Lost in Translation? Educating Secondary Students With Mild Mental Impairment

By Bouck, Emily C

Educational policies have a deep impact on the education of students. This article examines No Child Left Behind, the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, and the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 for their intended and unintended consequences with respect to secondary students with mild mental impairment. The author discusses issues of highly qualified teachers, accountability, and evidence-based practice as they relate to this population of students and also addresses curriculum and instructional environments for this population. The author concludes by raising issues that practitioners and institutions of higher education need to consider, as well as questions that need to be explored in future research. Students with mild mental impairment, teachers of this population, and research with this category face many critical issues in current times. Recent policy changes have altered the landscape of special education. One risk of any policy change is the intended and unintended consequences that occur as policies become conventionalized and reified in practice. Secondary students with mild mental impairment are at particular risk for becoming lost in the policy discourses that surround and engulf tiieir education but that may or may not actually address their unique needs (Foucault, 1978; Reid & Valle, 2004). Three major policies inform special education programming for all students with disabilities: No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB; 2002); the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; IDEA Amendments of 1997; Individuals widi Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 [IDEIA]); and the report to align these two policies, the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE; Branstad et al., 2002). These policies address laudable goals, such as ensuring that every child has a highly qualified teacher, schools hold teachers accountable for student learning through the use of frequent assessments, and teachers employ evidence-based practices.

A second set of policy discourses that affect secondary students widi mild mental impairment and their teachers is divisions both within and across general education and special education, such as what to teach (curriculum) and where to teach it (instructional environments). The intended and unintended consequences of these policies and their implications for what and where to teach deserve careful study. There is emerging evidence to suggest that the new policy mandates and expectations may be creating confusion over how to best serve students with mild mental impairment, a population “characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrendy with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skills areas: communication, self- care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure, and work” (Polloway, Patron, & Smith, 1997, p. 299).

Of the three major federal education policies influencing the education of students with mild mental impairment, IDEA arrived first on the policy scene, originally enacted as Public Law 94-142. IDEA guaranteed students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment with a focus on individualization and protection under due process. The most recent reauthorizations of IDEA (1997, 2004) have focused on access to the general education curriculum and participation in general large-scale assessments. Aside from IDEA, NCLB (passed in 2001) is the second most influential policy affecting the education of students with disabilities. NCLB was founded on the following pillars: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, greater use of proven educational methods, and more choices for parents. Finally, PCESE was a report to align the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA with NCLB. Its major recommendations included focusing on results, not process; embracing a model of prevention, not a model of failure; and considering children with disabilities as general education children first. Taken together, diese policies have moved the fields of education and special education forward, changing the landscape for all students and particularly for the population considered in this article (i.e., secondary students with mild mental impairment).

This article explores several of the major statutes of recent federal policy and how they address (or fail to address) the needs of secondary students with mild mental impairment and the preparation of teachers for this population. The first section of the article explores the mandate for providing highly qualified teachers for every child and discusses what counts as effective competencies for teachers of secondary students with mild mental impairment. The second section then examines the impact of increased accountability on general education curriculum standards and state assessments. The third section examines recent policy directions that relate to providing students with scientifically based interventions. The fourth section moves beyond the three policy directions outlined above to consider the unique challenges faced with the inclusion of secondary students with mental impairment, especially when contrasted to best practices and their relationship to positive postsecondary outcomes. The fifth section briefly discusses factors that indicate that the field has experienced confusion over its identity. The article concludes with suggestions for future research and implications for practice.

Impacts of Policies

Highly Qualified Teachers

The literature clearly supports that finding highly qualified teachers presents an obstacle in special education. One report indicated more than 4,000 special education teacher vacancies across the country (O’Shea, Hammitte, Mainzer, & Crutchfield, 2000), suggesting that these teaching positions were filled with individuals who may not have been certified in special education. Special education teachers themselves have reported feeling unsatisfied with their teacher preparation, indicating that the field must do better in preparing the teaching force and making them more highly qualified (Kozleski, Mainzer, & Deshler, 2000).

