Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

JASH copyright 1992 by

1992, Vol. 17, No. 1,53-58 The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps

Functional Life Skills, Academic Skills,


and Friendship/Social Relationship
Development: What Do Parents of
Students with Moderate/Severe/Profound
Disabilities Value?
Susan Hamre-Nietupski and John Nietupski
The University of Iowa
Marlene Strathe
University of Northern Iowa

A pilot study was conducted to verify empirically the cally oriented skills such as reading (Johnson & Brown,
educational activitypreferences of68 parents ofstudents 1974) and math operations (Williams et al., 1974) to
with moderate and severe/profound mental disabilities. the teaching of the functional life skills necessary to live,
Parents were surveyed to determine the relative value work, and recreate in integrated, community environ-
they place on the three areas offunctional life skills, ments (Brown et al., 1979; Falvey, 1989;Gaylord-Ross,
academic skills, and friendship/social relationship de- Forte, & Gaylord-Ross, 1983; Nietupski, Hamre-Nie-
velopment in the educational programs of their sons/ tupski, & Ayres, 1984; Rusch, 1986; Snell, 1983, 1987;
daughters. Parents ofstudents withmoderate disabilities Snell & Browder, 1987).
ratedfunctional life skills most highly, while parents of While skill training in general, and functional life
students with severe/profound disabilities ratedfriend- skill training in particular, have characterized the field,
ship/socialrelationship development most highly. Fur- this orientation has begun to be questioned by some
thermore, parents ofstudentswith moderate disabilities parents and professionals (Strully & Bartholomew-Lor-
rated each curricular area as more important than did imer, 1988; Strully & Strully, 1985, 1989). Calls for
parents ofstudents with severe/profound disabilities. greater emphasis on the development of friendship/
social relationships between people with disabilities and
DESCRIPTORS: families, functional skills, friend- their nondisabled peers have begun to emerge (Falvey,
ship, instructional objectives, mental retardation, par- 1989; Forest, 1989a, 1989b; Lutfiyya, 1988, 1990;
ents, school age Perske, 1988a, 1988b; Stainback & Stainback, 1987;
Taylor & Bogdan, 1987). Parents in particular have
Since passage of PL 94-142, programs for students begun to articulate their views regarding the crucial
with moderate/severe/profound disabilities have importance of friendships in the lives of their children
adopted what might be termed a skill training emphasis (Galati, 1989; Strully & Bartholomew-Lorimer, 1988;
(Snell, 1987). Within this orientation, educators identify Strully & Strully, 1985, 1989), challenging the prevail-
skill deficits and remediate them through systematic ing emphasis on skill training. They have stated that
instruction. friendships, not just increased skills and competencies,
The skill training focus has changed from academi- are important educational goals.
A common theme in the professional literature is that
parent preferences should help shape educational deci-
For additional information contact: Dr. Susan Hamre-Nie- sions (Donnellan & Mirenda, 1984; Nietupski &
tupski, The University of Iowa, Division of Curriculum and
Instruction, N270 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242. Hamre-Nietupski, 1987). Yet, beyond Epps and Mey-
The authors express their most sincere gratitude to parents ers' (1989) study assessing parental preferences among
and administrators in Iowa's Northern Trails Area Education the functional life skills domains (domestic function-
Agency, who supported this study in many ways. We are ing, community functioning, leisure/recreation, voca-
grateful especially to Harold Webb, Director of Special Edu-
cation, and Paula Linnevold, Parent Coordinator, for their tional), little objective information exists concerning
enthusiastic participation, time, and considerable efforts to parent preferences for educational content.
facilitate completion of this study. This pilot study examines the degree to which parents
53

