriculum is an
improvement over the ones
I have seen or used before.

21. I would use this
curriculum or one with a
similar structure geared
toward the community of
students within my local
school district.
Perception of suitability level

Perception of utility level

22. What are the
curriculum’s shortcomings?
(short answer)

23. How should it be
modified? (short answer)

24. What supports are
necessary to use it
effectively? (short answer)
Perception of additional
solutions to curriculum concerns

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 66
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol, implemented following an evaluative review of the proposed
curriculum, included the following components based on Creswell (2009) and
Merriam (2009):
• Heading: Respondent’s name, position, school, assignment, time and duration
• Interview plan: Semi-structured, flexible approach to keep the interview systematic yet
allow for description-rich differences; probes to deepen responses as necessary
• Questions and question types, following restatement of inquiry purpose, brief summary
of previous interview statements, and brief synopsis of proposed curriculum design
elements
1) Opinion: Is there a relationship between Common Core and life skills? Do you
believe curriculum should emphasize that connection?
2) Opinion/Knowledge: What constitutes a desirable curriculum for this population?
What supports are necessary to effect one?
3) Opinion: Could the proposed curriculum be useful? How so, or why not? Probe as
necessary: Based on your experience, what are the potential benefits/impediments to
its use?
4) Knowledge: Which population could it serve?
5) Experience/behavior: Focus on a particular student within this population, and his or
her learning needs. How might this student respond to the objectives and learning
experiences included in this curriculum?
6) Knowledge: How would you modify or adapt the curriculum to suit the needs of your
learners?
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 67
7) Knowledge: How might the curriculum influence your approach to the Common
Core?
8) Experience/behavior: How might the curriculum affect the organization of your
school community?
9) Opinion/values: In your opinion, how could a student’s participation in this
curriculum affect his or her quality of life?
10) Opinion/values: How does this curriculum impact your beliefs about teaching and
learning for the targeted population?
Time Line
The time frame for the research procedure was 9 weeks from mid-April to mid-June. The
schedule was as follows:
• Weeks 1-2: Conduct pilot study
• Weeks 2-3: Contact special education teachers, discuss study, and determine interest
• Weeks 4-6: Distribute and collect initial survey, followed by curriculum and evaluation
guide
• Weeks 7-9: Collect evaluation guide and conduct post-evaluation interviews
Data Reduction
This study was qualitative in nature. Information from completed surveys was used to
augment and interpret thick, rich descriptions derived from interviews (Merriam, 2009). To
begin the data reduction process, it was necessary to undertake the following steps:
• Examine all responses and determine categories of information
• Assign a code to each category (Categories were based on content relevance descriptors
in Table 1)
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 68
• Revise codes and add new ones as necessary based on constant comparison across all
data sources, checking for reliability (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam,
2009)
• Count the number of responses for each code
• Count the number of participants whose answers were assigned to each code
• Put the codes in rank order, from highest number assigned to that code, to least
• Classify the codes into thematic categories (Glesne, 2011)
• Conduct multiple iterations of the classification process until saturation was reached
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glesne, 2011; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
• From the classification process, determine themes relevant to the inquiry
Interviews were summarized in terms of the following criteria: respondent, location, date,
time, entry, approach to capturing data including field notes, and interview methods. After
collecting all interview data, it was necessary to piece the findings together to determine a clear
picture of them. Per Patton (2002), a systematic and thoughtful analysis of the acquired data is
critical to properly fulfill the purposes of evaluation research (as cited in Merriam, 2009).
Analysis of data from evaluation forms, interviews, and field notes called for the
following steps:
• Line number all interviews and field notes
• Re-read all data sources
• Assign a code to each segment of information that seemed meaningful
• Create an open coding log, revising codes and adding new ones as necessary based on
constant comparison across all data sources (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009)
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 69
• Create a table headed with names of respondents and sourced by evaluation form,
interview, and field notes
• Merge all qualitative research data, including survey data, clustering the codes into
thematic categories (Glesne, 2011)
• Conduct multiple iterations of the classification process until saturation was reached
(Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Glesne, 2010; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009).
• From the classification process, determine themes relevant to the inquiry
Validity
Internal validity is concerned with how well the research findings match the reality of the
issue under study, or how credible the findings are. One way to ascertain validity in this
qualitative research study was to determine its internal generalizability—that is, the
generalizability of the conclusion within the study itself, considering the data that gave credence
to alternative ideas (Patton, 2002, as cited in Merriam, 2008). Another way to establish validity
was by the use of constant comparisons to help examine basic assumptions, viewpoints, and
biases (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Also, constant comparison across the data sets was done to
ensure that thematic categories and corresponding elements held up under this form of
triangulation (Merriam, 2009; Maxwell, 2013). Respondent validation was achieved through
interviews intended to corroborate data provided from the survey and evaluation form, checking
for accuracy, and comparing teacher thoughts and beliefs pre-and post- curriculum design
exposure.
Reliability
In a qualitative research study, reliability refers to the degree of consistency between the
results and the data collected. The most effective way to ensure reliability is to document one’s
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 70
research trail through reliable data collection techniques including field notes, survey and
interview code logs, and category tables (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In this study, field
notes were embedded in interview notes, as they served as a basis for data interpretation.
Detailed descriptions of data were also provided to help readers determine external
generalizability, defined as transferability of referenced contexts to their respective situations
(Merriam, 2009).
Conclusion
To uncover a solution as to how high school SSCDs may meaningfully access Common
Core State Standards while receiving life-skills based community instruction, a curriculum had
to be generated according to the functional and academic learning requirements for this
population. Educators who taught these students were surveyed for their beliefs as to the most
effective curriculum, reviewed a research-based curriculum model, and were interviewed to
determine their perceptions. Through these methods, curriculum development could potentially
be modified and enhanced to better serve the needs of the target population.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 71
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
Review of Problem
Despite federal legislation requiring access to and progress in the general curriculum for
students with disabilities, it is highly questionable whether students with significant cognitive
disabilities (SSCDs) are making gains in general education according to their unique learning
needs and capacities. Yet, all students are legally entitled to a quality education that enables
them to access the general curriculum in a relevant and meaningful way. The Common Core
State Standards Initiative, in its Application to Students with Disabilities (2010), states
unequivocally that such students, along with their typical counterparts, require knowledge and
skills as well as rigorous grade-level expectations to the fullest extent possible in order to
succeed in additional schooling and appropriate careers.
Still, there is disagreement among researchers and educational experts as to how SSCDs
can gain meaningful access to the rigorous academic content associated with the Common Core
as well as the practical life skills they need for personal independence (Ryndak et al., 2008). To
ensure the overall success of SSCDs, particularly at the high school level, certain criteria must be
met: collaboration between general and special education teachers (Cawley et al., 2002);
instructional supports for learning based on the principles of UDL including flexibly formatted
materials that permit multiple ways of receiving and expressing information and understanding
(Hitchcock et al., 2002); strong teacher beliefs in the value of efforts leading to the maximization
of student capabilities (Lee et al., 2006); and an age/grade-appropriate, suitably adapted,
Common Core State Standards-based curriculum for SSCDs (Lee et al., 2010). Absent these
criteria, high school students may be deprived of an academic program, though research shows
they are capable of academic learning (Browder et al., 2010). A life skills-based program with
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 72
no particular academic focus may then replace academic learning altogether. However, when
life skills are not contextualized within general education experiences, SSCDs may be deprived
of their right to a broader education associated with CCSS competencies and meant to ensure
greater life opportunities. Nonetheless, life skills can be embedded in the general curriculum
setting across a variety of contexts and settings (Browder et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2008).
Consistent with ecological theory, therefore, appropriate curriculum for SSCDs must not be a
collection of disjointed facts or activities, but an interwoven series of interactive learning
experiences connected to meaningful situations and places (Barab & Roth, 2006; Tyler, 1949).
The question remains as to how such a curriculum may be generated. Expert researchers
in the field of special education concur that more studies need to be conducted on how SSCDs at
the high school level can achieve meaningful educational outcomes comprising academic
knowledge and community-based life skills (Browder et al., 2007; Dymond et al., 2008;
Wehmeyer, 2006).
Research Questions
In order to effectively contribute to these studies, it is arguably necessary to create a
curriculum according to current research on the functional and academic requirements of high
school students with significant cognitive disabilities and field test it on a qualified sample of
educators who teach these students. Thus, a life-skills oriented curriculum focused on
community-based life science (the readily tangible and observable) and tied to grade-level CCSS
in English language arts and mathematics was crafted and subsequently evaluated by
experienced high school special education teachers. The specific purpose of this endeavor was
to address the following two research questions:
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 73
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in English Language Arts (ELA), math, and science through a life-
skills-oriented, community-based curriculum?
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
Overview of Research Methods
The first step in the inquiry process was to establish a curriculum model centered on a
particular community. In this case, the Los Angeles south bay area was selected because of the
richness of the local ecology of the southern California shoreline. CCSS ELA/Science (2010)
and Next Generation Science Standards (CDE, 2013) were incorporated into the community-
based program to create an integration of community-based life skills—competencies necessary
to navigate this community—and related academic skills and knowledge.
The next step was to conduct a pilot study on the proposed inquiry based on the above
research questions. This study was done with doctoral students of urban education who likewise
researched Common Core State Standards and their application to students in a variety of
contexts across many different settings. This was necessary to establish content validity of the
procedure and interview protocols (Maxwell, 2013), and to adjust them according to
recommendations made by the above-referenced doctoral cohort. The doctoral cohort viewed
the problem statement, a summary of the literature, and the proposed methodology instruments:
the initial survey, a curriculum sample, the evaluation form, and the interview protocol. A
notable recommendation by the cohort was to select teacher participants already familiar with
teaching in beach communities. Adjustments to the instruments were also made according to the
recommendations of the doctoral cohort. These adjustments included the addition of items asking
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 74
teachers to define key aspects of special education, such as community based instruction and life
skills.
The following step was to contact special education high school and middle school
teachers recommended by administrators and colleagues, apprise them of the study, and ascertain
their interest in field-testing a new curriculum. Those who agreed to participate were provided a
representative cross section of the curriculum model in the form of a voiced-over PowerPoint
presentation. This was delivered on a flash drive to special education teachers selected for their
knowledge of and experience with SSCDs as well as their familiarity with the ecosystem of the
local community. Prior to viewing the PowerPoint, the teachers first participated in a brief short-
answer survey to ascertain their baseline experience and beliefs about teaching the targeted
student population. Subsequent to completing and returning the survey, they received the
PowerPoint presentation itself, along with a curriculum evaluation form to guide their responses
to the content they studied. Finally, they were interviewed on their perceptions of the
curriculum’s overall utility to ensure the collection of thick, detailed data regarding the research
questions. All teachers served students with moderate to severe disabilities. The majority of
teachers in this inquiry sample (5 out of 7) were high school teachers; the 2 others taught at the
middle school level. Per interview data reviewed in a subsequent section, one of the two middle
school teachers had previously taught high school students with M/S disabilities. With the
exception of one first-year teacher—selected on the recommendation of her supervisor due to her
interest in the study, and her recent placement with the targeted student population—all teachers
had taught students of the M/S population for a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 20 years.
The last step was to collect all the data from the initial survey, the curriculum evaluation,
and the teacher interviews in order to tabulate it. In this case, data tabulation called for a
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 75
synthesis of the survey data, a deductive summary of the interview data, an examination of the
relationship between the survey data and the interview data, an identification of teacher
perceptions of the proposed curriculum based on the complete data set, and a convergence of
these perceptions into themes emerging deductively from the entire examination process
(Merriam, 2009; Maxell, 2013). In sum, the research methods comprised a qualitative study
based on a curriculum field test designed to help discern how best to satisfy the educational
needs of SSCDs at the high school level.
Data Summary
The purpose of this section was to objectively present the data relative to this inquiry and
organize it in a comprehensible way that allowed the selected research questions to be effectively
addressed. Per Patton (2002), a systematic and thoughtful consideration of the acquired data is
essential in order to properly fulfill the purposes of qualitative research (as cited in Merriam,
2009). Qualitative research methods were chosen for this inquiry in order to let educators
provide their impressions of appropriate curriculum for SSCDs—referenced in schools as the
moderate to severe (M/S) population—and to allow the data to emerge from those responses. In
this report, the data summary began by addressing the first research question associated with the
study: How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills-oriented, community-based
curriculum? In order to explore this question, it was first necessary to establish whether or not
teachers saw a correlation between Common Core and life skills.
Survey Data
Per Table 3, the trends that emerged from the initial survey were as follows: teacher
beliefs regarding most effective programs for this population, their beliefs on general curriculum
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 76
access, teacher ideas about the suitability and/or adaptability of CCSS for the M/S population,
teacher definition of life skills as related to community-based instruction (CBI), the role of
setting in the learning experience, the relationship between CCSS and life skills, and the type of
supports needed to make a positive impact on the education of M/S students. Because the
research question examined the concept of relationship between the CCSS and essential life
skills in terms of whether the former is accessible through the latter, the initial survey and
interview data were reported according to teacher responses regarding this relationship.
Table 3
Teacher Background and Beliefs per Initial Survey

Survey
Item/Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Elin Dorado Edwards Anian
Years in
Special
Education

17 6 1 19 20 12 9
Current
Program
SDC/Basic
Skills
High school

SDC
M/S
Life Skills
High S.

SDC
M/S
Life Skills
High S.

SDC
M/S
Life Skills
High S.