When discussing highly qualified teachers, a logical first question to ask is, Highly qualified and/or prepared for what? The PCESE suggested that special education teachers should be highly qualified to teach core subject areas, such as reading, math, and science (Branstad et al., 2002). IDEIA (2004) supported this position by defining a highly qualified teacher as an individual who has obtained full state certification as a special education teacher or passed the state special education licensing examination; holds a license to teach as a special education teacher; and has not obtained these requirements on an emergency, provisional, or temporary basis (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA also stipulated that if secondary special education teachers teach multiple core subjects, they must demonstrate competence in all of those they teach (Council for Exceptional Children, 2004). Thus, teachers who educate secondary students with mild mental impairment may potentially need to be highly qualified in four or five content areas.

Although few would argue that all students need teachers who have demonstrated competency in core areas, current policies may not address what counts as core knowledge for teachers of students with mild mental impairment. For example, secondary special education teachers of students with mild mental impairment would ideally need to be highly qualified in functional skills, vocational education, social skills, and independent living skills as well as functional academics (mathematics, reading, writing), but national policies do not address most of these core skills. Teachers of secondary students with mild mental impairment may be required to prepare in different skill sets than teachers who serve primarily students with other disabilities and whose focus is largely on accessing the general education curriculum. Current policy frameworks (i.e., NCLB, PCESE, IDEIA) make virtually no mention of educating secondary students with mild mental impairment in functional skills, but they emphasize the general education curriculum and preparation for state assessments (Patton, Polloway, & Smith, 2000), even though these may not support the goals of independent living.

Patton and colleagues (2000) articulated another challenge in regard to preparing highly qualified teachers. These authors noted that teacher education programs no longer prepare teachers for a specific disability. Instead they are generic programs that prepare teachers to work with students who have mild disabilities or high- incidence disabilities (i.e., mild mental impairment, learning disability, emotional/behavior disorders), with the assumption that these students are similar in educational needs, curriculum, and instructional environments. Patton and associates (2000) discussed the fact that there used to be separate courses in methods, materials, and curricula for each distinct disability area, yet now there is most often a single generic course. Although many have supported the use of a mild disabilities designation (see Branstad et al., 2002; Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977; Lyon et al., 2001), others have argued that these students are not alike and should not be combined into a single group (see Bouck, 2004; Edgar, 1987; Polloway, Epstein, Polloway, Patton, & Ball, 1986). In addition to raising the discussion of cross-categorical teacher preparation, Patton and colleagues (2000) broached the issue of preparation across grade level. They stated that many graduates of teacher preparation programs leave with special education certification for Grades K through 12 and general education certification for Grades K through 6 or K through 8. They suggested that the roles of special education teachers have changed significantly and differ across grade levels (see Kozleski et al., 2000). Although many agree that students need a highly qualified teacher, who defines highly qualified, and how highly is defined, remains in debate. For secondary students with mild mental impairment, it is unclear whether their special education teachers are highly qualified to teach funetional skills and whether the current emphasis on accountability in general education curricula further distances institutions of higher education from meeting these goals.

Accountability

Accountability is another issue pertinent to the field of mental impairment. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 first decreed that students with disabilities were to participate in state and local assessments and that alternate assessments were to be devised for students for whom the general large-scale assessments were not appropriate. NCLB (2002) reiterated this in its premise that all students participate in one accountability system. NCLB specifically stated that all students will reach proficiency within 12 years (i.e., 2014). Karp (2003) questioned whether this was setting up students to fail. For example, is it realistic to expect students with mild mental impairment, a population that is defined as having IQs two to three standard deviations below the average IQ, to reach proficiency in reading and mathematics? Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, and Patton (2002) advocated that a developmental approach be applied to assessing students with mental impairment, something not often done in the general large state assessments. They stated that students with mental impairment will fail at a task that is beyond their current ability (i.e., reading at grade level). Hence, education and assessments should be geared toward students’ mental age (not their chronological age).

The dramatic shift toward increased accountability for special education students, outlined in the IDEA Amendments of 1997 and continued in NCLB and IDEIA, has created a sense that the education of students with mild mental impairment may be in a state of confusion. The accountability system under the current policy framework assumes that almost all students can fit under one accountability system (i.e., take the same assessment with or without accommodations; Branstad et al., 2002). However, the assumption that students with mild mental impairment can succeed at these assessments presumes that these students have a mild disability (Polloway, 2004). Students with mild mental impairment do not have mild needs, as evidenced by their extremely poor postsecondary outcomes in areas such as attendance at postsecondary institutions, independent living rates, employment rates, and measures of life satisfaction (Blackorby & Wagner, 1996; Patton et al., 1996; Polloway, 2005; Thomas, 1996).

The presumption that students with mild mental impairment have mild needs and can achieve comparably to general education students on a state assessment geared toward general education curricula ignores the characteristics of students with mild mental impairment, as highlighted by decades of research (see Dunn, 1973; Kirk, 1972; Thomas, 1996). Characteristics of individuals with mild mental impairment generally include poor generalization skills; difficulty with transfer; limited attention span; tendency to be easily distracted; significant difficulties in academics (i.e., reading); failure to achieve academically at their chronological age; and late acquisition of skills in reading, writing, spelling, and mathematics (Dunn, 1973; Kirk, 1972; Thomas, 1996). Hence, students with mild mental impairment naturally struggle with age-appropriate tests, and many educational researchers have questioned the relevancy of these tests to the students’ postschool goals.

Given the current emphasis on accountability (and one accountability system; see Branstad et al., 2002; NCLB, 2002), it is highly likely that students with mild mental impairment will take general large-scale assessments, as few states have alternate assessments for students of this population (Schrag, 2003). Hence, they will need to be adequately prepared for the general assessment, such as by receiving general education curricula in general education settings (Schrag, 2003).

Opponents have advocated that outcomes on state assessments may not be the best measure of success for students with mild mental impairment, a population for which postsecondary education participation stands at about 2.5% (Kaye, 1997; Neubert, Moon, & Grigal, 2004), in addition to other poor postschool outcomes (see Cameto, Marder, Wagner, & Cardoso, 2003). They have argued that the dropout rates for this population have risen as inclusive education has increased and have suggested that education should focus on vocational and functional curricula (Edgar, 1987), as dropout rates are estimated to be around 50% (Hart, Mele-McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2004; Sinclair, Christianson, Thurlow, & Evelo, 1994). Kortering and Braziel (1999), Benz, Lindstrom, and Yovanoff (2000), and Guterman (1995) all reported that secondary special education students (including those with mild mental impairment) indicated that they would have stayed in school and been happier with their high school program if the materials had been better and they had had more interesting experiences that had prepared them for the adult world of work. Thus, although the pressure for increasing performance on state standards that measure progress in the general education curriculum serves to strongly position placement decisions, the general education curriculum may not address functional skills necessary for adult success.

Research Another current issue within the field of mental impairment, and one extremely pertinent to today’s guiding policy frameworks, is research (or the lack thereof). NCLB and PCESE both placed high priority on scientifically based research, which NCLB defined as quantitative research involving random assignment of subjects to conditions (Voke, 2002). Although the current political climate within education endorses the use of research, little current research on students with mild mental impairment exists, particularly in regard to addressing the very issues that PCESE has suggested be mandated for this population. For example, a recent review of Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities from 1998 to 2005 revealed that only 13 studies explicidy referenced students with mild mental impairment; only two appeared in Exceptional Children and 6 in Journal of Special Education. Numerous articles across the journals referenced mental impairment or mild disabilities, indicating that this population was aggregated with other categories.

Researchers often aggregate secondary students with mild mental impairment with students with learning disabilities and emotional impairments and considered this population as students with high- incidence disabilities, but they do not disaggregate the impact (see Conderman & Katsiyannis, 2002; Edgar, 1987; Jones, 1996; U.S. Department of Education, 2002). Despite this aggregation, recent research has shown that these groups cannot be considered similar in terms of educational programming, as students with mild mental impairment receive different curricula and are educated in different instructional environments than students with learning disabilities (Bouck, 2004).

Recommendations as to the educational programming for students with mild mental impairment, such as those suggested by the recent policy documents, must be evaluated within the context of how these changes will affect students. Yet, scholars have conducted little research solely on students with mild mental impairment. The research that does examine the issues merely aggregates the data on disability categories, following the PCESE’s (Branstad et al., 2002) and Lyon and colleagues’ (2001) belief that there are not qualitative differences between students with high-incidence disabilities. If the policy frameworks under which education operates make a strong commitment to conducting research and evaluating programs and methods in regard to how they stand up to scientific rigor, then researchers and practitioners must demand that their students count. Researchers must interrogate the impact of policies on students and programs and their intended and unintended consequences.

Within and Between Special Education and General Education

The sense of being lost within the translations from research and policy to practice occurs both within and across special and general education. Educational programming is an important area to discuss in light of recent policy mandates supporting inclusion (see Branstad et al., 2002; IDEIA, 2004), but also because of the lack of consensus in the field as to what should be the educational programming for secondary students with mild mental impairment. For example, recent research has found that secondary special education teachers have no consensus as to what the curriculum should be for students with mild mental impairment (see Bouck, 2004). In a statewide study of curriculum and instructional environments for secondary students with mild mental impairment and learning disabilities, the most frequently endorsed curriculum was a special education curriculum, with fewer than one fourth of teachers responding as such. The next most frequently endorsed curricula areas were functional curriculum, lower grade level curriculum, and then general education curriculum. The lack of consensus indicates that the field is unclear on what curriculum should be enacted for secondary students with mild mental impairment, even though experts in the field have stressed the importance of curriculum, stating that “where we teach may not be as important as what and how we teach the mentally retarded” (Forness 8c Kavale, 1984, p. 242). Much controversy also surrounds the where-to-teach aspect of educational programming. Policy frameworks have suggested that special education students be educated in general education settings with general education curricula (see Branstad et al., 2002; Council for Exceptional Children, 2004). Time in the general education setting, although important and valuable for secondary students with mild mental impairment, may have negative and possibly unintended consequences (Katsiyannis, Zhang, 8c Archwamety, 2002). Most students with disabilities spend the majority of their school day in general education settings, yet previous research has indicated that general education curricula at the secondary level does not always serve the best interests of special education students (Benz 8c Kochhlar, 1996; Edgar 8c Polloway, 1994; Johnson, 2000). In particular, important experiences tied to postschool success, such as vocational, life, and independent living skills, may be missing for these students (Cobb, Lehmann, Tochterman, 8c Bomotti, 2000; Johnson, 2000; Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Anderson, 1995). As the general education curriculum moves toward higher academic standards and high- stakes testing, students with mild mental impairment may be even less likely to receive valuable functional and vocational opportunities to prepare them for postschool life (NCLB, 2002; Olson, 2004; Polloway 8c Smith, 1987). This movement toward increasing academic standards in the general education curriculum stands in contrast to both recent and distant research that indicated vocational education and work experiences are associated with better postschool outcomes, including employment (Benz et al., 2000; Hasazi, 1985).

The issue of curriculum and instructional environments inevitably raises the question of inclusion. Although recent research in one state indicated that secondary students with mild mental impairment are still predominately served in pullout settings (Bouck, 2004), current policy frameworks suggest that they should be educated in inclusive settings. The language from the IDEA Amendments of 1997 has been taken to mean inclusion, as the law stipulated that students should be educated in the least restrictive environment and have access to the general education curriculum. Proponents of inclusion would argue that IDEA was founded on getting students with disabilities access to education but now must focus on getting students access to the general education curriculum (Beirne-Smith et al., 2002; Morse, 2000).

The research on inclusion for students with mild mental impairment is equivocal. Research on inclusion has suggested both negative academic and social consequences. Researchers have found that students perform worse academically in general education settings (see Gotdieb, Alter, 8c Gottiieb, 1991; Kaufman et al., as cited in Gotdieb et al., 1991). Research has also suggested that students with disabilities experience social isolation in inclusive settings (Fraught, Balleweg, Crow, 8c van den Pol, 1983; Peterson, 1982; Sale 8c Carey, 1995). Students with special needs in inclusive settings have rated lower on sociometric scales than their peers, yet students who were likely to be eligible for special education services but not yet “labeled” were rated even lower than students already classified (Sale 8c Carey, 1995). Other research has illustrated that although physical inclusion may occur, very little integration or social inclusion may actually result for students with mild mental impairment (Dore, Dion, Wagner, 8c Brunet, 2002). Even in naturally inclusive settings, such as the high school lunch room, researchers have found little interaction between students with mental impairment and their general education peers (Hughes et al., 1999).

However, research has also found some positive results of inclusion for students with mild mental impairment. Researchers have indicated that students make more progress in inclusive classrooms than pullout classes, as well as that participation in inclusive settings does not widen the gap between special education students and general education students as rapidly as do pullout programs (Carlberg 8c Kavale, 1980; Lipsky 8c Gartner, 1996; Sindelar 8c Deno, 1978). Hansen and Boody (1998) found that students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms rated the classroom environment at least as high if not higher than the students without disabilities in the classroom, suggesting that special education students and general education students perceived the classroom environment in reasonably similar ways.

As this section suggests, the dual systems of general education and special education often create confusing and even conflicting discourses at the level of philosophy (inclusion), policy (access to general education curriculum and highstakes testing), and curriculum (i.e., general vs. functional education). These discourses are not value neutral but create strong positionings through mandates and expectations that affect educational programming. Currentiy, there is a lack of consensus about what counts as evidence-based programming for secondary students with mild mental impairment. There are national policy documents that emphasize increased academic standards and assessment on high-stakes testing, despite lack of research to support this policy as it relates to improved outcomes for students with mild mental impairment. And there is a philosophical push toward including students in general education classes without definitive research that suggests this is the most advantageous for this population.

Loss of Identity

In addition to the debate over the confusion of this population within policy and education settings, the construct also faces another critical challenge. The field of mild mental impairment appears to be losing its identity. And identity is important for several reasons. For one, there needs to be a community of scholars and researchers dedicated to studying this population and presenting data-driven educational programming plans. A sense of identity also generates a commitment to interrogating the impact of policy and practice for this population, without a risk of leaving students with mild mental impairment behind.

One can see the loss of identity as the category mild mental impairment is merging with other disabilities, first under the heading of “mild disabilities,” then “high-incidence disabilities” (which at least accurately reflects its position in terms of prevalence and is based on objective information), and more recently within PCESE as “developmental disability” (Branstad et al., 2002; Polloway, 2004). Polloway (2005) warned against the melding of the construct of mild mental impairment into both “mild disabilities” and “developmental disability.” The term developmental disability does not encompass everyone with mild mental impairment and may exclude individuals with mild mental impairment.

To further illustrate the confusion over where mild mental impairment falls, the division within the Council for Exceptional Children encompassing mental impairment has changed its name over the years from the Division on Mental Retardation to the Division on Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities and then to the Division on Developmental Disabilities. In addition, the population composing the category of mild mental impairment has changed as well. The prevalence of mild mental impairment, once describing the largest population of students with disabilities, decreased following a definition change in 1973 that lowered the IQ ceiling from 80 to 70 (Hourcade, 2003). The shrinking prevalence of mental impairment has also been attributed to the creation of the category of “learning disability” and the assumption that a label of learning disabled was less stigmatizing and more socially accepted than one of mild mental impairment, as well as caution over identifying minority students as mildly mentally impaired following court cases such as Larry P. v. Riles (BeirneSmith et al., 2002).

Discussion

Students with mild mental impairment may be becoming increasingly lost among the current discourses that influence decisions and beliefs about what is valued and worth valuing. Currendy, there is little consensus from teachers over what to teach this population (Bouck, 2004). To complicate matters, there is also a disconnect between what the policy documents advocate (i.e., a general education curriculum) and what the paucity of current research supports (i.e., functional curriculum with a focus on vocational education; see Benz et al., 2000). Secondary students with mild mental impairment run the risk of being overlooked in the translation of policy to practice.

Similarly there is little consensus, and stark division, over where these students should be educated. The debate over inclusion lacks clear, consistent evidence as to the best educational settings for secondary students with mild mental impairment. The literature remains mixed over research that shows academic and social benefits for both placements. Yet, although this debate continues in professional journals, the voices of the students with mild mental impairment and their families are being left out of the discussion (Mariage, PaxtonBuursma, 8c Bouck, 2004; Reid 8c Valle, 2004). Instead of asking students what they want and what will best meet their needs, researchers are telling them the answer to these questions. Issues within the policy documents contribute to the feeling that this population is lost in translation. High-stakes testing makes one wonder if this population is not only lost within the discourse, but missing entirely. With high-stakes testing, students with mild mental impairment are asked to compete on the same playing field as “normally achieving” students, in which the stakes of “losing” can be having lower selfesteem, being blamed for low tests score, and having a feeling of being unwanted within the school district. Furthermore, the voices of students with mild mental impairment, their parents, and advocates remain relatively absent from public discussions surrounding highly qualified teachers. Society must determine whether we are helping students with mild mental impairment if we are giving them teachers who are highly qualified in high school mathematics yet do not have to demonstrate any competency in teaching daily living skills, social skills, or self-determination skills. Or does this tension merely reflect society’s valuing of book learning over other kinds of knowledge and skills? A parent of a secondary student with mild mental impairment from 20 years ago still captures the current tensions in the field:

I am very concerned about the present push for “excellence” which is stressing increased pressure for college as being the ultimate goal after high school. I see it as a “put down” to those who are either unable or do not want to go to college. As a result of increased academic requirements, the vocational type programs are being cut. These programs meet the needs of a lot of students who are not college bound. John Gardner said if a society respects the philosophers, but not the plumber, then neither the philosophy nor the pipes will hold water. (Halpern, 1985, p. 484).

Although this article has raised many issues and posed questions, it also offers suggestions for the future and implications of these issues on research and practice, in Grades K through 12 and in institutions of higher education (see Table 1). First, in terms of highly qualified teachers, research needs to explore relationship between highly qualified teachers and secondary education for students with mild mental impairment, particularly their achievement and postschool outcomes (i.e., employment, independent living, and participation in community events). In addition, institutions of higher education should analyze their practices with respect to educating preservice teachers and how they can work to ensure that teacher candidates are highly qualified in the field, both in terms of policy guidelines and in terms of what is appropriate for the population tiiey may be serving. Finally, teachers need to revolve their own inherent tensions over being highly qualified under federal policy guidelines and their own perspectives. Secondary teachers may need to seek out their own professional development opportunities to educate and train themselves to be highly qualified with respect to educating students with mild mental impairment in daily living, vocational education, and other noncore content areas.

With respect to accountability, teachers, parents, students, and other school personnel must discuss the realistic capacity of schools to educate students with mild mental impairment to reach proficiency on general large-scale assessments. Teachers must address the realistic expectations of this population reaching grade- level achievement in core content areas despite reservations of not wanting to limit the achievement of students or to have low expectations. Schools must clarify their responsibility to prepare students with mild mental impairment to achieve in the real world after high school (i.e., employment and independent living) and to have students perform well on general large-scale state assessments. Research needs to examine the relationship between educating students with mild mental impairment and accountability, and address such questions as how students with mild mental impairment achieve on state assessments, and whether there is any relationship between achievement on state assessments and students’ postschool outcomes.

Teachers must decide what evidence-based practices they will use with students with mild mental impairment (assuming some are found to exist) and possibly determine if they will use evidence-based practices for students with mild mental impairment that have been verified for other students with mild or high-incidence disabilities. Educators will be forced to illuminate their perspectives of students witii mild mental impairment in their relation to the group labeled as highincidence disabilities. Research should examine issues of accountability and the education of students with mild mental impairment, such as what practices for secondary students with mild mental impairment meet federal standards as evidencebased practices, what impact the use of evidence-based practices has on the postschool outcomes of students with mild mental impairment, and what outcomes exist for secondary students with mild mental impairment when they are disaggregated from other disabilities.

Scholars must also do further research on issues relating to inclusion. Although an inclusive society should be a goal, inclusiveness should be expanded to include the full continuum of services and the freedom of parents, students, and teachers to exercise the full continuum, which includes pullout programs. Research needs to examine the academic and social outcomes (i.e., postschool outcomes) for inclusive versus pullout classes for secondary students with mild mental impairment, as well as the perspectives of these students as to inclusive versus pullout educational opportunities for them. Practitioners must also address the issue of inclusion. Teachers, parents, and students will need to decide what instructional environments promote the greatest academic and social experiences for each individual student with mild mental impairment. Educators, researchers, and policy decision makers need to move beyond deciding if inclusion is right or wrong and move toward deciding what is best for each individual student to meet his or her needs.

REFERENCES

Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Patton, J. R. (2002). Mental retardation (6th ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Merrill.

Benz, M., & Kochhlar, C. (1996). School-to-work for all students: A position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individual 19, 31- 48.

Benz, M. R., Lindstrom, L., & Yovanoff, P. (2000). Improving graduation and employment outcomes of students with disabilities: Predictive factors and student perspectives. Exceptional Children, 66, 509-529.

Blackorby, J., & Wagner, M. (1996). Longitudinal post school outcomes of youth with disabilities: Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study. Exceptional Children, 62, 399-413.

Bouck, E. C. (2004). Exploring secondary special education for mild mental impairment: A program in search of its place. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 367-382.

Branstad, T., Acosta, A., Bartlett, S., Berdine, W., Butterfield, P., Chambers, J., et al. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Cameto, R., Marder, C, Wagner, M., & Cardoso, D. (2003). Youth employment. NLTS2 Data Brief, 2(2). Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id= 1310

Carlberg, C, & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.

Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Tochterman, S., & Bomotti, S. (2000). Students with disabilities in transition: A review of four reforms. In D. Johnson & E. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 3-19). Minneapolis: National Transition Network, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

Conderman, G. J., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Instructional issues and practices in secondary special education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 1 69179.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2004). The new IDEA: CECs summary of significant issues. Retrieved December 3, 2004, from http://www.cec.sped .org/pp/IDEA_120204.pdf

Dore, R., Dion, E., Wagner, S., 8< Brunet, J. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents with mental retardation: A multiple case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 253-261.

Dunn, L. M. (1973). Children with mild general learning disabilities. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.), Exceptional children in the schools (pp. 125-188). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Edgar, E. (1987). Secondary programs in special education: Are many of them justifiable? Exceptional Children, 53, 555-561.

Edgar, E., & Polloway, E. A. (1994). Education for adolescents with disabilities: Curriculum and placement issues. Journal of Special Education, 27, 438452.

Forness, S. R., & Kavale, K. A. (1984). Education of the mentally retarded: A note on policy. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 239245.

Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Random House.

Fraught, K. K., Balleweg, B. J., Crow, R. E., & van den Pol, R. A. (1983). An analysis of social behaviors among handicapped and nonhandicapped preschool children. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 18, 210-214.

Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., & Gottlieb, B. W (1991). Mainstreaming mentally retarded children. In J. L. Matson & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (2nd ed.; pp. 63-73). New York: Pergamon Press. Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of categorical learning disabilities services: The consumer’s view. Exceptional Children, 62, 1 1 1-124.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1977). Labels, categories, and behaviors: EI, LD, and EMR reconsidered. Journal of Special Education, i1, 139-149.

Halpern, A. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Exceptional Children, 51, 479-486.

Hansen, L. L., & Boody, R. M. (1998). Special education students’ perceptions of their mainstreamed classes. Education, 1 18, 610- 615.

Hart, D., Mele-McCarthy, X., Pasternack, R. H., Zimbrich, K., & Parker, D R. (2004). Community college: A pathway to success for youth with learning, cognitive, and intellectual disabilities in secondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 45-53.

Hasazi, S. B. (1985). A statewide follow-up on post high school employment and residential status of students labeled, “mentally retarded.” Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 20, 222-234.

Hourcade, J. (2003). Mental retardation: Update 2002. Eric Digest. Retrieved May 12, 2004, from http://www.ericdigests.org/ 2003-4/mental-retardation.html

Hughes, C, Rodi, M. S., Lorden, S. W., Pitkin, S. E., Derer, K. R., Hwang, B., et al. (1999). Social interactions of high school students with mental retardation and their general education peers. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 104, 533-544.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997). Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/office/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/the_law.html

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. [section] 1400 et seq. (2004) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990).

Johnson, D. (2000). Challenges facing the future of transition services. In D. Johnson & E. Emanuel (Eds.), Issues influencing the future of transition programs and services in the United States (pp. 153-158). Minneapolis: National Transition Network, Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

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

Karp.S. (2003). Equity claims for NCLB don’t pass the test. Retrieved August 17, 2004, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/ special_reports/bushplan /ESEA173.shtml

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D, & Archwamety, T. (2002). Placement and exit patterns for students with mental retardation: An analysis of national trends. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 134-145.

Kaye, H. S. (1997). Education of children with disabilities (Report No. EC305866). San Francisco: University of California, San Francisco. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED4 12668)

Kirk, S. A. (1972). Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Kortering, L. J., & Braziel, P. M. (1999). School dropout from the perspective of former students: Implications for secondary special education programs. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 78- 83.

Kozleski, E., Mainzer, R., & Deshler, D. (2000). Bright future for exceptional learners: An action agenda to achieve quality conditions for teaching and learning. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 762-796.

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259- 287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

Mariage, T. V., Paxton-Buursma, D J., & Bouck, E. C. (2004). Interanimation: Repositioning possibilities within educational contexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 534-549.

Morse, T. E. (2000). Ten events that shaped special education’s century of dramatic change. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9, 32-38.

Neubert, D. A., Moon, M. S., & Grigal, M. (2004). Activities of students with significant disabilities receiving services in postsecondary settings. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 39, 16-25.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 [section] 6301 et seq. (2002).

Olson, L. (2004). Enveloping expectations. Quality counts in 2004: Count me in: Special education in an era of standards. Retrieved January 23, 2004, from http://www.edweek.com/sreports/ qc04/article.cfrn?slug= 1 7ovrvw.h23

O’Shea, D. J., Hammitte, D., Mainzer, R., & Crutchfield, M. D. (2000). From teacher preparation to continuing professional development. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 71-77.

Patton, J. R., Polloway, E. A., & Smith, T. E. C. (2000). Educating students with mild mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 15, 80-89.

Patton, I. R., Smith, T. E. C, Clark, G. M., Polloway, E. A., Edgar, E., & Lee, S. (1996). Individuals with mild mental retardation: Postsecondary outcomes and implications for educational policy. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 75-85.

Peterson, N. L. (1982). Social integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers: A study of playmate preferences. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2, 56-59.

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

Polloway, E. A. (2005). Mild retardation: The status of a category of exceptionality. In J. J. Hoover & R. Hill (Eds.), 2Js/ century issues in special education: Meeting diverse needs (pp. 35- 46). Boulder: University of Colorado, BUENO Center.

Polloway, E. A., Epstein, M. H., Polloway, C. H., Patton, J. R, & Ball, D. W. (1986). Correct reading program: An analysis of the effectiveness of learning disabled and mentally retarded students. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 41-47.

Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R, & Smith, T. E. (1997). Mental retardation and learning disabilities: Conceptual and applied issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 297-308.

Polloway, E. A., & Smith, J. D. (1987). Current status of mild mental retardation construct: Identification, placement, and programs. In M. C. Wang,

M. C. Reynolds, & H. H. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (Vol. 2, pp. 7-22). Columbus, OH: Macmillan.

Reid, D. K., & Valle, J. W. (2004). The discursive practice of learning disability: Implications for instruction and parent-school relations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 466-48 1 .

Sale, P., & Carey, D. M. (1995). The sociometric status of students with disabilities in a full-inclusion school. Exceptional Children, 62, 6-19.

Schrag, J. A. (2003). No Child Left Behind: And its implications for students with disabilities. Special Edge, 16, 1-4.

Sinclair, M., Christianson, S., Thurlow, M., & Evelo, D. (1994). Are we pushing students in special education to drop out of school? (Policy Research Brief No. 6[I]). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Center on Residential Services and Community Integration.

Sindelar, P. T., & Deno, S. L. (1978). The effectiveness of resource programming. Journal of Special Education, 12, 17-28.

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

Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Anderson, C. (1995). High school graduation requirements: What’s happening for students with disabilities? (Synthesis Report No. 20). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Voke, H. (2002). What do we know about sanctions and rewards? ASCD Infobrief, 31. Retrieved December 7, 2004, from http:// www.ascd.org/portal /site/ascd

Emily C. Bouck, Michigan State University

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

EMILY C. BOUCK, PhD, is an assistant professor in the special education program in the College of Education at Purdue University. Her research interests focus on secondary education for students with mild mental impairment, with particular emphasis on curriculum and instructional environments. Address: Emily C. Bouck, 5146 BRNG Hall, Purdue University, 100 N. University St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, 765-494-7238, bouck@purdue.edu

AUTHOR’S NOTE

I would like to thank Dr. Troy Mariage for his feedback on the preparation of this article. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors for their comments and suggestions.

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Fall 2007

(c) 2007 Journal of Disability Policy Studies. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.