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015
54 Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, and Strathe

of students with moderate/severe/profound disabilities scriptions, seven in each of three areas reflecting pri-
value functional life skills, academic skills, and friend- marily (a) functional life skills, (b) academic skills, and
ship/social relationship development. The two major (c) friendship/social relationship development. The ac-
questions of interest were: tivity descriptions are presented in Table 2. Parents
rated the importance of each item, using a 4-point
I. Are there differences in the degree to which Likert scale with the descriptors: "extremely unimpor-
parents within either the moderate or severe/pro- tant," "unimportant," "important," and "extremely im-
found disabilities group value functional life skills portant." In a third, optional section, parents were asked
versus academic skills versus friendship/social re- to share any additional comments concerning their
lationship development? answers.
2. Does the degree to which parents value func-
tional life skills, academic skills, and friendship/ Procedure
social relationship development vary on the basis All data were collected during the spring of 1990.
of disability level and/or student age? Fifty percent (96) of the families of the 192 students
were sampled randomly. One parent per family was
requested to respond. A follow-up letter and additional
Method survey were sent to families who did not return the
survey within 10 days.
Setting and Participants
This investigation was conducted in one ofIowa's 15 Data Analysis
regional districts, termed Area Education Agencies The data units consisted of the average Likert scale
(AEAs). This AEA was selected because: (a) it offered a rating of the seven items in each of the areas of func-
range of service delivery models (e.g., regular classes tional life skills, academic skills, and friendship/social
with support, special classes in regular schools, and relationship development. These data units were de-
segregated schools) frequently available in Iowa and rived by summing the individual respondent's Likert
around the country; (b) it was representative of Iowa, ratings within a given area, dividing that figure by seven,
containing one small city of approximately 30,000 peo- summing each respondent's average, and dividing by
ple surrounded by rural areas; and (c) the AEA director the number of respondents.
sought objective parental input to shape services offered To answer question 1, whether parents within a given
in the AEA. disability level placed differential value on the three
The pool of participants consisted of all parents of curricular areas, pair-wise comparisons using t-tests for
the 192 students, ages 6 through 21, whose primary matched groups were employed. To answer question 2,
disability label was "moderate mental disabilities" or ANOVAs were used, since these questions involved
"severe/profound mental disabilities" according to comparison across moderate and severe/profound dis-
Iowa's classification system. A summary of all demo- abilities groups; the ANOVAs were followed by two-
graphic data gathered from the respondents is presented tailed t-tests using Scheffe's procedure. An alpha level
in Table I. The typical respondent in the moderate of .05 was established for each ANOVA and r-test,
disabilities group was a parent in the 40-49-year age
range with a son or daughter 12-15 or 16-21 years of Results
age, being served in a self-contained class with many
interactions with nondisabled peers, in a middle/junior Seventy of the 96 surveys were returned, for a return
high school setting, within a community of less than rate of 73 %. Of the 70 returned surveys, two either were
10,000 people. The typical respondent in the severe/ not completed or did not specify the level of disability
profound disabilities group was a parent in the 30-39- and were not analyzed. The findings reported here are
year age range with a son 12-15 years of age, being based on 68 respondents, including 50 with a son/
served in a segregated school setting with few interac- daughter with moderate disabilities and 18 with a son/
tions with nondisabled peers, within a community of daughter with severe/profound disabilities. It should be
less than 10,000 people. noted that respondents were omitted from analyses
pertaining to curricular areas with any unscored items,
Instrument but were included when analyses addressed areas in
The authors developed the survey instrument with which all items were scored; as a result, different sample
input from parents, parent educators, the AEA 2 direc- sizes and degrees of freedom are noted across the anal-
tor, and six in-state professionals with expertise in the yses presented here.
area of moderate/severe/profound disabilities. The sur- The first question examined whether parents ex-
vey consisted of three sections. The first section re- pressed different values regarding the three curricular
quested the demographic information presented in Ta- areas within the moderate disabilities or the severe/
ble 1. profound disabilities groups. As indicated in Table 3,
A second section was comprised of 21 activity de- parents of students with moderate disabilities ranked

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015
ParentValues in Educational Programs 55