SDC
M/S
Life Skills
Middle S.
SDC
M/S
Basic Skills
Life Skills
Middle S.
SDC
M/S
Life Skills
High S.
Experience
Level with
M/S

Medium High Medium High Medium Medium High
Most
valuable
program for
target
population
Life skills/
Functional
academics
combined
General
curriculum/
Life skills
combined
Life skills General
curriculum/
Life skills
combined
General
curriculum/
Life skills
combined
General
curriculum/
Life skills
combined
General
curriculum/
Life skills
combined

Definition of
Life Skills
Functional
academics/
practical
application
Pre-
vocational
and
vocational
skills,
practical
living skills,
social skills
Anything
promoting
physical and
mental health;
or economic
well-being:
street
safety,
shopping.
cooking,
money

Any skills or
methods that
assist
students to be
independent

Any skills or
methods that
assist students
to be
independent
(house
chores;
transportation)
Skills needed
to function in
the real world
(laundry,
dishes,
shopping,
etc).
Integrate
academic,
personal,
social,
occupational
skills
Skills that
assist in
becoming
independent
happy
productive
(hygiene,
cooking,
money use,
transportation
good
nutrition).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 77

Table 3, continued
Survey
Item/Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Branner Elin Dorado Anian
Definition of
CBI
Involves
mobility,
social skills
training,
managing
money and
safety skills
Instruction
outside the
classroom
involving
student
response to
persons or
environment
Anything that
helps
students
function
within
society:
safety skills,
community
signs, use of
stores and
facilities

Learning and
practicing the
skills within
the student’s
communities:
classroom
peers, general
school
community,
and wider
community
Instruction in
which
students
access
community
services to
learn life
skills
Considers
dynamism of
communities
constantly
changing,
including
physical,
social,
economic
and political
aspects

Applying/
practicing
community
skills in an
authentic
environment
Ideal
Location of
Instructional
Program
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences, as
appropriate for
each individual

In the special
education
classroom
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences
Across a
variety of
settings that
afford
educational
experiences

Current level
of CCSS
utilization
School is in
the process of
aligning IEP
goals to
CCSS
No
implementation
at this time
Through IEP
goals;
selected
from primary
grade levels
In a highly
individualized
way based on
student’s
needs/abilities,
Essential
standards
only pending
more CCSS
clarification
Minimal due
to lack of
clarity and
resistance to
excessive
work load
Using a guide
that has
population-
relevant
academic and
vocational
corresponding
to selected
standards

Definition of
Access to the
General
Curriculum:
Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS;
some
physical
placement in
general
education
settings

Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum and
CCSS; some
physical
placement in
general
education
settings
Exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS
Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS;
some physical
placement in
general
education
settings
Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS;
some
physical
placement in
general
education
settings
Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS;
some
physical
placement in
general
education
settings
Engagement
and/or
exposure to
the general
curriculum
and CCSS;
some physical
placement in
general
education
settings

Description
of Core
Beliefs re:
M/S students
Some
students can
progress in
selected
CCSS
standards,
depending on
type of
disability,
supports and
program
provided
Some students
can progress in
selected CCSS
standards,
depending on
the nature of
the disability
and the
supports and
program
provided
These
students
cannot be
expected to
progress on
the general
curriculum
All students
can progress
in selected
CCSS on the
general
curriculum
with the
proper
supports and
instructional
approaches
Some
students can
progress in
selected
CCSS on
general
curriculum
with the
proper
supports and
instructional
approaches
All students
can progress
in selected
CCSS on the
general
curriculum
with the
proper
supports and
instructional
approaches

M/S students
should be
included with
typical peers
in
extracurricular
activities
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 78

Question One: Survey Data Trends
All teacher participants believed that a life skills program is valuable for this population,
with the majority of the teachers (5 out of 7) believing that the most valuable program for these
students is a combination of life skills and general curriculum content. All teachers generally
believed that life skills may be defined as those competencies that promote independent living
and self-care out in the community, including vocational, living, and social skills. Most teachers
conflated the definition of life skills and community-based instruction (CBI), stating that both
involve learning to function as independently as possible (shop, cook, take transportation, follow
street signs, practice personal safety) within their local community.
Only one teacher distinguished CBI from life skills, defining CBI as facilitating
understanding of the shifting nature of communities in terms of their physical, political, and
socioeconomic elements, which suggests a deeper awareness of the constituent aspects of the
students’ local area and how these may affect the lives of the students. In a subsequent interview,
he explained that CBI relied upon experiences in the general community as much as
collaboration with general education classes to provide learning opportunities with nondisabled
peers as models. This concept of collaboration as a necessary criterion for authentic CBI, though
Table 3, continued
Survey
Item/Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Elin Dorado Edwards Anian
Supports or
services to
increase
success for
M/S students
More age-
appropriate
materials
aligned with
CCSS and
more teacher
training on
standards-
based
curriculum
design and
delivery
More emphasis
on student self-
help and
personal
responsibility
More CCSS-
aligned age-
appropriate
materials,
teacher
training on
CCSS-based
curriculum
more student
community
service
training,
more focus
on student
self-care
More CCSS-
aligned age-
appropriate
material,
teacher
training on
CCSS-based
curriculum
community
service
training,
student self-
care and more
technology
tools
More CCSS-
aligned age-
appropriate
material,
teacher
training on
CCSS-based
curriculum
community
service
training,
student self-
care and
technology
tools
More CCSS-
aligned age-
appropriate
material,
teacher
training on
CCSS-based
curriculum
community
service
training,
student self-
care;
technology
tools
More CCSS-
aligned age-
appropriate
materials,
more tech-
based tools to
access
curriculum
content, more
emphasis on
student self-
care
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 79
referenced in CBI-based research (Beck et al., 1994), was not evidenced in the definitions of CBI
provided by any of the other teachers.
Consistent with their belief that a valuable program requires community-based life skills,
the majority of teachers (6 out of 7) believed that locus of the instructional program should not
be restricted to a single place. Even though they provided the bulk of their instruction in a
separate “special day” classroom, they still believed that instruction should occur across a variety
of settings according to the needs of the student within the student’s local area of residence. The
novice teacher was the exception. She believed that the ideal setting was solely the special
education classroom, later stating in an interview that, in the classroom setting, CBI instruction
could be safely and effectively simulated. In terms of educational settings, all teachers believed
that access to the general curriculum involved exposure to the general curriculum and the CCSS,
with 6 out of 7 believing that engagement in the general setting was also a potential factor in the
access equation. The only exception was the same teacher—the novice—who viewed the special
day classroom as the preferred setting. In a nutshell, all of the above points constituted areas of
general agreement among all or most of the participating teachers. Their views on the topic of
instructional setting corresponded to those of researchers who argue that the location should vary
according to the multiple needs of the learner (Browder et al., 2006; Dymond et al., 2007).
At least three of the survey items returned more divergent responses. For example, the
item questioning teachers’ sense of how CCSS are being implemented drew a broad range of
answers. One teacher felt that her district’s guidelines on academic and vocational activities for
students with M/S disabilities were well-enough aligned to the CCSS for appropriate standards to
be selected and implemented, though her likewise participating colleague believed there was no
real mechanism in place for CCSS delivery. Two teachers reported no evidence of CCSS
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 80
implementation at the time of this study. One teacher saw CCSS implementation as minimal due
to teacher resistance stemming from lack of clarification and support. Two others, both from the
same school, believed that CCSS would eventually be addressed through alignment with IEP
goals. Both of these teachers, however, believed that the CCSS may not be appropriate for high
schoolers with M/S disabilities at their actual grade level, a viewpoint that was also discussed at
length in their subsequent interviews. Only two teachers believed that all students in the
significant special needs population could progress in selected CCSS standards on the general
curriculum with proper supports and instructional approaches, while three teachers felt that only
some students could do so based upon the nature of their disability. Only one teacher—the
novice—believed that the target population could not be expected to progress on the general
curriculum to any particular extent. The divergent nature of teacher views on CCSS
implementation and applicability is likewise reflected in the literature relative to the value of
state standards in the development of curriculum for students of the M/S population (Agran et
al., 2002; Dymond et al., 2007).
Finally, in terms of the supports necessary to ensure successful educational experiences
for SSCDs, the results were also somewhat mixed. Only 3 teachers identified technology tools
as essential, though the majority (6 out of 7) identified more age-appropriated materials aligned
with the CCSS as a necessity. This is noteworthy considering that 2 of those 6 indicated that age-
appropriate standards did not apply to this population. Six out of 7 believed that an emphasis on
self-help was critical to student success, with one teacher believing it was the only critical
support needed. Of the remaining 6, five believed that teacher training was critical, including
those who initially felt that the CCSS should not be taught at grade level owing to the difficulty
in helping SSCDs understand them. As pointed out by Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003), many
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 81
teachers need to gain more experience and training in best practices for this population in order
to increase their self-efficacy and hold students accountable to state standards. However, lack of
proper supports often impedes the implementation of best practices (Ayres et al., 1994). Per
their responses to the initial survey, teachers appear to realize the value of specialized training in
creating alignment between grade-level standards and life skills-oriented programs of instruction
for SSCDs.
The pre-curriculum evaluation survey reveals much information about teachers’ beliefs
regarding how, where, and what students with disabilities in the moderate to severe category
should be taught with respect to life skills and Common Core State Standards. It also reveals
their definition of appropriate content access and the supports they feel are needed to facilitate
this access.
Question One: Interview Data Relative to Survey
To properly conduct this inquiry, it was necessary to speak with practitioners in the field
of special education, notably those who educate the M/S population at the high school level. For
the purposes of this study, interviews were conducted with 7 teachers from four school districts
who have had experiences teaching high school students with M/S disabilities in a shoreline-
adjacent community to determine their sense of the curriculum’s overall utility in linking
Common Core state standards with community-based life skills. The interviews were conducted
in a semi-structured manner. This was done to ensure focus on the inquiry issue of access to the
CCSS for students who also need a life skills-based approach, while at the same time permitting
flexibility in the questioning style to capture the unique responses of each teacher interviewed
(Merriam, 2009). The questions were formulated to help the respondents reflect on and share
their beliefs, relative to their own understanding, about the needs and abilities of students in the
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 82
M/S population as a basis for approaching and implementing CCSS to teach them. Per Merriam
(2009), the questions comprised various types including background and demographic,
experience and behavior, opinion and values, and knowledge.
Provided in the subsequent sections of this chapter are content summaries of the
interviews to help determine common threads as well as contrasting information. The first
summary comprised the portion of the interview data relevant to the initial survey data and the
first research question addressed in this study: How can high school students with significant
cognitive disabilities access the Common Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science
through a life-skills-oriented, community-based curriculum? Subsequently, the method of
constant comparison (Corbin & Strauss, 2008) was used to allow for the emergence of general
and specific themes, into which were eventually woven elements pertaining to the second
research question regarding teacher perceptions of the curriculum based upon their evaluative
statements.
For each interview, data were captured by iPhone voice-memo and abbreviated note-
taking using a word processor. The pre-established interview protocol served as a guide, with
probes added as necessary to stimulate episodic memory or the expression of additional details
(Dere, Easton, Nadel, & Huston, 2008; Tulving, 2002, as cited in Merriam, 2009). To help unify
participant responses and keep them focused on topics pertinent to the research questions, key
statements were recapped and reaffirmed so they could more easily be linked to subsequent
questions. Ideal position questions were also used to obtain insights into respondent knowledge
and opinions (Merriam, 2009). Field notes recording impressions and initial interpretations were
added in italics and incorporated into the transcriptions during and after the interviews. Below,
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 83
separate interviews were titled according to the name of the teacher interviewee; pseudonyms
were used to protect the identities of the participating teachers and their respective school sites.
Interview one: Remler. Ms. Remler was interviewed by phone on May 30 from 10:10
to 11:00 am and subsequently on June 4 at from 7:45 to 7:57 a.m. to obtain clarification of a few
minor issues raised in the first interview. Ms. Remler stated she was the special education
department chair for grades 9 through 12 at Northwest High School and also taught the mild-to-
moderate (M/M) non-diploma track (Identified by Ms. Remler as Level One) for grades 9
through 12. Though she did not teach students of the M/S population, her supervision of the
educational programs and teaching for those students qualified her to participate in this study.
She also had broad-based experience working in special day treatment programs for youth with
severe emotional disturbances, and her total work experiences in special education comprised 17
years.
Based on the content of Ms. Remler’s responses and the field notes, it was clear that the
CCSS posed a huge challenge to her teaching and to that of her special education colleagues. In
the first place, she did not believe the standards were meaningful for the M/S population: “A lot
of what I’ve seen of CCSS math and ELA just has no relevance to those students at this
time…They’ve had 9 years of training in the school district, and they’re still not verbal or able to
do a lot of functional things”. Further, she stated that she found “no correlation between CCSS
and life/functional skills”, though she did believe the academic portion of the program could be
aligned with CCSS. Basically, she felt the CCSS were not relevant to personal student needs
especially as concerns the M/S population. Yet, she stated, “We know we have to align our
objectives to [the CCSS]” and are “obligated to honor…whatever’s in the IEP”. But she
lamented that “the district hasn’t given any guidance” and was very concerned that her school
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 84
may have to create the academic program from scratch when the students arrive in 9
th
grade. To
initiate the CCSS at the high school level, in Ms. Remler’s view, is contrary to the purpose of
Common Core, which is “to [incrementally] build up knowledge at each grade level, no matter
where you come from”. Because there was no training or consistency, she said that teachers
were put in the confusing position of “picking and choosing” skills and standards.
When prompted to consider the possibility that teachers devise their own starting point,
she immediately revealed that her school was beginning to examine standards for 9
th
grade
students and would gradually extend the implementation of standards-based instruction to the
12
th
grade. To her, this meant using primary grade standards for the special education (SE)
population at her school in order meet the students’ current ability level: “We’re looking at
second grade because that’s where the student is…so we’re going to 2
nd
grade Common Core”.
However, she also stated that, “at the high school level, we start moving away from academics
and start moving toward the functional”. In context, this statement had particular application to
the lowest functioning students—labeled as Level One at Northwest— who are “still not verbal,
still unable to do a lot of functional things like hold a pencil”. This statement seemed mitigated,
however, by her assertion that “you can take any goal in CCSS and tie it into anything,” for
which reason she stated that she actually liked Common Core. The value of the Common
Core/life skills alignment was also evident in her initial survey response, in which she indicated
that the most effective program for the target population combines life skills with functional
academics. However, the above-mentioned assertion was a bit confusing given her declaration
that CCSS had no relevance or relationship to life skills for the M/S population, even though she
specified that CCSS could be related to the academic portion of the program.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 85
Ms. Remler’s primary aim in providing instructional programs for the students of
Northwest “is to make kids productive and responsible and be able to work…become productive
adults…whether paid or volunteer, whatever it is, but to be productive.” Ms. Remler’s goals for
the M/S population thus appeared to be directly associated with the utilitarian, Social Efficiency
approach to education (Schiro, 2013).
Interview two: Borsen. Ms. Borsen was interviewed in person in her classroom at King
High School on June 10 for a period of 37 minutes. She self-identified as a highly experienced
education specialist and teacher of the M/S Special Day Class, grades 9 through transition, with
six years of experience in her current position.
Per her interview statements, Ms. Borsen found significant merit in the application of
Common Core State Standards to the M/S population. She disclosed that the CCSS training she
had received thus far had been tailored specifically for the general education population, but did
believe in relationship between Common Core and life skills for students with significant
cognitive disability: “There’s a parallel between the depth of understanding that we’re looking
for in CCSS and the depth of functionality of the knowledge in functional life skills. In both
areas we’re looking for deep understanding that can be applied”. To a certain extent, based on
her own experience and the general training, Ms. Borsen felt that she and her special education
colleagues “have been doing CCSS-type teaching all along,” but have simply been “much more
narrow in our focus and much more interested in developing skills that students can apply”. She
wished that her school district curriculum advisors would help to organize a better community-
based instructional program that would standardize the most important elements, but also
accepted that “there will never be an ideal curriculum and every teacher is going to have to make
some modifications…”.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 86
Though Ms. Borsen’s interview statements are generally consistent with the information
she provided in the initial survey, there were a few discrepancies that emerged relative to the
basic themes of CCSS implementation methods and necessary supports. For example, she stated
her belief that according to her training on CCSS, she had essentially been implementing the
standards all along in a focused and narrow way in line with her students’ educational needs.
Her survey response, however, indicated that formal implementation was not occurring at the
time of the study. Further, she mentioned that district advisement on general and CBI
curriculum construction and implementation would be desirable supports, but focused on student
self-help as an area of greater need in her survey response.
Interview three: Branner. Ms. Branner was interviewed by phone on June 12 at
7:30am for 27 minutes. She was a novice teacher who self-identified as moderately experienced
in her role as an SE teacher of the MS population for grade levels 9 through 12 and worked at
Northwest High School under the supervision of Ms. Remler. She was selected for the study
because of her interest in the subject, her current M/S teaching assignment, and her perspective
as a new teacher potentially open to a new curriculum approach.
With respect to the first research question, Ms. Branner did not see a connection between
CCSS and life skills, consistent with her survey response to the effect that a stand-alone life
skills program simulating community-based living experiences was the most valuable for her
students. Yet, when asked if the curriculum should emphasize the connection, she replied that it
should attempt to do so, though, in her initial survey, she responded that her students could not
be expected to progress on the general curriculum. Contrasting her interview statements with her
initial survey, it was noteworthy that, despite her core beliefs, she felt a variety of supports
(excluding technology) could increase the likelihood of her students’ success. Per Ms. Branner,
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 87
the desired supports included more age-appropriate materials aligned with CCSS, more teacher-
training on standards-based curriculum design and implementation, more community service
training for this population, and more emphasis on student self-reliance. All of this suggested
her potential openness to expanding opportunities for her students with M/S disabilities by
implementing a curriculum substantiated by services and materials she identified as critical.
Interview four: Elin. Ms. Elin was interviewed on June 4 in her classroom at Reginald
High School for 35 minutes. She described herself as a highly experienced MS teacher in the
independent life skills program (ILS) at Reginald. She had worked with the MS population for
19 years, including 14 years as a classroom teacher.
All data obtained from Ms. Elin showed consistency across her responses to items
pertinent to research question one. She was very strong in her conviction that there was a
connection between CCSS and life skills, and that curriculum should emphasize that connection:
“[the connection] is not always obvious right on the surface, but when you look at the
synthesized skills that any student is learning, it’s going to have an effect on their life and their
abilities to function”. She believed that implementation of CCSS must occur in a highly
individualized and flexible way, and the end goal was to make students independent. The steps
toward this independence involved academic learning, in her view. Though Ms. Elin stated she
was “not that up to speed” on CCSS, she believed that they “are much more [based upon]
experiential learning and investigation and the procedure of learning than the standards we’ve
used in the past” and opined that the more experiences the standards afforded as they were
unpacked, “the more enriched kids’ lives are going to be”. She saw technology as key to helping
students access content, along with more age-appropriate CCSS materials. She appeared to
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 88
speak confidently from the basis of her many years of experience working with the target
population.
Interview five: Dorado. Ms. Dorado was interviewed on May 30 for 65 minutes in her
classroom at Monroe Middle School, where she had served as a Special Day Class (SDC) teacher
for 7 years, working mainly with 6
th
grade students in the M/S category. Her total work
experience with the special education (SE) population encompassed 20 years, though much of
that experience was with students in the mild to moderate (M/M) range. She described herself as
moderately experienced working with the population specifically identified in this study.
Ms. Dorado’s responses were generally very consistent across the survey and interview
data sets. At the time of her interview, she explained that her district had not sufficiently in-
serviced teachers on CCSS, much less on the design and implementation of a CCSS-based
curriculum. She wanted to see more technology supports and general direction from the school
district. Though she did believe that the most valuable program for the M/S population was one
that combined the general curriculum with life skills, she said that her preliminary impression of
CCSS was that the new Standards did not correlate with life skills. Her goal was to “get students
ready for the real world,” and academics were important only “as long as [they] tie in with life
skills, because that’s what’s going to matter”. Ms. Dorado elaborated on this by stating that, for
some students, academic learning did not matter as long as they had a job, adding, “Our special
needs kids—they’re the best workers…they’re the ones who take pride in their work; they’re
happy to go to work”. Her statements, like Ms. Remler’s, echo the Social Efficiency approach to
instructional programs (Schirro, 2013), based on the premise that the main purpose of education
is to prepare students for productive work.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 89
Interview six: Bautista. On May 27, Mr. Bautista’s interview took place for 65 minutes
in his classroom at Southshore Middle School, where he taught a mild to moderate SDC class
comprised of 6th graders. He was selected for this study because of his twelve years’ experience
in special education—notably his prior professional assignments teaching high school students
with a variety of moderate to severe disabilities. He described his total experience level with the
M/S population as moderate.
Mr. Bautista showed consistent responses to all items relative to Research Question One
across the survey and interview data sets. He was adamant in his beliefs that CCSS are
applicable to life skills and gave multiple examples of his viewpoint, including the following:
“From the CCSS informational reading and science standards, we learn about plants and this
[knowledge] can be applied by raising a vegetable garden, and [gardening] becomes a life skill
because it’s agriculture—a livelihood”. To him, curriculum should emphasize the connection
between general curriculum standards and life skills because “this is how students make sense of
their combined learning experiences” (line 34). He felt that classroom learning experiences
should simulate community involvements in order to ensure the safety and confidence of
students once they attempted independent living in the larger community.
Mr. Bautista did not believe that CCSS were being implemented sufficiently in special
education due to what teachers might perceive as confusing changes in teacher performance
expectations, and a variety of challenges that may discourage them from working harder on
CCSS implementation. He expressed the need for more CCSS-aligned, age-appropriate material;
more teacher training; and especially technology access.
Interview seven: Anian. Ms. Anian was interviewed in her classroom at King High
School on May 30 for 45 minutes. She described herself as a highly experienced M/S specialist
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 90
teaching a class with M/S disabilities in grades 9 through 12 at a lower middle class school; she
had taught for five years out of the nine years she worked with the M/S student population.
Ms. Anian gave responses to all survey and interview questions that were consistent with
her beliefs that Common Core and life skills are related and that Common Core can be embedded
in a life skills-based curricular program: “There is a natural connection [because] you can be
talking about things that are functional or vocational and incorporate reading standards and math
standards, etc. within the content”. Her primary goal for her students was to provide any and all
skills that helped increase their quality of life and their independence. In her view, more student
access to age-appropriate materials and technology tools were the necessary supports still
lacking, as well as a greater curricular emphasis on student self-reliance.
Combined Survey/Interview Themes
According to the data obtained from the initial survey and individual teacher interviews
regarding question one, the central and emergent themes are as follows:
• Teacher beliefs about relationship of CCSS to life skills
• The teaching of life skills within community-based instruction
• Applicability of CCSS to the M/S population
• Factors impeding access to CCSS
• Teacher goals for students
• Essential supports needed to teach CCSS to the M/S population
The above themes were addressed in light of teachers’ perceptions of the proposed curriculum, in
answer to Research Question Two: How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum
emphasizing the integration of life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and
science?
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 91
Question Two Data Summary
In order to align teacher perceptions with the above-mentioned themes, said
perceptions—based on teacher responses to the curriculum evaluation form and
total interview data—were summarized in Tables 4 and 5. In a qualitative study, this is done
because patterns and themes from the perspective of all participants must be identified in an
attempt to understand and explain them (Creswell, 2009, p. 199). Here, the data from both
sources helped furnish descriptive information, advance new categories or themes, and bring to
light hypotheses (Merriam, 2009) as to what constitutes appropriate curriculum design and
implementation for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities. Table 4 indicates
Likert scale responses of 1 through 4 where 1 represents “minimally”, 2 represents “somewhat”,
3 represents “mostly”, and 4 represents “entirely”) to curriculum evaluation criteria as presented
on the curriculum evaluation form.
Table 4
Likert Data Summary of Responses to Proposed Curriculum Based on Evaluation Criteria
Curriculum
Evaluation
Criteria/Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Elin Dorado Edwards Anian
“Big ideas” vs
large number of
topics

3 4 4 4 4 4 4
Scaffolding for
distinct needs

4 3 4 3 4 4 3
Integrated
skills, concepts

3 4 4 3 4 4 4
Ongoing
formative
assessment
3 3 4 4 4 4 3
Clear
implementation
guidelines

4 3 4 2 4 4 4
Application of
UDL principles

4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Activities
promoting
community
Involvement

4 4 4 4 4 4 4
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 92
High utility
compared to
other programs
4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Table 5 provides a verbal summary of the curriculum evaluation fill-in responses and interview
content according to the prompts provided.

Table 5
Summary of Verbal Responses to Curriculum Evaluation Prompts
Curriculum
Eval. Prompt/
Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Elin Dorado Edwards Anian
Target
population
M/M-M/S From lower
M/S to
higher M/S
M/S students
with reading
and oral
language
ability
All M/S
students except
for the lowest
non-verbal
autistic

M/S
depending
on disability
Mostly
moderate but
also severe
because of
visuals
M/S with
auditory
receptiveness
Shortcomings Need to
address
higher
cognitive
levels; hard
to achieve
in 1period
Specific to
only one
community
ecosystem;
requires
adaptation

Some lessons
are too long;
too much
language for
some students
May cause
scheduling
problems if
program is not
self-contained
due to multiple
subjects
None, but
should also
be adapted
for
elementary
Confusing if
not labeled for
specific
subsets of
M/S
population
Picture/text
pages “too
busy”

Preferred
modifications
Modify
CBI lessons
to shorter
periods and
local area;
include
other
ecosystems
Provide
templates for
other
common
ecosystems;
Big pictures
for lower
students
Shorten
written
lessons and
modify
quizzes for
some students
narrowing
response
choices
Add text-only
version for
higher readers
Add more
pictures
with of
comparable
ecosystems
Add lesson
plans for
specific kinds
of disabilities
or severities;
more
animation and
interactive
options
Lesson
content per
page;
organize by
low,
medium,
high ability
categories;
incorporate
sharing of
experiences

Benefits Extensions
Adaptation
Tying
functional
skill into
CBI;
Graphics
Organized to
address core
content and
life skills
tailored to
CBI
Provides
different ways
to share
knowledge;
lots of visuals
Use of picture
text to support
life science
curriculum;
field trips
Colorful
graphics
and
pictures;
imbedded
assessments
Picture
support for
reading; big
ideas help to
understand
and make
applications to
real life

Personalized
to students
and their
environment;
emphasis on
use of iPads
Potential
influence on
approach to
CCSS
Provide
guidelines
for
struggling
teachers
and use of
CCSS at
current
grade level
Need more
time
reflection on
CCSS to
decide
Gives an idea
of how to use
CCSS
Shows how the
standards can
be adapted and
imbedded in
CBI so they
can be applied
to tM/S
population
Follow the
model.
Examine
CCSS
standards,
find out
what
regular ed
students are
learning,
and adapt

Can help
make CCSS
more concrete
and show how
the standards
can be
modified
Activities
can be used
to address
the standards
given in our
district
guidelines

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 93
Table 5, continued
Curriculum
Eval. Prompt/
Teacher
Remler Borsen Branner Elin Dorado Edwards Anian
Potential
influence on
school
community
Collaborate
across
grade levels
Can bridge
gap between
SE (special
education)
and GE
(general
education)

May induce
SE teachers to
collaborate
More
communication
between
special
educators
(SDC/ILS)
Discussion
between GE
and SE
educators
per above
Could be field
tested at
GE/SE
meetings to
facilitate
mainstreaming
Increase
collaboration
between GE
and SE
Supports
deemed
necessary for
effective use
PD;
Larger
budget;
CCSS
training;
More TAs/
Planning
time; iPad

Realia/
iPad and
iPad
training for
teachers;
District-
sponsored
CBI

Manipulatives Sample lesson
plans, pacing
plans, more
suggestions for
supplements/
enrichment
Color
printers and
iPads; PD
Teacher
assistants,
teacher
training,
supportive
admin, iPads
iPads,
computer
access,
funding for
CBI outings,
more adult
assistance in
small groups
Perceived
effect on
student’s
quality of life
Improved
educational
foundation
for students
of
struggling
teachers
Extended
student
engagement
in academic
activities
Improved
environmental
awareness
and
independence
within
community
Increased
opportunities
for
independence/
life/academic
skills needed in
community
Based on
continuation
of family
support
Increased
independence
within
community
through life
skills
integrating
academic and
social skills
Increased
potential to
be
independent
productive,
happy
members of
society

According to the information provided in Tables 4 and 5, additional themes emerge:
• Curriculum model’s perceived benefits
• Teacher recommendations for improvement
• Required conditions for successful implementation
• Curriculum’s influence on teaching practices and school community
With respect to these themes, the Likert data from Table 4 was first summarized. Subsequently,
all relevant data from interviews and evaluation forms, summarized in Table 5, was organized
and exemplified according to essential categories emerging from the themes (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009).
Research Question Two solicits answers based on teachers’ perceptions of a proposed
curriculum that emphasizes the integration of life skills and Common Core standards in ELA,
math, and life science. Teachers generally responded positively to the curriculum model. All
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 94
teachers believed that the integration promoted understanding of the CCSS, with five teachers
believing that it did so strongly. All teachers believed that the model was usable and preferable
in terms of the application of UDL principles, learning activities that promoted the student as a
contributing community member, and content centered on thematic big ideas versus a large
number of unrelated topics. Scaffolding for individual needs and embedded assessment
opportunities were found to be either entirely or mostly present within the curriculum. In
addition, 5 out of 7 believed that the curriculum strongly included clear guidelines for
implementation. One of the most experienced teachers believed that sample lesson plans and
pacing plans were missing from the guidelines. But overall, the proposed program was generally
found to contain those elements consistent with essential state and special needs criteria for
program effectiveness (Browder et al., 2006; CDE, 2013) based on most participant responses.
Thematic Categories
In the following sections, summaries are provided according to thematic categories
derived from the synthesis of all data organized into the aforementioned themes and related to
both research questions relevant to this study. These final categories are as follows, and utilize
the terms curriculum, model, and program interchangeably:
• Teacher perceptions of curriculum’s strengths
• Perceived curriculum omissions
• Potential impediments to curriculum implementation
• Program impact on teacher approach to Common Core
• Program impact on school community

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 95
Teacher Perceptions of Curriculum’s Strengths
The proposed curriculum interrelating CCSS ELA, math, and life science with functional
life skills imbedded in community-based instruction was found to have particular strengths in
facilitating learning and teaching for students of the M/S population based on the connectivity of
the above-mentioned components.
Facilitation of learning. All teachers felt the curriculum could effectively serve and
engage students of the M/S population with particular application to those students capable of
reading and using oral/receptive language. The visual component was apparently a strongly
favored element in facilitating content access and reducing cognitive overload, a viewpoint also
corroborated by current research (Downing, 2006). For example, Ms. Elin believed that even the
students with autism who are non-verbal and the lowest performers could benefit because
“…you can modify how you use it—with skills as basic as matching and sorting…and you can
still be using items and pictures from the curriculum”. Most teachers saw the visual
representations and picture-supported text as opportunities to boost learning for this group. In
the words of Ms. Remler, “Because of the way it’s laid out with the visuals, with color and clear
graphics…students would respond favorably”. Ms. Dorado commented that she “loved the
pictures and the way they tied in so much with the curriculum”. Later in the interview, she
added, “Many students within this population do not have the opportunity to actually see the
concepts associated with the standards, but “if you have the pictures for them, and when they see
it, and you have that color for them, they say—oh, that’s what it is…they’d be more interested”.
Ms. Branner stated that the “real life photos would help them understand and recall the topics”.
Ms. Anian commented on the iPad as a particularly advantageous visual tool for motivating her
students: “It’s so awesome that [the curriculum is] incorporating the iPad—I just love the
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 96
technology”. Ms. Anian’s response to the technology component appeared to justify the
technology provision made by the Common Core State Standards Initiative to ensure access to
the general education curriculum and the Common Core State Standards (2010).
Many teachers also perceived an advantage for students in terms of the connection made
between CCSS and life skills-oriented community-based instruction. Six out of 7 teachers saw
the application of life skills to CCSS-oriented instruction regarding the local community
environment as an enhancement to student learning as well as interest. Ms. Borsen qualified this
as follows: “[The curriculum] would hold “very high interest for most of my students because
it’s very much tailored to what we do a lot, which is CBI—going into the community,
discovering everything around you.” Ms. Elin noted, “There are a lot of opportunities for field
trips to work on the [life science] skills in the natural environment”. She also pointed out that the
curriculum included a lot of other subjects relevant to the students’ lives, citing health education,
nutrition, and weather—all of which were tied to the standards as well as CBI. In Mr. Bautista’s
words, “the curriculum started big and zoomed in to make things clearer and it’s sort of a
deductive approach. There’s a lot of interactivity”. When prompted to clarify this statement, he
responded, “When you are there at the pier, you see what’s there and see the food chain and the
energy pyramid, and you go deeper and deeper”. He believed that “students learn life skills with
high motivation while they study the community because it’s all about them and the natural
environment”. Similarly, Ms. Anian stated, “It’s good to personalize [the curriculum] to the
environment the students are going to be in”. These responses were consistent with the views of
researchers stating that critical learning experiences should be integrated and tied to relevant
situations and places (Barab & Roth, 2006; Browder et al., 2006; Jackson et al., 2008; Tyler,
1949).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 97
Besides discussing the general benefits of the curriculum, teachers also focused on
particular students for whom the program could afford special opportunities. Mr. Bautista and
Ms. Anian identified those students who were “hands-on,” highly exploratory learners—those
who needed to go out into the community to experience firsthand the concepts they were
studying in class, including elements of the local marine ecosystem. Ms. Elin identified a
student who understood the science curriculum but had trouble reading: “He has the intellectual
ability to understand it [science] but doesn’t quite have the decoding to read it, so the decoding
slows him down but I think the picture-supported text opens up his access to the content”.
Similarly, Ms. Dorado revealed, “I do have some kids that are higher in their disability range and
are considered M/S but I can see that this [picture-supported text] would totally benefit them and
help them read”. For her part, Ms. Osborne identified a student who had a high interest in
technology and would be engaged “just by the style of the presentation…and the use of
photographs that would reflect the actual community setting”.
In sum, the color graphics aspect, the use of iPad as a learning tool, and the connectivity
between life skills and CCSS-related learning opportunities within the local community were
seen by most teachers as advantageous for students with M/S disabilities. Furthermore, most
teachers believed that the multi-faceted community-based instruction would lead the students to
a more productive, fulfilled, enjoyable, and independent life within their community of
residence.
Facilitation of teaching. Throughout the data sets, potential advantages for teachers
using the curriculum were also identified in terms of its content framework and guidelines for
implementation. The stated advantages match several of the state criteria for curriculum design
with respect to implementation of CCSS (CDE, 2013).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 98
Content organization and structure were seen as benefits. Ms. Borsen explained as
follows: “From the teacher’s perspective, to have an organized curriculum that [combines] the
CCSS and functional life skills is just a great boost in terms of planning.” In like manner, and in
line with education experts, 3 teachers perceived the variety of skills embedded in the study of
one concept or big idea as conducive to more effective teaching and comprehensible learning
experiences (Stein et al., 2001; Tyler, 1949). Ms. Remler stated, “I liked how one idea [the pier]
incorporated a transportation piece, maps, money, and lots of other functional skills. I liked how
that was broken down”. Ms. Elin similarly stated that the curriculum helped organize teaching in
a meaningful way because “it gives a structure to the activities…you’re not just taking a field
trip…to go shopping, but you are learning to use transportation to take a field trip to explore the
ecosystem…”. Ms. Anian thought the hands-on aspect made it easier to “crystalize or concretize
the more abstract standards”, a viewpoint that Mr. Bautista shared. Periodic comprehension
checks or quizzes embedded in the content structure were viewed by all teachers as mostly or
entirely effective in providing ongoing formative assessment. Thus, teachers identified several
structural elements that could potentially make teaching easier and more effective.
Other advantages were perceived in terms of content delivery facilitation. Ms. Remler
believed that the extensions and modifications provided added instructional assistance for
teachers. She felt that the curriculum was particularly useful in that it could give struggling
teachers the necessary guidelines to help students process the content at different levels of
ability: “Students who are not taught by good teachers would be given a foundation”. All
teachers indicated that the curriculum was generally easy to understand and utilize. Ms. Borsen
felt that it constituted “an excellent model: clear, engaging, and relevant to our population”. Per
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 99
the above comments, teachers communicated their sense of how the model’s structure could
facilitate teaching.
Facilitation of goals for students. As indicated on curriculum evaluation forms and in
several interview comments, most teachers generally believed that the proposed curriculum
could help students attain educators’ goals for them. Three teachers felt that eventual
independence was critical to the well-being of their students and thought that the proposed model
could help students understand their environment and be contributing and/or independent
community members. Ms. Borsen, who believed that personal responsibility was a key goal,
remarked that students would more likely remain involved in academic activities owing to the
“engaging tools and supports”, which would allow for more effective instructional time leading
to the accomplishment of learning goals and objectives. Teachers Remler and Dorado
emphasized the acquisition of job skills and employability as their goals for students, though
they did not indicate that the curriculum could assist students to that end.
Perceived Curriculum Omissions
The data collected in this study brought to light the need for various additions,
adjustments, and conditions for the effective use of the curriculum according to the viewpoints
and experience levels of participating teachers. The recommended criteria were additional
lessons targeted for specific ability or interest levels, timing adjustments, and the inclusion of
additional learning modalities. All of these recommendations are seen as valid in terms of the
flexibility and accommodations called for in the Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010).
Adjustments for varying ability levels. Six out of 7 teachers believed that the
curriculum could be improved by including additional lesson plans and activities for widely
varying ability levels within the M/S category. Mr. Bautista felt that the lessons should be
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 100
labeled according to the specific subset of the population they were targeting to ensure that the
functional and academic needs of all students were met. In a similar vein, Ms. Anian felt that
there should be a high, medium, and low version of the lessons presented; Ms. Elin believed that
there should be more academic content with more text or text only for the higher functioning
students, more emphasis on CBI and independent living for the lower performing students, and
specific lesson and pacing plans to illustrate how the content may be taught. Ms. Remler and Ms.
Borsen thought the life science aspect of the curriculum should be extended to include exposure
to other ecosystems for higher level students; Ms. Dorado believed that the local beach
ecosystem concept could be expanded to include comparison to other types of beaches within
California or between states. However, she also believed that the life skills portion of the
curriculum required more emphasis than the academic portion, and that academics had merit
only insofar as they tied in with life skills: “What’s important for this population is getting them
ready for the real world…learning their money skills, taking public transportation, knowing how
to go to a grocery store and what’s on the list…that’s what’s going to matter”. In her view, the
academic basis of community learning experiences “really doesn’t matter for some kids as long
as they [can] have a job”. Ms. Branner believed that the assessments should be modified to
narrow the range of choices for some lower-performing students. According to all teachers,
lesson adaptations were necessary to satisfy the individual or subgroup needs of students with
M/S disabilities based on teachers’ perceptions of their specific learning requirements.
Timing adjustments. Three out of 7 teachers thought that lessons would need to be
time-adjusted in order to make the curriculum more serviceable. For example, Ms. Remler
thought most CBI lessons should be modified to comprise shorter lessons within a more local
area surrounding the school site so that they could be at least partially achievable within time
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 101
period constraints. Ms. Branner and Ms. Anian also wanted to see shorter written lessons with
less content per page; to this effect, Ms. Anian stated that “the picture text/pages are busy” and
needed more spacing and time allowed for each part. Ms. Elin pointed out that, owing to the
inter-disciplinarity of the curriculum, it would need to be administered in a self-contained
classroom to avoid timing problems and scheduling conflicts with teachers of separate
disciplines. She perceived this as a disadvantage, however: “I don’t want [the life skills class] to
be a self-contained program, so when you are using a thematic unit that goes across all your
subjects, it gets complicated to administer if you don’t have the same students for ELA as you do
for science”. Furthermore, Ms. Elin mentioned that, because her high school used block
scheduling, it might be difficult to see the students every day and maintain the flow of the
program. She felt the curriculum lacked a pacing plan and time implementation time frame. All
of these issues meant teachers would have the added challenge of figuring out how to pace the
content and its delivery to implement the curriculum efficiently.
Additional learning modalities. In the portion of her interview discussing the most
desirable curriculum for students of the M/S population, Ms. Borsen specified multiple means of
learning. Besides a strong visual component to engage her students, she explained: “My students
respond very strongly to music. Some are hands-on. Each concept…needs to be presented
multiple ways. We sing it, sign it, we have a lot of different ways of approaching the same
ideas”. In the context of this study, her response is taken to mean that performing arts and
modalities other than those addressed in this curriculum should be considered for inclusion in the
proposed curriculum to make it more applicable to a broader range of learners.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 102
Potential Impediments to Delivery of Proposed Model
In their evaluation and interview responses, some participants also shared their ideas on
home issues and school-based obstacles that might limit or impede the fully successful
implementation and outcomes of the proposed curriculum model. On the school front, the
impediments were perceived as gaps in administrative guidance and services, and lack of
sufficient technology, instructional materials, and personnel.
Home support issues. Both Ms. Dorado and Ms. Remler expressed the idea that family
support played an important role in the successful utilization of the curriculum in terms of
student outcomes. Ms. Dorado stated that successful results depended greatly on student home
reinforcement. She believed that, if the family did not follow through with the curriculum
lessons or goals and continue working with the students by providing home-based support, “all
this will go to waste… and this is true of any curriculum”. Ms. Remler explained that some
parents did indeed “ask that we continue with academics all the way up to graduation”, but then
also expressed her concerns: “Some families are not sufficiently supportive and many just want
their kids to be taken care of at school. They don’t necessarily follow through at home”. In her
view, this problem decreased students’ motivation, which, in turn, impeded them from learning
core functional academics over extended periods of time. Citing lack of family assistance in the
proper use of money for personal shopping as an example, she said, “Many are used to getting
whatever they want, so they don’t worry or care about money”. These teachers felt that the
overall success of the curriculum was at least partially contingent on family backing. This
opinion was not found in the literature reviewed for the purpose of clarifying this study.
School administration gaps. Several teachers of the M/S student population identified a
lack of familiarity with CCSS because of insufficient information, administrative guidance, or
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 103
training that may undermine teacher confidence in the use of a CCSS-oriented CBI curriculum.
Pending receipt of some guidance from her school or district administrators, Ms. Dorado shared
her impressions of implementing a CCSS-based curriculum thus: “Once we know where we are
headed [with CCSS] it will be easier for us as teachers to know what we are doing. Ms. Borsen--
in her concern over how to apply the proposed program to other contexts or settings more
apropos of her students’ own community, and the “extensive” work this endeavor might entail—
stated, “I would like training in how to deliver [the curriculum] and as much direction as possible
in how to customize it…Our beach here is very different…When I have seen curriculum from
other places, I wonder, why doesn’t my district have one specific to our own community?” Mr.
Bautista was concerned about curriculum implementation success in the case of M/S teachers
who lacked familiarity with CCSS due to insufficient administrative knowledge or support. By
comparison, Ms. Elin said that the administration had not addressed the CCSS in any training
specifically geared for high school special education teachers, which would curtail the likelihood
of new curriculum design or implementation on the part of special educators.
Ms. Remler believed that her district had not tackled the organizational issues involved in
planning the design or implementation of a CCSS-based curriculum for the special education
population throughout the grade levels. “As a teacher,” she said, “I’ve had to struggle the whole
time teaching this population because there is no direction in curriculum”. She had a difficult
time sorting out how CBI experiences—including those in the curriculum—could be tied to the
Common Core academic standards, especially for the lowest performing students without
previous CCSS background knowledge from earlier grades: “Could a [CBI experience] be tied to
the CCSS as an academic standard? That’s what I don’t have the training in, to know how to do
that”.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 104
Though the curriculum she evaluated contained lesson activities designed to bridge the
CCSS/CBI gap, Ms. Remler still felt she was missing the professional development necessary to
make the connection. Because her school separates special needs learners into four distinct levels
or groups, it was difficult for her to determine what aspects of the proposed curriculum may
apply to each: “For some students, some kids will just be able to get on the bus. Others will be
able to handle the more academic parts. Other students will want to know about animals that live
down by the ocean shore. She believed “there is a varying degree of students and learning
styles” needing to be addressed. It seems that general uneasiness with Common Core adaptation
due to district-level gaps in teacher training and customization of instruction for students who
comprise the M/S population was strongly seen as a potential obstacle to smooth implementation
of the recommended curriculum. Deficits in the provision of administrative guidance for SE
educators constitute a common theme in the literature regarding teacher challenges in meeting
the learning requirements of SE populations (Agran et al, 2002).
Lack of technology tools. Most teachers stated that they needed additional technology
to implement the curriculum appropriately. The most commonly desired tool, in 5 out of 7 cases,
was the iPad, along with teacher training for its proper use. According to Ms Anian, “It’s a
roadblock that I don’t have iPads for all of my students, which I would love to and I would hope
to in the future. So hopefully…the curriculum is directing us toward [the iPad] because it gives
[the curriculum] multipurpose to utilize a tool like that”. Ms. Remler, who shared her belief that
there was little alignment between CCSS and life skills, felt that the alignment could be
facilitated with the responsible use of the iPad. She suggested that, if this instrument were made
available to students, it would cause teachers to think differently about planning.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 105
The technology issue was discussed in other ways as well. For example, Ms. Dorado also
mentioned colored printers: “If we can’t copy the [curriculum binder] lessons in color, it’s not
going to be useful…students understand more because of the colored pictures that are there.”
For emphasis, she stated, “If we can’t…do it the way you presented it, what’s the use?” Mr.
Bautista felt that more animation and interactive options for clicking and activating images, as
well as voice-over curriculum content, would also be more helpful for students in terms of
providing access to content. But, in contrast to the other teachers, Mr. Bautista believed that the
basic content of the curriculum “can still be done more simply according to the school’s limited
resources. He did not see the absence of technology as an impediment to the curriculum’s
overall utility because he believed the concepts could still be made accessible through hands-on
learning experiences and thematic teaching across the curriculum. Though Ms. Branner did
consider the use of technology as a life skill for some, she stated that, “for others, it wouldn’t
make much of a difference in their lives.” She instead preferred to have more classroom
manipulatives for her students.
Insufficient support services. Various support services were seen as desirable in order
to implement the curriculum more effectively. At least 4 teachers indicated that their school
districts should provide more professional development in utilizing the CCSS. Two teachers felt
that more teacher assistant support and training were necessary. Two teachers believed that
more funding should be allocated for CBI outings. Only 1 teacher identified a need for more
adult assistance to help facilitate small group instruction. All of these desired services were seen
by teachers as potential ways to boost their confidence levels and capacities for properly teaching
a combined general standards and life skills-based CBI program (Browder & Cooper-Duffy,
2003).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 106
Program Impact on Teacher Approach to Common Core
According to interview data, 6 out of 7 teachers indicated that the proposed curriculum
exemplified how the CCSS could be used for the students that embody the M/S population at the
high school level. Ms. Elin and Mr. Bautista believed the Standards could easily be imbedded in
CBI, and Ms. Anian believed the CBI activities could be used to address the standards specified
by her school district. Most teachers believed that the model demonstrated how grade level
standards could be modified and made more concrete for M/S students. Ms. Branner, the only
novice teacher, initially did not find the CCSS particularly relevant to her students, but
eventually stated upon further reflection: “I think it gave me a pretty good insight as to how to do
it [approach the Common Core]. It’s hard to do it on your own—the CCSS are so broad…they
give you a lot more flexibility, but seeing the curriculum gives me an idea of how to use the
CCSS”. Later in the interview, Ms. Branner went a step further, commenting that the model
could influence curriculum development:
[This program] opens my eyes to the fact that we can create a curriculum that can follow
CCSS, that can at the same time teach our students something that will make them well-
rounded and give them the exposure and also give them life skills we can incorporate in
each lesson.
Ms. Remler, who teaches at the same school as Ms. Branner, had an entirely different
response as to how the curriculum influenced CCSS implementation. According to her, the
model showed how to take a standard apropos of an M/S student’s actual grade level and adapt it
to the student’s ability level, as different from her school’s typical method of using primary
grade standards for students of the M/S population:
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 107
When we get students in from middle school, they’re at a second grade level, so we’re
taking the Common Core from the second grade level and we’re building on that even
though the student’s in 9
th
grade. But this curriculum model does it the opposite way—
an approach I will share with my team”.
The latter statement appeared as a “breakthrough,” given that the school’s customary approach of
basing the educational program of students with M/S disabilities on primary grade standards was
at odds with the research recommending the selection and adaptation of grade-appropriate
standards for the educational benefit of students within this population (Browder et al., 2006). In
addition, Ms. Remler revealed that the model’s guidelines would assist teachers in “how to do
the [academic] extensions, to focus on other areas of learning and come away from just the
functional skills”.
Ms. Elin provided the following explanation of how the model influenced her approach to
CCSS:
I think what would help is that the CCSS are written, and [the curriculum] shows how
you can synthesize the standard and how you can find out the essential part and how the
kids can access this. Otherwise, it’s too easy to say that this doesn’t apply to me and do
things as we have been doing right along. These CCSS shake things up and force us to
take a fresh look at things.
Ms. Elin also remarked, “I think a lot of people tend to look at [CCSS] from the view of the
general education high school teacher and look at the skills and just say offhand, ‘These kids
can’t do that,’ but…it’s just a matter of structuring it the right way”.
Most teachers believed that the model helped to show how the CCSS could be
incorporated into the instructional planning and curriculum delivery processes for the students
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 108
who embody the M/S population at the high school level. The proposed model, largely based on
a combination of aforementioned state and special needs curriculum standards (Browder, 2006;
CDE, 2013), may therefore offer a potentially effective way—as yet undocumented in current
research literature--to incorporate CCSS into a life skills-oriented CBI program.
Program Impact on School Community
In terms of teacher’s perceptions on how the curriculum model might influence the
school setting beyond the individual teacher’s classroom, all 7 teachers believed it could
potentially help foster increased communication among colleagues. This point has significant
merit in the literature. According to research scholars of special education, collaboration is
essential to properly implemented CBI (Beck et al., 1994). Also, a well-run SE program
involves preplanning instruction in accordance with UDL principles, and blending the
knowledge, skills, and pedagogy foundations of special and general education domains (Bellamy
et al, 2002; Browder et al., 2006) while upholding the distinct characteristics of each (Bellamy et
al., 2002). Seemingly aware of the benefits of professional interaction, teachers discussed the
potential school-wide impact of the proposed program mainly from the perspective of
collaboration.
Collaboration between general and special education. Most teachers thought the
curriculum model could facilitate more communication between general education (GE) and
special education (SE) to increase the likelihood of successful learning experiences and
outcomes for students with M/S disabilities. Ms. Borsen believed that, in the future, “…when the
administration says we need M/S teachers to take on CCSS…”[the curriculum] would give us
something very concrete to show our colleagues in general ed: this is what we are aiming for—
this is Common Core—do you have units that you can connect to what we are doing?” Ms.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 109
Anian, a colleague of Ms. Borsen, likewise felt that the curriculum could be incorporated into the
lessons taught in general education, notably the life sciences, and that the general education
teachers could help supplement the content. She was very enthusiastic about this idea, owing to
her experience with her school’s “Best Buddies” program that already provided a structure for
GE and SE collaboration, which she thought could be enhanced by a formal M/S curriculum.
Ms. Dorado commented that the curriculum would prompt her to find out what her general
education colleagues were teaching and instruct those concepts, though she stipulated she would
focus more on CBI—an approach consistent with her previously stated beliefs that academics
only had merit as long as they tied in with CBI-based life skills.
Mr. Bautista elaborated on ways the proposed model could potentially be used to effect
collaboration between general and special education teachers on a school-wide basis. He
recommended introducing it at a faculty meeting and suggesting more participation in CBI by the
typical population. Following this initial step, he advised gradually inviting small groups of
general education teachers into the SE classroom to observe its implementation. “Once people
are familiar,” he advised, “ you can do a presentation and provide training to have more
participation from the typical population…The general educators would be more willing to
collaborate if they understand what or how these students are able to learn”. He also opined that,
since the curriculum was based on CCSS and tended to make the standards more concrete, it
would be easier to mainstream students into regular education settings since they would be more
inclined to understand the general curriculum.
Collaboration among special education teachers. The other participants also believed
that the curriculum could bring about collaboration, but only among special educators. Citing
low status and administrative support deficits, both Ms. Remler and Ms. Branner felt the special
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 110
education department was not welcome enough on the general high school campus to pursue
school-wide collaboration, though they thought the special education community might work
together to implement it. Yet Ms. Remler’s phrasing was tentative: “Your [special education]
teams would have to collaborate, certainly—and we have been trying to do this for years—
collaborate down to preschool and show them the continuum and what it looks like in preschool
through elementary, middle, and high”. Per Ms. Remler, collaboration was necessary for
students to benefit fully from a CCSS-based curriculum, but had been historically unachievable
according to the broad-based criteria she envisioned.
Ms. Elin thought that time constraints and teaching demands determined the degree of
collaboration possible. She commented that there was a bit more flexibility for collaboration
within the SE community at her school than with GE, which she said was overwhelmed with
testing requirements and college preparatory material. She explained that at least one SE teacher
had helped create science programs for the mild to moderate (M/M) population, and that this
teacher had more freedom to conduct some curriculum activities with the M/S population,
“though not much because of the material she needs to get through…in meeting the criteria for
junior colleges”. Thus, special education teachers were aware of the benefits of helping each
other achieve curriculum implementation, though the organizational structure needed to support
collegial work was still lacking.
Conclusion
This chapter categorized and reported the qualitative research data gathered from initial
surveys, curriculum evaluation documents, and post-curriculum evaluation interviews
administered to special education teachers of the moderate to severe population. The purpose of
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 111
the endeavor was to determine the feasibility and utility of a curriculum merging Common Core
State Standards with life skills-oriented community-based instruction.
As documented, most of the teacher responses to the inquiry were addressed in the
current literature relative to the research questions posed in this study. Many of these responses
contained premises that were upheld by the research community, while a few were unfounded or
uncorroborated. Premises corroborated by the research included the need for more teacher
training, technology, instructional materials, collaboration, and administrative support to design
and/or implement a curriculum model comprising the above elements and sufficiently
customized to meet the needs of highly individualized learners. Also corroborated in some cases
were teacher notions of effective curriculum comprised of such components as “big ideas”
blended with daily life skills within CBI, and clear guidelines for implementation that allowed
for standards to be exemplified in recommended CBI activities. The premise that home support
levels may determine student achievement outcomes was not found in the literature utilized for
this study. Premises at odds with much of the literature include some beliefs that general, grade
level-appropriate standards are not applicable or relevant to the students of the target population;
and in one case, that the special day classroom devoid of technology tools is the most appropriate
setting for these students. These premises may be based on teacher beliefs; they may also be
conditioned by study limitations—further discussed in the next chapter—which prevented the
clarification of how CCSS may be applied to the M/S population.
In the final chapter, findings are summarized and discussed. Potential reasons for teacher
viewpoints as well as some inconsistencies in teacher perspectives are addressed. Curriculum
merits and deficits, in light of study limitations, field test feedback, and characteristics of the
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 112
targeted population are also presented. Implications derived from the findings are provided
along with recommendations for future studies.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 113
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Restatement of Problem
California’s recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and
documents affirming their application to students with disabilities (CCSS Initiative, 2010)
demonstrates that all students deserve meaningful access to core general curriculum standards
according to the California Department of Education (CDE). High school students with
significant cognitive disabilities—classified as the 1% or moderate to severe (M/S) category—
are also entitled to progress in the general curriculum even as they may be simultaneously
engaged in life skills-oriented, community-based instruction with the goal of eventual personal
independence.
The CCSS initiative is the latest of several government interventions designed to increase
educational outcomes and performance levels of students with disabilities, including such legal
mandates as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997; 2004) and No Child
Left Behind initiative (NCLB, 2001). IDEA stipulates that all students with disabilities have the
right to access, participate, and progress in the general curriculum along with their non-disabled
peers (Benner, 1998; Yell, 1998; Yell & Shriner, 1997). NCLB established yearly progress
expectations stipulating that all students, as well as those in the M/S category, be evaluated in the
academic content standards of ELA, mathematics, and science at interim grade levels through the
high school level (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003). All of the above measures have been
instituted to counter the concept described as the underestimation of disability leading to lower
expectations for students and lack of access to a meaningful education (Campbell, 2008; Hehir,
2002).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 114
Even though high school students in the M/S category are represented in the government
interventions designed to help them access the general curriculum, they may not actually be
progressing in it (Hitchcock et al., 2002; Wehmeyer, et al., 2003). The CCSS Initiative does not
stipulate how standards must be taught to any population, and this may cause particular
confusion and disagreement among educators regarding how to effectively serve the M/S
population (Dymond et al., 2007; Ryndak et al, 2008). Research shows these students are capable
of academic learning, although they may be limited by programs which overemphasize life skills
and are devoid of academic focus (Browder et al., 2010). Yet, life skills can be incorporated in
the general curriculum across various settings and contexts that are relevant to learners within the
M/S population, notably their own community (Browder et al., 2006; Dymond, 2007; Jackson et
al., 2008). It is, thus, arguably desirable to integrate CCSS with life skills contextualized within
local community-based instruction (CBI).
For high school students with M/S disabilities to have greater life opportunities
associated with CCSS competencies, various essential criteria must be attained. Such criteria
include: teacher collaboration across general and special education (Cawley et al, 2002), flexibly
formatted instructional supports consistent with the principles of UDL (Hitchcock et al., 2002),
strong teacher beliefs in the value of such efforts associated with high levels of teacher training
and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Lee et al., 2006), and an age-appropriate curriculum in which
relevant Common Core standards are interwoven with life skills practiced across local ecological
settings of specific value or interest to the students (Lee et al., 2010). Such a curriculum, based
upon ecological theory, would permit thematic instruction featuring a high degree of meaningful
connectivity to relevant persons, places, and situations as opposed to a series of non-related
activities and loose pieces of information (Barab & Roth, 2006; Tyler, 1949). Because educators
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 115
exhibit a lack of shared understanding on how to meet the above criteria such that the target
population may progress in the Common Core State Standards as they acquire essential life
skills, more research must be conducted on ways to design and implement an effective
curriculum for this population (Browder et al., 2007; Dymond et al., 2008; Wehmeyer, 2006).
Review of Purpose and Research Questions
Designing pertinent, research-based curriculum for students with significant cognitive
disabilities (SSCDs) and then field-testing it on educators with experience teaching this
population were the major goals of this research. A thematic program was created with the
objective of tying selected Common Core ELA/math/science and Next Generation Science
Standards (NGSS) to life skills contextualized in CBI. The Los Angeles-area south bay was
selected as the focus community because of the rich ecological environment and commercial
enterprises this area offers for learning life skills and life science through the application of
adapted general curriculum standards. Curriculum was sectioned into interrelated thematic units.
Each unit included a scope and sequence section with lesson activities featuring specific learning
objectives aligned with CCSS and life skills, as well as extensions and adaptations. The content
was focused on the subset of learners with M/S disabilities who function at the concrete or
abstract symbolic reading level and who often have reduced oral language, yet comprehend more
than they can verbalize. Such students require pictures, objects, signs and symbols to access the
meaning of reading material (Browder et al., 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2001). For this population,
technology is useful to exemplify and enhance unit content (Gardner et al., 2003). Therefore, all
curriculum content was provided in the forms of picture-coded text and iPad slide presentations.
This curriculum project, ultimately titled “My South Bay Community,” was generated to
address two research questions:
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 116
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills-oriented,
community-based curriculum?
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
Methodology Overview
Upon its completion, a representative voice-over PowerPoint sample of the curriculum
was created to enable a pilot study of the proposed inquiry and subsequently a field test. A brief
initial survey combining multiple choice and Likert scale questions was created to collect
baseline data on participating teachers’ background experiences and beliefs regarding education
for high school students of the M/S population. Other instruments created for data collection
purposes included a curriculum evaluation form to guide the PowerPoint review and an open-
ended protocol to facilitate post-evaluation interviews. These interviews were conducted to
obtain rich descriptions and compare information among data sets. The research instruments
facilitated a qualitative study based on a curriculum field test designed to help discern how best
to satisfy the educational needs and interests of SSCDs at the high school level.
The initial phase of the inquiry, consisting of the pilot study, was conducted on a cohort
of doctoral students engaged in researching Common Core State Standards with application to
urban schools. The purpose was to establish content validity of the research procedure and
interview protocols according to Maxwell (2013), and to make adjustments for clarity and
suitability to the research purposes. Members of the doctoral cohort recommended that the field
test sample (high school and middle school teachers of students with M/S disabilities) be selected
based on familiarity not only with the target population, but with the south bay ecosystem as
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 117
well. Further, they recommended expanding the initial survey items to include participants’
definitions of life skills and community-based instruction for comparison’s sake.
The curriculum field test was conducted on a sample of 7 educators with experience
teaching the target M/S population within a beach community. These participants were
referenced with pseudonyms throughout the study. With the exception of one novice, all had
between 6 and 20 years teaching experience. Four teachers taught high school students with M/S
disabilities. One teacher taught students in the mild-to-moderate (M/M) category and also
supervised the M/S program at her high school. Two teachers taught middle school students
with M/S disabilities, and one of them had previously taught this population at the high school
level. All taught self-contained classes and had started to take the newly adopted standards into
consideration in the eventual planning and implementation of curriculum. Two teachers reported
that their schools were beginning to align IEPs to Common Core State Standards. These
educators were identified by colleagues or administrators as potentially suitable for and
interested in the study, and consented to participate upon request. As with pilot study
participants, they were given the initial survey followed by the PowerPoint curriculum sample
and the evaluation form. Thereafter, interviews were conducted to clarify and compare
previously provided information and elicit additional points for consideration.
In this qualitative study, data tabulation required a multi-faceted approach using constant
comparison to triangulate data across all sets so that basic assumptions, viewpoints, and biases
could be effectively examined. This practice of constant comparison also helped ascertain the
study’s validity (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In addition, the above-referenced form of
triangulation helped facilitate the emergence of thematic categories and ensure that selected
elements were appropriately assigned to those categories (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Maxwell,
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 118
2013; Merriam, 2009). Multiple iterations of the classification process were required to
determine each category and its corresponding elements until saturation was reached (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008; Glesne, 2010; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). At that point, the categories could
be confirmed as convergent and stable, in the sense that they held up throughout the examination
of all data sets (Merriam, 2009). To assist in the process of data localization and organization,
the Search-in-Document utility of Microsoft Word was employed. Reliability was achieved
based on the degree of consistency between the data collected and the results reported (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam, 2009).
This study required a thorough consideration of responses relative to each research
question individually and then in combination. To process data related to the first research
question (as to whether students of the M/S population could access CCSS through a life skills-
oriented community-based curriculum), the following approach was used: a synthesis of the
survey data, a deductive summary of the interview data corresponding to the first question, and
an examination of the relationship between the survey data and the interview data. From these
procedures emanated initial themes, which served as a frame of reference for reporting data
relative to the second question about teacher perceptions of the curriculum. These perceptions
were tabulated based upon responses to the evaluation form and interview content apropos of the
second question. From this exercise, additional themes surfaced, and all themes were then
synthesized into final categories. From the entire process, five related themes relevant to the
overall inquiry emerged:
• Teacher perceptions of curriculum’s strengths
• Perceived curriculum omissions
• Potential impediments to curriculum implementation
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 119
• Program impact on teacher approach to Common Core
• Program impact on school community
Findings, Implications, and Limitations
In this section, the findings associated with each research question are provided, based
upon the thematic categories listed above. Implications derived from the findings are also
addressed, as are limitations of the study’s design and their potential impact on the findings.
Research Question One
The first research question, as follows, aimed to determine whether teachers thought the
Common Core State Standards were within reach of M/S population of high school students if
contextualized in instructional approaches commonly used on their behalf:
• How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common
Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills-oriented,
community-based curriculum?
Findings. According to the data reported across most thematic categories, teachers--to
varying degrees--believed that M/S students were capable of learning on the general curriculum
when selected CCSS and life science standards were adapted and interwoven with hands-on,
practical experiences in the local community. Consistent with their initial survey responses
regarding the value of a combined academic curriculum and life skills program for high
schoolers with M/S disabilities, 6 out of 7 teachers believed that some or all of these students
could access CCSS within life skills-based CBI. These respondents referenced some students in
the M/S population with expressive and/or receptive language enabling their comprehension at
the abstract or concrete symbolic level. Three of these 6 teachers were particularly expressive
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 120
about the potential for student engagement in meaningful academic learning experiences tied to
CBI and life skills.
Two of the 6 teachers did not believe that the CCSS were particularly relevant to the
population, but still thought some of the students could access the standards meaningfully
through pictorial content and hands-on community-based experiences. One teacher said she did
not see a connection between CCSS and life skills, even as she remarked that CCSS could be
linked with any learning experience. Conversely, the other believed that academic or CCSS-
based learning activities were valuable only insofar as they could be connected to life skills.
Only the novice teacher, who exclusively taught the lowest functioning students, believed
that the CCSS were not relevant to her students and generally not accessible to them even if
embedded in life skills-oriented CBI. However, upon additional reflection, she remarked that the
CCSS were usable to a degree, according to the proposed curriculum model, to provide exposure
to a broader knowledge base that would include the acquisition of life skills.
All teachers believed that additional supports such as training, administrative guidance,
collaboration, age-appropriate materials, and technology were necessary in facilitating access to
meaningful standards-based learning opportunities for this population. Of particular note was
one teacher’s insistence that the lack of systemic collaboration and training beginning in the
early grades resulted in confusion about how to implement the Common Core State Standards
from 9
th
through 12th grades. Yet, despite this confusion, her school was attempting to align IEP
objectives to CCSS.
Implications. Several important implications may be derived from the findings.
Teachers did not all agree on the function of the standards. For some teachers, the standards
provide an important foundation for contextualizing life skills and CBI to broaden students’
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 121
general knowledge base about their local environment and increase their opportunities for
fulfilled independence. For others, the standards have merit only insofar as they can be linked to
life skills or functional academics in the pursuit of basic functionality and employability. This
dichotomy likely stems from a difference in core beliefs regarding the achievement capabilities
of students within the M/S population. These core beliefs condition educators to determine
which approach—the academic or the functional—is more appropriate. It is possible that some
teachers may espouse beliefs consistent with ableism (Hehir, 2002), yet it is notable that all
teachers, including those who questioned the applicability of the standards to life skills and CBI,
believed that the use of the standards could enhance learning experiences to varying degrees.
The lack of agreement on the value of general curriculum standards and their function within
instructional programs for high school students with M/S disabilities is documented in the
literature (Dymond et al., 2007). The paradoxical and somewhat inconsistent view that
standards are not relevant but may lead to higher learning expectations or outcomes is likewise
supported by previous research reports (Agran et al., 2002). Based on this study’s database, no
teacher noted the value of clear learning objectives in curriculum design and delivery. It may be
that teachers’ lack of emphasis on student-centered learning objectives aligned to sufficiently
adapted standards makes the CCSS seem unattainable and therefore irrelevant.
Another important implication stemming from findings relative to Question One is
systemic limitation of teacher training and efficacy. Though teachers generally thought that the
standards were accessible or usable to help students learn on some level, some teachers
referenced uncertainty about how the standards could meaningfully apply in their existing
programs or to students’ IEP goals. For some, the application of CCSS to life skills situated in
CBI, as featured in the proposed curriculum, was not immediately apparent as an example or
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 122
model. This may be attributable to the study’s limitations as presented in the next section; it may
also suggest that, despite the number of years in teaching, professional skill and experience with
respect to the development and/or implementation of research-based programs for the target
population may still be lacking. However, given proper training and instructional support,
teachers may gain the capacity to hold students accountable to general standards, as pointed out
by Browder and Cooper-Duffy (2003). Their views about student abilities may also change. The
possibility for such change appeared especially evident in the case of the novice teacher, who
ultimately decided that students within the M/S population could benefit from effectively
adapted standards.
The responses to Question One imply a need for district- and school-wide goals for the
proper clarification and implementation of the standards. In order to provide effective life skills-
oriented CBI as a vehicle for the inclusion and delivery of the general standards (Dymond et al.,
2007), CBI must involve a teaching partnership between general and special education teachers
such that students with special learning needs may benefit from the general curriculum when
engaged across a variety of settings (Beck et al., 1994). According to the responses of all
participants, there is an insufficiency of administrative policies and processes to effect district-
and school-wide collaboration resulting in strong, standards-based CBI throughout the grade
levels. Moreover, there is an insufficiency of services and technology tools to ensure access to
CCSS standards within CBI, which is seen as a deterrent to strong curriculum development.
Study limitations. In part, this study attempted to discern how an examination of the
proposed curriculum could influence participants’ approach to Common Core standards. Because
some teachers still expressed confusion over how the standards could be interwoven with CBI
and life skills after viewing the model, it may be that the curriculum sample they received was
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 123
not comprehensive or clear enough to help them perceive those connections. It may also be that
the sample provided was not immediately relevant to their particular learners, or that the sample
components were not fully familiar to themselves as educators.
Research Question Two
The second research question, as below, was aimed at discovering teachers’ perceptions
of a curriculum imbedding CCSS in life skills-oriented CBI:
• How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of
life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science?
Findings. Based on the data reported across all thematic categories, teachers exhibited
positive perceptions of a curriculum unifying the state-assessed general education standards with
community-based life skills, albeit with some recommendations and stipulations for successful
implementation. Teacher perceptions of the curriculum’s strengths matched state and special
needs curriculum criteria as identified by the CDE (2013) and special education scholars
(Browder et al., 2006), respectively. Teachers generally thought the curriculum model facilitated
the instruction of grade-level standards adapted to the students’ symbolic level of communication
(Browder et al., 2006; Downing, 2006; Gately, 2004; Wehmeyer et al., 2001), and tied to student
needs and interests respective of their home community (Dewey, 1938; Kilpatrick, 1941; Tyler,
1949; Wiggins, 2011). They generally believed the model provided clear guidelines for
implementation, including ongoing formative assessment aligned with content standards and
objectives (CDE, 2013). All teachers thought the curriculum, organized around “big ideas” in
thematic units versus a large number of unrelated topics (Browder et al., 2007; Stein, Stuen,
Carnine, & Long, 2001), facilitated teaching and learning as associated with the M/S population.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 124
All teachers believed the model served to demonstrate how the CCSS could be
incorporated into curriculum planning and delivery processes for high school students with
disabilities in the moderate to severe category. One teacher stated that the model showed how
grade level standards could be adapted to avoid the practice common to her school of utilizing
standards from lower grades. Also, she revealed an appreciation for the extensions and
adaptations tying a broad range of skills into a single, standards-based lesson. Another teacher
reported that she would use the curriculum’s activities to address the standards provided by her
school district. Two teachers remarked that the standards had been made concrete and accessible
in how they were linked to the CBI lessons. Most teachers believed that the model’s emphasis
on standards identification would promote collaboration with general education teachers who
might help provide instruction or instructional units based upon the same standards. The novice
teacher thought the model exhibited how to develop a local or personalized curriculum
integrating CCSS and life skills to expand students’ learning opportunities. Given that this latter
point was the main purpose of the curriculum model according to the author/researcher’s intent,
it is highly noteworthy that the novice was the only one who articulated it.
Most teachers considered the life science component of the curriculum to be valuable.
They believed that the hands-on aspects—the observable and tangible rendered through graphics
and field trips—enabled their students to understand marine ecosystem concepts in a deductive
way and contributed to a greater awareness and appreciation of the ecology within their local
community. This finding upholds the view of educational researchers who, according to
ecological development theory, posit that a main goal of education is to determine the contexts
that can be meaningfully connected to the “life-worlds” of students (Barab & Roth, 2006;
Jackson et al., 2010)
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 125
Besides addressing the positive aspects of the curriculum, teachers discussed
shortcomings and stipulated particular conditions for successful implementation. Most teachers
believed that the curriculum should be modified to account for the specific learning needs of
lower-and higher-performing students. Suggested revisions varied. The two teachers who felt
that general standards may not be relevant to student needs nonetheless recommended that the
curriculum be extended to include other ecosystems for students with higher ability levels.
Similarly, another teacher recommended templates for the study of ecosystems other than the
beach community, and the addition of learning experiences across a wider range of modalities.
Two teachers from the same school thought the CBI lessons should be shortened for lower-
performing students due to information processing delays and short time blocks. Other
recommendations included: more assessment activities calling for student sharing of learning
experiences, a narrower field of choices to facilitate assessments for lower-functioning students,
additional lesson plans for specific kinds of disabilities, specific lesson and pacing plans, and
more interactive technology incorporated into the content.
Teachers also discussed supports needed to successfully implement the proposed
curriculum. Six out of 7 teachers believed they needed more district and school-site training on
how to customize CCSS standards for M/S students according to their respective communities of
residence. Although no teacher initially defined technology use as a life skill, all stated that it
definitely was a life skill when directly asked. Most teachers stated that, if each student had an
iPad, this would readjust their own thinking about how to plan lessons. They felt the iPad was
essential to effective content delivery because of its capacity to graphically display concepts
students might not otherwise understand. Another support teachers required was additional
CBI/life skills student training in the forms of field trips and/or paraprofessional assistance. Two
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 126
teachers alluded to a need for more home support and reinforcement of school-based practices.
Arguably, if these needs are met, students with M/S disabilities may be better served by teachers.
Implications and study limitations. The above findings offer essential implications
partially relative to this study’s limitations. Based on teachers’ favorable responses to the
integrated curriculum—and their stated preferences for additional program modifications and
extensions—more highly adapted versions of an integrated, thematic curriculum should be
developed for the M/S population to enable their meaningful access to CCSS. The model used in
this study was limited to students with M/S disabilities in possession of abstract and concrete
symbolic reading capabilities (Browder et al., 2006) and the learning objectives were established
with these capabilities in mind. In terms of CBI, the model was set to the Los Angeles/south bay
area beach community. Since it could not be tailored to each student or learning context, it was
meant to serve as a template for the development of personalized curricula according to specific
student ability levels and community of residence. The model did not incorporate the highly
individual needs of each learner with M/S disabilities in each context through the provision of
detailed lesson plans, and thus may not have had utility for all students. Though this limitation
was explained to teachers at the outset, it is evident that some teachers evaluated the model in
terms of its applicability to all of their students, including the lowest functioning. However,
since teachers know their students better than outside curriculum developers—as evidenced by
their highly specific recommendations to benefit their respective learners—they should ideally
collaborate with special and general education colleagues to select, modify, and pace content
according to individual student interests and needs. Segments of the curriculum’s extensions and
adaptations, presented to teachers in the voice-over PowerPoint, provided some examples of how
curriculum could be modified for high school students with M/S disabilities. Yet, it is possible
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 127
that the examples were not comprehensive enough to enable sufficient adaptation of lesson
objectives for those learners at the lowest or highest levels of function. It is also possible that
teachers need more assistance in lesson planning and the adaptation of lesson objectives for this
population.
To the extent that teachers did find the model helpful in exemplifying the practical use
and adaptation of CCSS, they may wish to create their own revisions or generate their own units
of instruction. To do so, however, would likely require additional training in several
aforementioned criteria for student success: standards adaptation; the development of IEP
objectives aligned with CCSS; the concept of cross-curricular thematic units; collaboration with
special education and general education peers; and administrative support. The effective
implementation of the curriculum requires administrative investment in essential provisions such
as community-based field trips, color copiers, student materials, and para-professional assistance.
More technological tools, notably the iPad along with training in its effective use, are likewise
indicated to foster understanding of concepts in thematic units. (Gardner et al, 2003).
Taking the initiative to revise an existing program or generate a more appropriate
curriculum based on a research-supported model would be a positive step forward for teachers of
the M/S population. This work would call for teachers to prioritize the most essential standards-
based learning concepts and link them to life skills-oriented CBI in a way that promotes
comprehension and retention, resulting in reduced cognitive load (Browder et al., 2007; Rueda,
2011; Tyler, 1949). The result would likely be educational gains with life-long advantages for
high school students with significant learning challenges.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 128
Conclusion and Recommendations
Targeting the educational needs of secondary students with moderate to severe cognitive
disabilities, this qualitative study field-tested the utility of a research-based curriculum
combining Common Core State Standards and functional skills situated in community-based
instruction. The purpose was to determine ways to provide meaningful access to the Common
Core for SSCDs while taking into account their functional learning needs as well. Though high
school students with M/S disabilities comprise only 1% of the total student population, they are
typically underserved and under-supported even as legislative mandates uphold their right to
progress in the general curriculum. This study generated a robust discussion on how curriculum
design and delivery can be improved for this population using CCSS as a basis for inquiry.
Participating special educators offered many insightful contributions in terms of the curriculum’s
functions and shortcomings as they considered the improvement of their own instructional
practices and the success of their students.
The implementation of CCSS is a new challenge for educators of the target population.
There are many ways the CCSS can be taught to students with M/S disabilities, as studies do
show they are capable of academic learning when taught appropriately. However, more research
is needed to show the variety of ways these students may learn, and longitudinal studies are
necessary to demonstrate the impact of CCSS learning on their adult lives. More studies are also
needed on ways the standards can be adapted and tied to a wider variety of learning activities in
other settings. Additional research is required to determine effective training techniques for
teachers in the proper customization and delivery of a CCSS-based curriculum. It is perceived
that when such research goals are met, these very special learners will have far greater
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 129
opportunities to attain independence, make valuable contributions to society, and achieve happy
and fulfilled lives.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 130
References
Abrams, L., Pedulla, J., & Madaus, G. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of
state-wide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 18-29.
Agran, M., & Alper, S. (2000). Curriculum and instruction in general education: Implications
for service delivery and personnel preparation. Journal of the Association for Persons
with Severe Handicaps, 25, 167-174.
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(2), 123-133.
Au, K. H. (2003). Balanced literacy instruction: Implications for students of diverse
backgrounds. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.). Handbook of research
on teaching the English language arts (pp. 955-966). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Au, Wayne. (2013). Coring social studies within corporate education reform: The Common
Core State Standards, social justice, and the politics of knowledge in U.S. schools. 4(5).
Retrieved from http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/182278
Ayres, B. J., Meyer, L. H., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher
perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84-93.
Ayres, K. M., Alisa Lowrey, K., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. (2011). I can identify Saturn but I
can't brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe
disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities,
46(1), 11.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 131
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Barab, S. A., & Roth, W. M. (2006). Curriculum-based ecosystems: Supporting knowing from
an ecological perspective. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 3-13.
Beach, R. W. (2011). Issues in analyzing alignment of language arts Common Core standards
with state standards. Educational Researcher, 40(4), 179-182.
Beck, J., Broers, J., Hogue, E., Shipstead, J., & Knowlton, E. (1994). Strategies for functional
community-based in- struction and inclusion for children with mental retardation.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 26(2), 44-48.
Bellamy, T., Fowler, S., Hale, R., Koroby, C., Pugach, M., Shaker, C., Shanely, D., & Ying, R.
(2002). Preparing teachers to work with students with disabilities: Possibilities and
challenges for special and general teacher education. Washington, DC: American
Association of Colleges of Teacher Education.
Benner, S. M. (1998). Special education issues within the context of American society.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication:
Supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. (3
rd
ed.). Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Billingsley, F. F., & Albertson, L. R. (1999). Finding a future for functional skills. Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 298-302.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An Introduction to
theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 132
Bolt, S. E., & Roach, A. T. (2009). Inclusive assessment and accountability: A guide to
accommodations for students with diverse needs. Guilford Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brooks, J. G., & Dietz, M. E. (2012). The dangers and opportunities of the Common Core: can
public education emerge from the Common Core initiative with a renewed focus on
student learning? Educational Leadership, 70(4), 64-67.
Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe
disabilities and the requirement for accountability in “No Child Left Behind”. The
Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. (2006). Aligning
instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 309-321.
Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R. J., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M.
(2007). Creating Access to the General Curriculum With Links to Grade-Level Content
for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities An Explication of the Concept. The
Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 2-16.
Browder, D. M., Trela, K., Courtade, G. R., Jimenez, B. A., Knight, V., & Flowers, C. (2010).
Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe
developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46(1), 26-35.
Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: outledge.
California Department of Education. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 133
California Department of Education. (2012). Instructional materials in California. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov.ci/
California Department of Education. (2012). California’s additions to the Common Core State
Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/caccssadditions.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). Evaluation criteria—curriculum frameworks and
instructional materials. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf/evaluation
criteria1-412.asp
California Department of Education. (2013). How will the Common Core State Standards
impact California’s special education students? Presented to the National Center and
State Collaborative Communities of Practice. Retrieved from
www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/cc/documents/impctonsped.pdf
California Department of Education. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved
from www.cde.ca.gov/pd/ca/sc/ngssintrod.asp
California Department of Education. (2014). Alternate assessments based on CCSS: How do
they relate to college and career readiness? Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/cc/
Campbell, F. A. K. (2008). Exploring internalized ableism using critical race theory. Disability
& Society, 23(2), 151-162.
Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006). Including high school students with severe disabilities in
general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators,
paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities, 31(2), 174-185.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 134
Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Baker-Kroczynski, S., & Cade, E. (2002). Including students with
disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68(4),
423-435.
Common Core Standards: Language arts in California. (2010). Ed Source. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/common-core-standards-language-arts/
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Application to students with disabilities.
Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/application-to-students-with-
disabilities.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English
Language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects.
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.ort/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20 Standards.pdf
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for
mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_
Math%20Standards.pdf
Common Core State Standards. (2010). Common Core State Standards Resources. Retrieved
from http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/cc
Common Core State Standards. (2010). Introduction to the State Standards. Retrieved from
www.corestandards.org/assets/ccssi-introduction.pdf
Connor, D. & Baglieri, S. (2009). Tipping the scales: Disability studies asks “How much
diversity can you take?” In S. Steinberg (Ed.). Diversity and multiculturalism: a reader.
New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 135
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Chapter 4: Strategies for qualitative data analysis. Techniques
and procedures for developing grounded theory (3
rd
ed.) (pp.56-86). Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Cortiella, C., & Wickham, D. (2008). Students with significant cognitive disabilities and
standards-based curriculum: Why now? Why not. Exceptional Parent, 38(9), 89-92.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Access to the general
curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 38(2), 6-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press
Dewey, J. (1902). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Downing, J. (2006). Building literacy for students at the pre-symbolic and early symbolic
Levels. In Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, and science to
students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 39-61). Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes.
Dymond, S. K., & Orelove, F. P. (2001). What constitutes effective curricula for Students with
severe disabilities? Exceptionality, 9, 109-122.
Dymond, S. K., & Russell, D. L. (2004). The impact of grade and disability on the instructional
context of inclusive classrooms. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities,
39, 127-140.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 136
Dymond, S. K., Renzaglia, A., Gilson, C. L., & Slagor, M. T. (2007). Defining access to the
general curriculum for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32(1), 1-15.
Eisner, E. W. (2004). Preparing for today and tomorrow. Educational leadership, 61(4), 6-11.
Federal Register. (2004, June 19). (Vol. 67, pp. 41792-41793). Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office.
Fink, A. G. (2012). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide. Sage Publications.
Gardner, J. E., Wissick, C. A., Schweder, W., & Canter, L. S. (2003). Enhancing
interdisciplinary instruction in general and special education thematic units and
technology. Remedial and Special Education, 24(3), 161-172.
Gately, S. E. (2004). Developing concept of word: The work of emergent readers. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(6), 16-22.
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., & Clay‐
Chambers, J. (2008). Standardized test outcomes for students engaged in inquiry‐based
science curricula in the context of urban reform. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 45(8), 922-939.
Giangreco, M. F., Dennis, R. E., Edelman, S. W., & Cloninger, C. J. (1994). Dressing your IEPs
for the general education climate analysis of IEP goals and objectives for students with
multiple disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15(5), 288-296.
Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 8: Crafting your story: Writing up qualitative data. In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4
th
ed.) (pp. 218-240).
Hall, C. (2013). Ecology. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151932
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 137
Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and
instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School
Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 52(2), 5-11.
Hehir, T. 2002. Eliminating ableism in education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 1-32.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general
curriculum: Universal Design for Learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(2), 8-17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 34 CFR S 300. 34 (a). (2004)
Jackson, L., Ryndak, D. L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Useful practices in inclusive education: A
preliminary view of what experts in moderate to severe disabilities are saying. Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 129-141.
Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2008). The dynamic relationship between
context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-
based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(4), 175-
195.
Junkala, J., & Mooney, J. F. (1986). Special Education students in regular classes: What
happened to the pyramid? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(4), 218-221.
Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard-Jones, K., Hall, M, & Jones, M. (2011). What
does “college and career ready” mean for students with significant cognitive
disabilities? National Alternate Assessment Center. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.naacpartners.org/publications/CareerCollegeReadiness.pdf
Kilpatrick, W. H. (1941). The case for progressivism in education. In F. W. Parkay, E. J.
Anctil, and G. Hass (Eds), Curriculum leadership: A contemporary approach (9
th
ed., pp.
36-39). Boston, MA: Pearson, Allyn, and Bacon.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 138
Lee, S. H., Amos, B. A. , Gragoudas, S., Lee, Y., Shogren, K. A., Theoharis, R., & Wehmeyer,
M. (2006). Curriculum augmentation and adaptation strategies to promote access to the
general curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41(3), 199-212.
Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of curriculum
modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 76(2), 213-233.
Lippman, L., & Goldberg, I. (1973). Right to education: Anatomy of the Pennsylvania Case.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1989). Beyond special education: Quality for all. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes.
Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of
educational research, 62(4), 377-411.
Mathis, W. J. (2010). The “Common Core” Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?
Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy
Research Unit. Retrieved from http://epicpolicy.org/publication/common-core-standards
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
McDonald, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. (2001). Supporting the inclusion
students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education
classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi-element curriculum, and
accommodations. Education and Treatment of Children, 24(2).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 139
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M. J. (Eds.). (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: Including
students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Corwin Press.
Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. (2004). Promoting access to the
general curriculum by teaching self-determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70(4),
427-439.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Patton, J. R., Cronin, M. E. Basset, D. S., & Koppel, A. E. (1997). A life skills approach to
mathematics instruction: Preparing students with learning disabilities for the real life
demands of adulthood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 178-187.
Pennington, J. L., Obenchain, K. M., Papola, A., & Kmitta, L. (2012). The Common Core:
Educational redeemer or rainmaker. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from
http://www.tcreord.org
Plank, D. (2012). Should California have second thoughts on Common Core? Retrieved From
http://toped.svefoundation.org/2012/01/17/should-california-have-second-thoughts-on-
common-core/
Pliner, S. M. & Johnson, J.R. (2010). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of
universal instructional design in higher education. In M. Adams, W. Blumenfeld, C.
Castaneda. H. Hackman, M. Peters. & X. Zuniga (Eds.). Readings for diversity and
social justice, second edition. New York, NY: Routledge.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 140
Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S.
intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
Pugach, M. C. (2005). Research on preparing general education teachers to work with Students
with disabilities. In M. Cochran-Smith and K. Zeichner. Eds. Studying teacher
education: The report of the AERA panel on research and teacher education (549-590).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Ravitch, D., & Mathis, W. J.
(2010). A review of college-and career-ready students. The Obama education blueprint:
Researchers examine the evidence, 9-22.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design
for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Ryndak, D. L., Moore, M. A., Orlando, A. M., & Delano, M. (2008). Access to the general
curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with
extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities,
33(4), 199-213.
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy prior to and after inclusion
in general education settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 24, 5-22.
Satchwell, R. E., & Loepp, F. L. (2002). Designing and implementing an integrated mathematics,
science, and technology curriculum for the middle school. Journal of Industrial Teacher
Education, 39(3).
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 141
Schick, B., Williams, K., & Kupermintz, H. (2005). Look who’s being left behind: Educational
interpreters and access to education for deaf and hard-of-hearing students. Retrieved
October 11, 2012 from http://jdsde.oxfordjournals.org/
Schiro, M. S. (2013). Curriculum theory: Conflicting visions and enduring concerns. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schumaker, J. (2004). Access to the general education curriculum: Research-based
interventions for high school students with disabilities. Transcript of National Center on
Secondary Education and Transition conference call presentation presented August 17,
2004. Retrieved from http://www.ncset.org.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). The construction of scientific knowledge by
students with mild disabilities. The journal of special education, 28(3), 307-321.
Soukup, J., Wehmeyer, M., Bashinski, S., & Bovaird, J. (2007). Classroom variables and access
to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(1), 101-
120.
Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Harris, A. (2007). Effects of
training in universal design for learning (UDL) on lesson plan development.Remedialand
Special Education, 28, 108-116.
Stanton-Salazar, R. D. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youth. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40.
Stein, Carol Stuen, Douglas Carnine, Roger M. Long, M. (2001). Textbook evaluation and
adoption. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 17(1), 5-23.
Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and Practice. New York, NY: Harcourt,
Brace, & World.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 142
Thurlow, M. L. (2010). Common Core Standards: Implications for students with disabilities.
Retrieved from
https://ccsso.confex.com/ccsso/2010/webprogram/Presentation/Session1959/Thurlow
Thurlow, M. L. (2012). Common Core State Standards: The promise and the peril for students
with disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.calstat.org/text/spEDge_eng/2012_
Summer_Edge/
Tienken, C. H. (2011). Common Core standards: The emperor has no clothes, or evidence.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 58-62.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Marder, C. (2007). Perceptions and
expectations of youth with disabilities: A special topic report of findings from the
National Longitudinal Transition Study-2. Retrieved from
www.nlts2.org/reports/2007_08/nlts2_report_2007_08_complete.pdf
Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum
for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36(4), 327-342.
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 143
Wehmeyer, M., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rinckner, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general
curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study.
Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.
Wehmeyer, M. L. (2006). Beyond Access: Ensuring Progress in the General Education
Curriculum. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31(4), 322-326.
Weston, T. (2004). Formative evaluation for implementation: Evaluating educational technology
applications and lessons. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(1), 51-64.
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(3), 149-156.
Wiggins, G. (2011). A diploma worth having. Educational Leadership, 68(6), 28-33.
Yell, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special
and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on
Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-19.
Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice
Hall.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 144
Appendix A
Initial Survey

Survey Item
(Background knowledge and attitudes)
Answer
1. How many years have you worked in
special education?

2. Describe the type of program you are
currently teaching.

3. On a scale of 1-4, what is your experience
level with students in the moderate to
severe category of cognitive disability?
(4= high, 3=medium, 2=low, 1=none)

4. What type of instructional program is
most valuable for this population?
a) life skills
b) general curriculum with
modifications
c) a combination of general curriculum
and life skills
d) other (please specify)

5. How do you define Life skills?

6. How do you define Community-based
instruction (CBI)?

7. Where should the instructional program
take place?
a) In the general education classroom
b) In the special education classroom
c) In both the general education
classroom and the special education
classroom
d) Across a variety of settings that
afford educational experiences

8. To your knowledge, how are the CCSS
implemented for this population? (Short
answer)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 145
9. How do you define access to the general
curriculum?
a) engagement in the general
curriculum and CCSS
b) exposure to the general curriculum
and CCSS
c) physical placement in general
education settings
d) any combination of the above

10. Which of these choices best describes
your core beliefs about students in the
category of severe special needs?
a) All students can progress in selected
CCSS on the general curriculum with the
proper supports and instructional
approaches.
b) Some students can progress in
selected CCSS standards, depending on
the nature of the disability and the
supports/program provided
c) These students cannot be expected
to progress on the general curriculum
d) These students should be included
with typical peers in extracurricular
activities

11. In your estimation, what supports or
services could increase the likelihood of
success for this population? Select all that
apply.
a) more age-appropriate materials
aligned with Common Core/general
curriculum standards
b) more teacher training on standards-
based curriculum design/implementation
c) more technology-based tools to
access curriculum content
d) more community service training for
this population of students
e) more emphasis on student self-help
and personal responsibility

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 146
Appendix B
Curriculum Evaluation Form Preface
Like all students, high school students with significant cognitive disabilities are entitled to a curriculum
permitting their meaningful access to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English language arts,
math, and science. Yet, this population may also require a life skills approach contextualized in
community-based instruction (CBI) to develop the functional competencies necessary for future success.
The curriculum sample you have agreed to review is an attempt to integrate Common Core standards with
life skills through learning experiences within the students’ local community. Please take a moment to
examine this evaluation form prior to viewing the curriculum sample and allow it to guide your review.
Your responses will help determine teacher perceptions of the curriculum’s utility in terms of its alignment
with CCSS and implementation feasibility. A follow-up interview will be conducted to ensure a clear
understanding of your positions on the issues addressed. Your participation will serve to inform an overall
inquiry on curriculum design for the aforementioned special needs population, and you will be notified of
the results.

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 147
Appendix C
Curriculum Evaluation Form
Curriculum Evaluation
Survey Item
Answer

For questions 1-14, please rate the curriculum you have reviewed on a scale of 1-4 as follows:
(4—entirely; 3—mostly; 2—somewhat; 1—minimally or not at all)
1. Content is organized around central “big ideas”
vs. a large number of topics to be covered (2001;
Tyler, 1949).

2. Curriculum materials provide opportunities for
teachers to scaffold instruction to provide for
differentiated needs.

3. Skills and concepts are strategically integrated to
promote understanding of adapted Common Core
Standards (CCSS)

4. The materials provide sufficient opportunities for
ongoing formative assessment of CCSS-related
skills acquisition

5. The curriculum satisfies the student’s educational
and personal needs/interests.

6. Instructional materials and objectives are aligned
with the CCSS and state frameworks.

7. Clear guidelines for successful implementation
are provided.

8. Curriculum as a whole applies application of
principles of universal design for learning (UDL),
including a wide array of adapted material and
graphic, multi-media instructional formats.

9. Curriculum activities promote the student as a
contributing member of his or her community.

10. This curriculum is an improvement over the ones
I have seen or used before.

11. I would use this curriculum or one with a similar
structure geared toward the community of
students within my local school district.

12. What are the curriculum’s shortcomings? (short
answer)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 148
13. How should it be modified?
(short answer)

14. What supports are necessary to use it effectively?
(short answer)

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 149
Appendix D
Interview Protocol
The interview protocol, to be implemented following an evaluative review of the
proposed curriculum, includes the following components based on Creswell (2009) and
Merriam (2009):
• Heading: Respondent’s name, position, school, assignment, time and duration
• Interview plan: Semi-structured, flexible approach to keep the interview systematic yet
allow for description-rich differences; probes to deepen responses as necessary
• Questions and question types, following restatement of inquiry purpose, brief summary
of previous interview statements, and brief synopsis of proposed curriculum design
elements
11) Opinion: Is there a relationship between Common Core and life skills? Do you
believe curriculum should emphasize that connection?
12) Opinion/Knowledge: What constitutes a desirable curriculum for this population?
What supports are necessary to effect one?
13) Opinion: Could the proposed curriculum be useful? How so, or why not? Probe as
necessary: Based on your experience, what are the potential benefits/impediments to
its use?
14) Knowledge: Which population could it serve?
15) Experience/behavior: Focus on a particular student within this population, and his or
her learning needs. How might this student respond to the objectives and learning
experiences included in this curriculum?
CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 150
16) Knowledge: How would you modify or adapt the curriculum to suit the needs of your
learners?
17) Knowledge: How might the curriculum influence your approach to the Common
Core?
18) Experience/behavior: How might the curriculum affect the organization of your
school community?
19) Opinion/values: In your opinion, how could a student’s participation in this
curriculum affect his or her quality of life?
20) Opinion/values: How does this curriculum impact your beliefs about teaching and
learning the Common Core State Standards for the targeted population?

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 151
Appendix E
Participant Recruitment Letter
Dear Special Educator,

My name is Arlene Platten, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Southern
California. I am conducting a research study in the field of educational leadership, and my
research interest is curriculum for high school students with moderate to severe cognitive
disability. Specifically, I am studying ways that Common Core State Standards may apply to
this population, and have created a community-based instructional program emphasizing the
integration of Common Core and life skills. Your participation in this study is completely
voluntary.

The study procedures include an 11-question survey on your baseline experiences, values,
beliefs, and practices about teaching, which will be emailed as a word document attachment and
should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. Next, when you return the survey by email, I
will provide you with a voiced-over PowerPoint presentation—either on a personally delivered
flashdrive, in Google drive, or as an online link based on your delivery preference—containing a
representative cross-section of the above-referenced curriculum. You will also be emailed a
survey-style curriculum evaluation guide of 14 questions, sent as a word document attachment,
and to be returned just as the initial survey. The PowerPoint should take approximately 15
minutes to view, and the survey another 10 minutes to complete. Following your curriculum
evaluation, you are also asked to participate in a 30-minute audio-recorded interview, to be
arranged at your convenience. The purpose of the interview is to gather thick, rich description of
your perceptions of teaching Common Core State Standards based on the curriculum you
reviewed.

All comments and responses will be kept strictly confidential. You will be compensated for your
time with a gift card.

If you have any questions or would like to participate in the study, please contact me via email at
hacklpla@usc.edu

Thank you so much for you time.

Arlene H. Platten

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 152
Appendix F
Institutional Review Board Approval

CCSS FOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES 153

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative dissertation explored how high school students with significant cognitive disabilities in the moderate to severe category may receive an appropriate, standards-based education according to federal and state legislation given that they require fundamental living skills as well. It examined the ways their academic and functional learning requirements may be fulfilled through the development and implementation of a comprehensive curriculum consisting of adapted Common Core State Standards, life skills, and community-based instruction. It discussed the concept that students with cognitive disabilities require learning opportunities across a variety of settings, consistent with ecological development theory. ❧ The study posed two key questions: How can high school students with significant cognitive disabilities access the Common Core State Standards in ELA, math, and science through a life-skills oriented, community-based curriculum? How do special education teachers perceive a curriculum emphasizing the integration of life skills and Common Core standards in ELA, math, and science? A research-based thematic curriculum was generated and field-tested on 7 educators of high school and middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities to obtain their perceptions of its feasibility and utility. The educators completed an initial background survey and then examined a voice-over PowerPoint curriculum sample using a curriculum evaluation form to guide their review. Educators were subsequently interviewed to determine their perceptions and check for alignment with previous responses. ❧ Participants generally believed that students with significant cognitive disabilities could meaningfully access adapted versions of the Common Core based on students’ level of ability and the provision of necessary supports. Key implications were derived from the findings. Teachers may need to engage in additional training and collaboration to generate customized curricula or modify existing programs to bring about student success. Special education teachers require the support of general education colleagues and local administration to enable the development or implementation of a comprehensively appropriate curriculum for the target population. More research is necessary to determine other ways the Common Core can be adapted for a greater range of ability levels to ensure success for all.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Instructional leadership: the practices employed by elementary school principals to lead the Common Core State Standards and 21st century learning skills

PDF

Providing parents the necessary resources to comprehend the common core state standards: a guide for schools

PDF

Access to standards-based curriculum for students with severe and multiple disabilities: an evaluation study

PDF

Impact of inquiry‐based learning professional development on implementation of Common Core State Standards

PDF

Professional development opportunities for non-core teachers

PDF

Shifting educator’s paradigm from the practice of implementing standards based learning and assessments to project based learning and assessments for the Common Core State Standards

PDF

Teacher perceptions of English learners and the instructional strategies they choose to support academic achievement

PDF

The influence of educational policies on high school students with disabilities

PDF

An examination of teacher-centered Explicit Direct Instruction and student-centered Cognitively Guided Instruction in the context of Common Core State Standards Mathematics…

PDF

Common Core State Standards: implementation decisions made by middle school English language arts teachers

PDF

A social skills curriculum intended to increase the employment success of secondary transition aged students with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities

PDF

The elements of a differentiated curriculum for gifted students: transfer and application across the disciplines

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

Multi-site case studies on the collaboration of career technical education teachers and core teachers

PDF

An examination of the impact of professional development on teachers' knowledge and skills in the use of text complexity

PDF

The knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that shape a special education teacher’s ability to provide effective specialized academic instruction

PDF

Disability disclosure: the lived experiences of medical school students with disabilities

PDF

An analysis of reflective practices utilized to support the inclusion of K-5 students with disabilities

PDF

The role of principal leadership in achievement beyond test scores: an examination of leadership, differentiated curriculum and high-achieving students

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for students with disabilities: a focus on instructional differentiation - an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Platten, Arlene Hackl (author)

Core Title Meaningful access to the Common Core for high school students with significant cognitive disabilities

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/03/2014

Defense Date 10/15/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag common core,community-based instruction,moderate to severe disabilities,OAI-PMH Harvest,Special Education

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Gallagher, Raymond John (committee chair), Kaplan, Sandra (committee chair), Carbone, Paula M. (committee member)

Creator Email arleneplatten@gmail.com,hacklpla@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-512691

Unique identifier UC11298766

Identifier etd-PlattenArl-3059.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-512691 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PlattenArl-3059.pdf

Dmrecord 512691

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Platten, Arlene Hackl

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA