Factors Impacting the Enactment of a Functional Curriculum in Self-Contained Cross-Categorical Programs

Factors relating to curriculum use in general education have been studied in considerable depth, yet little research has been conducted on what factors impact the enactment of curriculum in special education. This study specifically studied the enactment of a functional curriculum in two rural, self-contained, cross-categorical programs. The data revealed that it was the intersection and union of seven factors (policy/legislation, community, school, teachers, paraprofessionals, students, and curriculum materials) that shaped the enacted functional curriculum in both programs. The association between the factors and the enactment of the functional curriculum holds implications for policy, research, and practice. “How we define curriculum makes a difference in how we think about it and how we plan it” (Morrison, 1993, p. 84). Little agreement exists among researchers or practitioners as to what constitutes curriculum, as it can refer to long-lasting educational programs, materials used in classrooms (i.e., textbooks), and experiences that students receive while in school (Morrison; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000). Although disagreement exists, it is understood that curriculum is complex and reflects plans and activities that are to benefit students and help them achieve specific goals (Nolet & McLaughlin). A curriculum is actually comprised of three components – the written (intended), enacted, and received curriculum. The written curriculum “is the official or adopted curriculum often contained in state or district policy”, and represents what students are expected to learn (Cuban, 1992; Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000, p. 15). The enacted curriculum “is the operationalization of the intended curriculum”, and reflects the decisions a teacher makes during implementation (Nolet & McLaughlin, p. 16). It encompasses the formal and informal lessons and activities, as well as teachers’ behaviors, groupings, management strategies, beliefs, and comments (Cuban). The received curriculum “is what students actually learn as a result of being in the classroom and interacting with the intended and taught curricula” (Nolet & McLaughlin, p. 17). Synder, Bolin, and Zumwalt (1992) expanded the definition of enacted curriculum to encompass a co-construction of educational experiences by teachers and students. They suggested that an enacted curriculum is a transactional process where teachers and students interact, construct, and make meaning of the curriculum and educational experiences within context. Yet, their expanded definition may still be too narrow. This study proposes that the enacted curriculum is a transactional process, co-constructed by teachers and students, and influenced by each one’s history; the school; the communities in which the school, teachers, and students reside; institutional factors, such as federal and state policies; and curriculum materials. This definition is depicted in Figure 1. Factors Impacting Curriculum According to Milner (2003) curriculum enactment and choice can be influenced by several This study represents the author’s doctoral dissertation. She would like to thank her dissertation committee: Drs. Troy Mariage, Cindy Okolo, Carol Sue Englert, and Sandra Wilcox. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emily C. Bouck, Department of Educational Studies, Purdue University, 5146 BRNG Hall, 100 N. University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907. E-mail: bouck@ purdue.edu Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 2008, 43(3), 294–310 © Division on Developmental Disabilities 294 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008 variables, including federal policies, state standards, school factors, and teacher factors. Morrison emphasized a sphere of influence on curriculum decision making consisting of society, legislation/policy, the local school district, individual people, professional organizations, business/industry, foundations/agencies, teachers, textbooks, lobbying/special interest groups, and testing. Institutional policies and legislation. Federal policies affect curriculum enactment within special education, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1997, 2004). NCLB is built upon four pillars: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, encouraging the use of proven educational methods, and more choices for parents. This policy has led to a more rigorous general education curriculum and a presumed push towards using the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Under NCLB teachers are to be held accountable for students’ progress on state standards, suggesting that curricula must reflect teaching to the standards, or teaching to the test (Karp, 2003; Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and reflects the government’s attempt to align IDEA ’97 with NCLB. It is focused on greater accountability and having highly qualified special education teachers in classrooms. IDEIA 2004 has also been attributed to an increased focus on preparing students with disabilities for further education. Curriculum materials. Morrison (1993) discussed textbooks’ deterministic influence on curriculum enactment, indicating that they tend to cater to the lowest ability students in the classroom, rather than the average or the more able students. Dyck and Pemberton (2002) claimed that textbooks represent a central feature of curricula, particularly at the higher grades. School and community factors. Schools can influence curriculum through a district’s curriculum and philosophy, as well as the building’s climate (Milner, 2003; Waldrip & Giddings, 1996). Other school variables affecting curriculum are a school’s setting (rural, urban, and suburban) and size (see Bouck, 2005; Monk & Haller, 1993). For example, rural schools are more likely to expose students to in-school jobs and work experience yet generally have fewer vocational educational choices (Baer et al., 2003; Hudson & Shafer, 2002). Research has suggested that rural schools are more likely to have crosscategorical programs than urban or suburban schools (Bouck, 2005). School size research shows similar results, with smaller schools offering fewer educational opportunities than larger schools (Monk & Haller, 1993). Teacher factors. Teachers shape how curriculum is enacted in classrooms (Milner, 2003). Remillard (1997) suggested that teachers play a more direct role than textbooks in the enacted curriculum as they make the final decision about what gets taught. Teachers’ pedagogical approaches, beliefs about course content, knowledge about the community in which students live, content knowledge, and their own personal experiences all influence the delivery of curriculum (see Milner; Remillard & Bryans, 2003; Weiss, Pasley, Smith, Banilower, & Heck, 2003). Functional Curriculum While literature has explored these factors in general education curricula, little has been Figure 1. Proposed intersection of factors impacting the enactment of a functional curric-