Table I
Demographic Data of Survey Respondents
Descriptors n Percentages Descriptors n Percentages
Students with moderate disabil- 50 Students with severe/ 18
ities profound disabilities
Gender 25 Male: 50 Gender 10 Male: 56
25 Female: 50 8 Female: 44
Age 13 CA of6-Il Age 6 CA of6-11
years: 26 years: 33
18 CA of 12-15 8 CA of 12-15
years: 36 years: 45
19 CA of 16-21 4 CA of 16-21
years: 38 years: 22
School placement 14 Elementary: School placement 3 Elementary:
28 17
17 Middle/junior 3 Middle/junior
high: 34 high: 17
12 High school: High school:
24 5
7 Special 11 Special
school: 14 school: 61
Class situation 21 Self-contained Class situation 10 Self-contained
class-few class-few
interactions interactions
with non- with non-
disabled: 42 disabled: 56
23 Self-contained 8 Self-contained
class- class-
many inter- many inter-
actions actions
with non- with non-
disabled: 46 disabled: 44
6 Regular class 0 Regular class
with sup- with sup-
port: 12 port: 0
Size of home community 32 Under 10,000 Size of home commu- 12 Under 10,000
population: nity population:
64 67
15 10,000- 6 10,000-
50,000 50,000
population: population:
30 33
3 Not reported:
6
Parental age range 3 CA of 18-29: Parental age range 0 CA of 18-29:
6 0
20 CA of 30-39: 9 CA of 30-39:
40 50
23 CA of40-49: 7 CAof40-49:
46 39
3 CA of 50-59: CA of 50-59:
6 5.5
CA of 60+: 2 CAof60+:
5.5

the relative value of the areas in the following order: (a) between functional life skills and academic skills, or
functional life skills, (b) academic skills, and (c) friend- academic skills and friendship/social relationship de-
ship/social relationship development. Parents of stu- velopment. Observed ranges for functional, academic,
dents with severe/profound disabilities ranked the cur- and friendship/social relationship items included the
ricular areas differently, in the following order: (a) entire range of possible responses (i.e., 1 through 4),
friendship/social relationship development, (b) func- with average responses clustered from "important" to
tionallife skills, and (c) academic skills. "extremely important" (i.e., 3 to 4).
Parents of students with moderate disabilities rated Parents of students with severe/profound disabilities
functional life skills significantly higher than friendship/ rated friendship/social relationship development signif-
social relationship development (t 46 = 2.58, p < .013, icantly higher than academic skills (t 13 = 2.56, p < .025,
two-tailed). No significant differences were obtained two-tailed). No significant differences were obtained

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015
56 Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, and Strathe

Table 2
Parent Survey Activity Description and Item Positions'
Friendship/social
Functional life skill items Academic skill items
relationship items
To order and pay for meals in a restau- To solve math addition To share games during free
rant (#1) problems (#6) time with a nondisabled
student (#2)
To use the toilet (#3) To print numbers (#8) To ask a nondisabled stu-
dent to sit together at
lunch (#5)
To make simple foods (#4) To complete math or To cooperate with nondis-
reading worksheets abled students his/her
(#10) age (#9)
To brush teeth (#7) To spell words (#14) To choose a nondisabled
student his/her age to
play with at recess (#11)
To find and pay for items in grocery To name alphabet let- To smile, laugh, or share
stores (#12) ters (#16) conversation at lunch
time with a nondisabled
student (#15)
To work in a community business (#13) To read the words in To share a book or tape in
reading books (#18) the library with a non-
disabled student (#19)
To take a city bus (#17) To name shapes (#20) To greet other students by
smiling, signing or point-
ing to a symbol, or say-
ing "Hi" (#21)
• The position of each activity description as it appeared on the survey is indicated in parentheses after each item.

Table 3
Mean Parent Ratings across Curricular Areas within Groups
Curricular Areas
Group Functional (Fc) Academic (Ac) Friendship (Fr)
n x SO n x SO n x SO
Moderate disabili- 47 3.44 0.486 49 3.41 0.586 49 3.28 0.492
ties'
Severe/profound dis- 14 2.61 0.767 14 2.46 1.03 14 2.94 0.362
abilities"
• Within moderate disabilities group significant comparison, Fc vs. Fr (t4<; = 2.58), p < .013, two-tailed.
b Within severe/profound disabilities significant comparison, Fr vs, Ac (t13 = 2.56), p < .025, two-tailed.

between functional life skills and friendship/social re- the moderate disabilities versus severe/profound disa-
lationship development or between functional life skills bilities groups, collapsed across age, yielded significantly
and academic skills. Observed ranges for functional, higher ratings in all three areas by parents of students
academic, and friendship/social relationship items in- with moderate disabilities (Functional: t46• 13 = 4.86, P
cluded the entire range of possible responses (i.e., 1 < .000; Academics: t48,13 = 4.47, P < .000; Friendship/
through 4), with average responses clustered from "un- Social Relationship: t48,13 = 2.39, p < .020).
important" to "important" (i.e., 2 to 3).
The second question examined whether parents place Discussion
different values on the three curricular areas on the This study found that parents of students with mod-
basis of the student's disability level and/or age. Two- erate and severe/profound disabilities rated the three
way ANOVAs were conducted for each of the three curricular areas differently. The moderate disabilities
curricular areas. The between factors were disability group rated the areas in this order: (a) functional life
level(moderate vs. severe/profound) and chronological skills, (b) academic skills, and (c) friendship/social re-
agelevel(CA 6-11; CA 12-15; and CA 16-21). Within lationship development. The severe/profound disabili-
each curricular area, a main effect due to disability level ties group, however, rated the areas differently, in this
was discovered (Functional: F 1,59 = 20.14, p < .000; order: (a) friendship/social relationship development,
Academics: F 1,6 1 = 24.60, p < .000; Friendship/Social (b) functional life skills, and (c) academic skills. The
Relationship: F 1•6 1 = 6.06, p < .017). There were no moderate disabilities group rated functional life skills
main effects, however, due to student age or age by significantly higher than friendship/social relationship
disability level interactions. Post-hoc t-tests comparing development, but not significantly higher than aca-

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015
Parent Values in Educational Programs 57

demic skills; also, their ratings of academic skills versus participation and accomplishment was the standard by
friendship/social relationship development were not which parents should rate the importance of each activ-
significantly different. The severe/profound disabilities ity. The results may have differed, particularly for the
group rated friendship/social relationship development severe/profound disabilities group, had the possibility
significantly higher than academic skills, but not signif- of partial participation been emphasized.
icantly higher than functional life skills; also, their Several future research questions are suggested by
ratings of functional life skills versus academic skills this study. First, in replicating this study, one might
were not significantly different. Additionally, the mod- combine written surveys with interviews to determine
erate disabilities group rated each curricular area signif- why parents rated areas as they did. A limitation of
icantly higher than did the severe/profound disabilities survey research is determining the reasons for particular
group; the average ratings of the former group fell response patterns. Interviews might reveal those rea-
between "important" and "extremely important," sons.
whereas those of the latter group fell between "unim- Second, future surveys, particularly with parents of
portant" and "important." students with severe/profound disabilities, should em-
One interpretation of these findings is that parents phasize the possibility of partial participation enhanced
do, in fact, value both skill training and friendship/ by individual adaptations. Parental priorities might be
social relationship development. Not surprisingly, the affected by whether full or partial participation would
severe/profound disabilities group rated academic skills be expected.
lowest, perhaps due to a realistic appraisal of the likeli- Third, future research might ask questions pertaining
hood of significant academic skill progress. However, to the relative emphasis that should be placed on each
there were no significant differences in their ratings of area. To date, much of the discussion offriendship has
functional life skills and friendship/social relationship focused on an either/or proposition. As our data indi-
development. The moderate disabilities group, while cated, and as pointed out by Brown et al. (1991), the
clearly favoring functional life skill training, rated all more appropriate question may be how much time to
three areas highly. The moderate disabilities group ap- devote to each area. The lack of significant differences
peared to believe their sons/daughters could benefit/ in several of the comparisons (e.g., moderate disabilities
succeed in all three areas and, therefore, wanted focus group: functional versus academic; severe/profound
on all three; several comments in section three of the disabilities group: friendship versus functional skills)
survey instrument indicated that parents expected their suggeststhat parents do not wish to abandon any area
son/daughter to "have it all." Parents of students with completely.
severe/profound disabilities, however, appeared less op- Fourth, parental values in districts in the United
timistic about what might be accomplished with their States and/or Canada attempting full inclusion in reg-
sons/daughters; several commented in section three ular classes (e.g., New Brunswick, Canada) might be
that most of the activities described would not apply contrasted with those of parents in communities cur-
because of extremely limited capabilities. It could be rently less involved with this option. Documentation of
that a belief in the likelihood of skill development would these differences, and the reasons for them, could be
lead to a higher emphasis on skill training. Skepticism quite illuminating.
regarding the likelihood of skill development (e.g., ac- To summarize, this study suggests that parents of
ademics for students with severe/profound disabilities) students with moderate disabilities value all three cur-
might lead to greater emphasis on friendship/social ricular areas highly and clearly favor functional life
relationship development, since friendships may be as skills instruction over friendship/social relationship de-
dependent upon the behavior/attitudes of others as velopment. It also suggests that parents of students with
upon the skills of the individual. severe/profound disabilities place less value on each
Three limitations of this study should be noted. First, curricular area, but do indicate a preference for friend-
this was a pilot investigation in one region within one ship/social relationship development over academic
predominantly rural state. Replication in other regions skills. These findings appear to hold across age levels.
of the country and in urban areas seems warranted to Future research is necessary to confirm these findings
determine generalizability. and determine reasons for differential responding across
Second, it could be argued that the activity items the two groups.
overlapped across the three curricular areas. For ex- The implications of these findings on parent values
ample, purchasing items in a store is a functional life in educational programs seem to be as follows. With
skill that involves both academic skills (money count- students with moderate disabilities, educators should
ing) and social interaction skills {greetingcashier). Sur- consider parental preferences for focus on all three
veys using the general categories, rather than specific areas, with particular emphasis on functional life skills
activities, might yield different results. training. With students with severe/profound disabili-
Third, the survey items may have implied that full ties, educators should consider the importance parents

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015
58 Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski, and Strathe

may place on friendship/social relationship develop- with disabilities and typical people. Syracuse, NY: Center
on Human Policy.
ment, particularly in comparison to academic skills. Lutifyya, Z. M. (1990, January). Affectionate bonds: What we
Emphasis on friendship/social relationship develop- can learn. The Association for Persons with Severe Handi-
ment, however, should not be to the exclusion of skills capsNewsletter. p. 6.
instruction, since this group also values functional life Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1987). An ecological
approach to curriculum development. In L. Goetz, D.
skills instruction. Future research might clarify more Guess, & K. Stremel-Campbell (Eds.), Innovative program
precisely the degree to which these areas should be design for studentswith dual sensory impairments (pp. 225-
addressed. 253). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., & Ayres, B. (1984). A
review of task analytic leisure skill training efforts: Practi-
References tioner implications and future research needs. The Journal
Brown, L., Mclean, M. B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. 9.
Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for devel- 88-97.
oping chronological age-appropriate and functional curric- Perske, R. (1988a, January). Friends circle to save life. The
ular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps Newsletter,
adults. Journal of SpecialEducation. 13. 81-90. p. 1.
Perske, R. (1988b). Circle of friends: People with disabilities
Brown, L., Schwarz, P., Udarvi-Solner, A., Frattura Kampsch-
roer, E., Johnson, F., Jorgensen, J., & Gruenewald, L.
and theirfriends enrich the lives of one another. Nashville,
TN: Abingdon Press.
(1991). How much time should students with severe intel- Rusch, F. (Ed.), (1986). Competitive employment issues and
lectual disabilities spend in regular education classrooms strategies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
and elsewhere? The Journal of The Association for Persons Snell, M. (1983). Systematicinstruction ofthe moderately and
withSevere Handicaps, 16. 39-47. severely handicapped. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Donnellan, A., & Mirenda, P. (1984). Issues related to profes- Snell, M. (1987). Systematicinstruction of persons with severe
sional involvement with families of individuals with autism handicaps. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
and other severe handicaps. The Journal ofThe Association Snell, M., & Browder, D. (1987). Domestic and community
for Persons withSevere Handicaps, 9, 16-25. skills. In M. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of persons
Epps, S., & Myers, C. (1989). Priority domains for instruction, with severe handicaps (pp. 390-434). Columbus, OH:
satisfaction with school teaching, post school living and Charles E. Merrill.
employment: An analysis of perceptions of parents of stu- Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1987). Facilitating friendships.
dents with severe and profound disabilities. Education and Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22, 10-25.
Training in MentalRetardation, 24, 157-167. Stainback, S., Stainback, W., & Forest, M. (1989). Educating
Falvey, M. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instruc- all students in the mainstream of regular education. Balti-
tional strategies for students with severe handicaps. Balti- more: Paul H. Brookes.
more: Paul H. Brookes. Strully, J., & Bartholomew-Lorimer, K. (1988). Social integra-
tion and friendships. In S. M. Pueschel (Ed.), The young
Forest, M. (1989a, December). It's aboutrelationships: Friends
in the community. Presentation made to The International person with Down syndrome: Transition from adolescence
to adulthood(pp. 65-76). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Conference ofthe Association for Persons with Severe Hand- Strully, J., & Strully, C. (1985). Friendship and our children.
icaps, San Francisco, CA. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Forest, M. (1989b). It's aboutrelationships. Toronto: Toronto Handicaps, 10, 224-227.
College Press. Strully, J., & Strully, C. (1989). Friendships as an educational
Galati, K. (1989, December). It's all about relationships: The goal. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest (Eds.),
family. Presentation made to The International Conference Educating all students in the mainstreamof regular educa-
of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, San tion (pp. 59-68). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Francisco, CA. Taylor, S., & Bogdan, R. (1987). On accepting relationships
Gaylord-Ross, c., Forte, J., & Gaylord-Ross, R. (1983). The between people with mental retardation and nondisabled
community-classroom: Technological vocational trainingfor people. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy.
students with serious handicaps. Unpublished manuscript, Williams, W., Coyne, P., Johnson, F., Scheuerman, N., Step-
San Francisco State University, Special Education Depart- ner, J., & Swet1ik, B. (1974). A rudimentary developmental
ment, San Francisco. math skill sequence for "severely handicapped" students. In
L. Brown, W. Williams, & T. Crowner (Eds.), A collection
Johnson, E, & Brown, L. (1974). The use of "whole word
of papers and programs related to publicschoolservices for
procedures" to develop basic components of selected chart severely handicapped students(pp. 309-350). Madison, WI:
story reading skills in severely handicapped young students. Madison Public Schools.
In L. Brown, W. Williams, & T. Crowner (Eds.), A collection
of papers and programs related to publicschool services for
severely handicapped students(pp. 131-275). Madison, WI: Received: May 7, 1991
Madison Public Schools. Final Acceptance: December 17, 1991
Lutfiyya, Z. (1988). Reflections on relationships between people Editor in Charge: Ann P. Kaiser

Downloaded from rps.sagepub.com at PURDUE UNIV LIBRARY TSS on May 29, 2015

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen