Incorporating Quality of Life Concepts Into Educational Reform

Abstract

This article discusses how education initiatives reflected in federal education reforms, statutes, and proposed agendas might be integrated and aligned using a quality of life (QOL) conceptual model. The article incorporates key aspects of the following into such an integrative framework: the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act; a framework for 21st-century learning; previous, current, and new reform agendas and policy initiatives; and the QOL construct. The authors discuss how education initiatives reflected in federal education reforms, statutes, and proposed agendas might be integrated and aligned using a QOL conceptual model.

Keywords

ESEA IDEA quality of life 21st-century skills students with disabilities educational reform college and career readiness

Over the last two decades, educators and policymakers have grappled with ways to better prepare students for success in a highly competitive, rapidly changing, and technology-driven economy. Manifesting in what are deemed 21st-century skills, public education has been tasked with the responsibility of developing the knowledge and aptitude in America’s next generation that is necessary for successful entry into the adult world. A special focus has been placed on college and career readiness to ensure our graduates can compete on a world stage. Indeed, newly introduced curriculum standards and learning outcomes for students in public schools reflect this concern (Achieve, 2013a; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Bruett, 2006; Equity and Excellence Commission, 2013; P-16 Council, 2012; Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], n.d.; Plotner & Mazzotti, 2014; Salpeter, 2003; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).

Educational policy and related legislation has created a complex machinery of incentives, backed by punitive sanctions to secure support of the reform movement (see, for example, Blueprint for Reform, U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2010; Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004; No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act, 2002). Although the articulated intention and rhetoric of these changes may support success for all, research shows that the achievement gap between students who succeed and those who have been traditionally marginalized in public schools continues to grow (Cole, 2006; McLaughlin, 2010). Many students are still not performing to the standards desired, and for some, the hope of graduating prepared for the challenges of 21st-century living is far from being realized. This shortcoming is particularly apparent for students with disabilities. Despite a strong push to graduate every student college and career ready (Fulton, Gianneschi, Blanco, & DeMaria, 2014; USDOE, 2010), equipped with the necessary 21st-century skills, there has been little discussion regarding how these initiatives can be incorporated to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

Carter et al. (2003) asserted that conceptual and discussion-oriented articles dedicated to “understanding issues of importance in the education of youth and young adults with disabilities” and informing policy and practice “can (and should) work in tandem to guide the field as it pushes forward” (p. 22). Therefore, the intent of this article is twofold: (a) to address the lack of attention paid to students with disabilities in current educational reform policy and legislation and (b) to initiate a policy-oriented discussion and proposal to integrate previous and current reform initiatives and utilize the quality of life (QOL) concept as a framework that might facilitate this integration. We advance the argument that for students with disabilities, a QOL framework that focuses on core concepts of equity, equality, and empowerment offers us the tools and vocabulary to engage in this effort. To provide context for the article, a snapshot of students with disabilities in our public schools and language specific to post-school outcomes addressed in IDEA (2004) is presented. This is then followed by a description of the QOL framework with linkages of the components and subcomponents of the framework to IDEA (2004). Next, we provide a critical examination of current legislation and policy, including the emphasis on 21st-century skills’ attainment, and apply QOL as an integrative framework to challenge the prevailing approach to reform that standardizes teaching and learning. We contend that a QOL approach helps to expose the inherent contradictions and tensions riddled in an educational system that has yet to achieve success for all. The article concludes with a call to rethink present educational policy through a QOL lens so that attaining 21st-century skills might become a reality for students with disabilities and all students can truly experience success.

Students With Disabilities in Public Schools

In 2010–2011, the overall percentage of students, ages 3 to 21, who were served under IDEA (2004) was 13%, nearly 6.5 million students (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2015b). In 2007–2008, 11% of undergraduates in post-secondary education, nearly 2.2 million, reported having a disability (NCES, 2015c). Post-secondary education incorporates “academic, career and technical, and continuing professional education programs after high school” (NCES, 2015a, para. 1). In May 2014, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, the reported number of employed youth with disabilities, 16 to 19 years (15.1%) and 20 to 24 years (30.2%) was approximately one half the rate of their peers without disabilities (16–19 years = 26%, 20–24 years = 63.5%). In a separate report, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2012) highlighted the complexities faced by students and their families as they attempt to navigate the challenges involved in accessing transition services from high school to post-secondary education and/or the workforce. These discrepant statistics between youth with disabilities and their nondisabled peers highlight a number of concerns that need to be addressed.

The IDEA of 2004

The reauthorization of IDEA (2004) was premised, in part, on the realization that previous attempts to implement the intended mandate of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 that students with disabilities would be ensured access to the general education curriculum had been “impeded by low expectations, and an insufficient focus on applying replicable research on proven methods of teaching and learning for children with disabilities” (20 U.S.C. § 2649 (4)). Renamed as an “improvement” to previous versions, the 2004 version of IDEA asserted high expectations for students with disabilities with a renewed call to provide “access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible” (20 U.S.C. § 2649 (5)(A)) to “meet developmental goals” (20 U.S.C. § 2649 (5)(i)) and “challenging goals that have been established for all children” (20 U.S.C. § 2649 (5)(i)) so they would “be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives” (20 U.S.C. § 2649 (5)(ii)). Ultimately, IDEA underscored the imperative to provide students with disabilities with “special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living” (20 U.S.C. § 2651 (d)(1)(a)) and ensure that such rights are protected.

To support and strengthen the policy’s intent and resolve, IDEA (2004) requires every state to have a performance plan in place that evaluates their efforts in implementing the purposes of IDEA, Part B, based on 20 state-reporting indicators. Indicator 13 specifies that the individual education program (IEP) in effect for youth aged 16 (for some states, age 14) and above must include “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals” related to “training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills” (20 U.S.C. § 2709 (VII)(aa)). Thus, secondary school students with disabilities must be exposed to content and educational experiences related to the prerequisite knowledge and skills necessary for obtaining a post-secondary education or career-oriented training and eventual acquisition of a job, continued employment, and independent living.

Based on a systematic review of evidence-based research correlated with three improved post-school outcomes—education, employment, and independent living—a team of researchers (Test et al., 2009) identified 16 in-school predictors of post-school success. Four in-school predictors experienced by students with disabilities correlated positively with all three post-school outcomes: (a) students received the majority of their instruction in general education courses, (b) students held 1 to 2 years or more of work experience and paid employment, (c) students acquired a strong set of both academic and self-care/independent living skills, and (d) students indicated high levels of support from family and friends and received occupational guidance and preparation from the school.

To advance IDEA’s (2004) policy intent to honor the post-secondary goals and aspirations for students with disabilities, we offer a preliminary, integrated framework for acquiring requisite knowledge and skills that explicitly situates disability in the proposed vision for students to graduate high school, college and career ready, and promotes equity for all students.

QOL as a Conceptual and Integrative Framework

QOL, as a conceptual framework, focuses on equity, equality, empowerment, and supports (Schalock, 1997). Schalock identified 10 core QOL principles applicable to the lives of individuals with disabilities. Those principles that closely reflect the intent and purpose of IDEA (2004) include the following:

The factors and relationships important to achieving a QOL are universal to all individuals.

Meeting an individual’s basic needs and providing him or her with the same opportunity to pursue and achieve his or her goals as others enhance one’s QOL.

A person’s QOL is improved when he or she is empowered to “participate in decisions that affect their lives” (Schalock, 1997, p. xi) and they are fully accepted and integrated into their local contexts.

As an organizing concept, QOL is useful for evaluating dimensions pertinent to one’s life and can provide guidance in determining service delivery options and assessing that person’s “feelings of satisfaction and well-being” (Schalock, 1997, p. xi).

QOL variables and data should be used to evaluate specific programs and develop appropriate resources and supports for individuals with disabilities (as well as their families).

Several researchers (Felce, 1997; Hughes & Hwang, 1996; Schalock, 1996) have synthesized studies on QOL and their definitions; however, we rely on the eight core quality-of-life domains developed by Schalock (1996, 1997) and their associated indicators that are used as the basis for measurement (Schalock et al., 2002; Schalock & Verdugo, 2012):

Emotional well-being: safety, stable and predictable environments, and positive feedback

Interpersonal relations: affiliations, affection, intimacy, friendships, and interactions

Material well-being: ownership, possessions, and employment

Personal development: education and habilitation, purposive activities, and assistive technology

Physical well-being: health care, mobility, wellness, and nutrition

Self-determination: choices, personal control, decisions, and personal goals

Social inclusion: natural supports, integrated environments, and participation

Rights: privacy, ownership, due process, and barrier-free environments.

Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, and Park (2003) and Ladwig (2010) challenge us to reconsider previous and current reform initiatives emphasizing measurable academic outcomes as a predictive indicator of school and student success. Turnbull et al. (2003) cross referenced the four goals of IDEA (2004) with Schalock et al.’s (2002) QOL domains and subdomains, aligning five of the eight domains with the following goals: (a) equality of opportunity: rights; (b) full participation: social inclusion and interpersonal relations; (c) independent living: self-determination; and (d) economic self-sufficiency: material well-being. Physical well-being, emotional well-being, and personal development were viewed as “foundational skills” necessary for a student with a disability to be able to “achieve IDEA’s outcomes” (p. 72) inherent in the four goals.

According to Turnbull et al., the goals of IDEA (2004) “have been largely overlooked in the national dialogue related to outcomes” (Turnbull et al., 2003, p. 70); yet, a closer examination impels us to ponder whether realization of the four goals of IDEA and the eight QOL domains and associated indicators apply solely to students with disabilities versus the unique goals and aspirations of every individual. In the following sections, we discuss previous and current reform initiatives and investigate the inclusion or absence of language relevant to the QOL framework and, conceivably, the intended outcomes of IDEA (2004) that are pertinent to all students.

Contradictory Notions of Reform: NCLB Versus IDEA

For more than a decade, the NCLB Act (2002) has conflicted with the post-secondary focus and policy goals of IDEA, 2004 (Faircloth, 2004; Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007; Pazey, Vasquez Heilig, Cole, & Sumbera, 2015; Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006). Due to stipulated provisions in the law calling for every student, when tested, to demonstrate a proficient level of knowledge in specific content areas, particularly reading and mathematics, school leaders and teachers place greater weight and attention toward the accomplishment of academic student outcomes and are less likely to incorporate the future-oriented goals and learning outcomes that are critical for every student (Salpeter, 2003; Thomas & Dykes, 2011; Turnbull et al., 2003). Barnes and Slate (2013) summarized the outcome of NCLB’s effects on all students as follows:

Although the basic premise of educating all students appears to be an equitably sound choice, the NCLB Act has drastically changed the climate and culture of public education by utilizing high-stakes standardized test scores as the primary measure of student learning and school quality, disregarding most other positive attributes of students and professional educators and administrators. With high-stakes standardized state tests and harsh, punitive accountability measures as the supposed motivators for learning, students may become adept at test-taking, but they will be unprepared to be academically successful in postsecondary institutions. (p. 3)

The intended purpose of the NCLB Act (2002) may have been geared toward equity—to make schools and districts more accountable and level the playing field for student subgroups and disadvantaged populations. Nevertheless, the ideologies underlying NCLB have contributed to a three-tiered educational structure that tracks students into three classes: (a) those who have access to a college-preparatory program and curriculum, (b) those who may be prepared to enter the labor force through a high school or post-secondary career and technical-oriented program, and (c) a “virtual underclass of students who are neither college-ready nor in an identifiable career curriculum” (Deil-Amen & DeLuca, 2010, p. 28). NCLB has minimized IDEA’s (2004) requirements for transition plans and services to function as a “results-oriented process” designed to improve “academic and functional achievement” and facilitate a student with a disability’s movement from high school to post-school activities (20 U.S.C. § 2658 (34)(A)). According to IDEA, secondary school students should be exited from high school, adequately prepared for post-secondary education, employment, and independent living. Yet, efforts made by the IEP team to (a) translate a student’s “interests, preferences, and needs” into his or her individual transition plan (ITP) and (b) include “transition service needs related to the student’s course of study” (Kohler & Field, 2003, p. 174) and aspirations beyond high school have been undermined due to a greater focus on the accountability provisions of NCLB.

Beyond the expectation that a student’s IEP provides access to and the opportunity to benefit from the general education curriculum—one that fosters the development of critical thinking and college-and-career-ready knowledge and skills within the context of one’s academic program of study—IDEA (2004) mandates the provision of special education and related services as well as supplementary aids and services, when necessary, so that each student can participate in nonacademic and/or extra-curricular activities. To graduate “college and career ready” requires exposure to a conglomerate of academic content and nonacademic experiences (Morningstar, Lombardi, Fowler, & Test, in press) that champion and support the individual’s need for (a) emotional well-being and positive feedback; (b) interpersonal relations and affiliation, friendships, and interactions; (c) material well-being and preparation for college or employment; (d) personal development through education, the use of assistive technology to access and enhance one’s interaction with the educational environment, and involvement in purposive and/or habilitation activities; (d) physical well-being, wellness, and mobility through extra-curricular activities; (e) self-determination and the ability to select one’s courses relevant to one’s post-secondary and career goals and involvement in extra-curricular and/or nonacademic experiences; (f) social inclusion, participation, and integrated environments; and (g) the right to experience a barrier-free learning environment.

Test, Mazzotti, and Mustian (2012) highlighted our current situation and reinforced IDEA’s (2004) imperative: “After all, the goal of any successful transition plan and program is to prepare each student with a disability to graduate from high school ready to take the next step toward college and a career” (p. 353). They recommended that the post-school goals for education, employment, and independent living serve as the driving force to actuate the content of a high school student’s IEP. Achieve (2013b) echoed these sentiments, noting the imperative that “high school graduates, including students with disabilities” should “receive a diploma that means something” (p. 1) and adequately prepares them for a post-secondary education or career.

21st-Century Skills

Interestingly, 10 years prior to the enactment of the NCLB Act (2002), policy discussions surrounding the need to attain 21st-century skills as a necessary component of our education system were initiated. In their report, “What Work Requires of Schools,” the U.S. Department of Labor (1991) foregrounded the imperative for high school students to develop a new set of foundational skills and competencies necessary for them to “enjoy a productive, full, and satisfying life” (p. i). Recommended competencies encompassed (a) basic skills in reading, writing, mathematics, speaking, and listening; (b) critical thinking and problem-solving skills; and (c) personal qualities such as individual responsibility and integrity. Work-skills competencies incorporated the ability to effectively use (a) resources, (b) interpersonal skills, (c) information, (d) systems, and (e) technology. This report turned our nation’s attention toward a greater focus on an individual’s “ability and willingness to rapidly learn new skills, exercise responsibility, work as a team player, embrace cultural diversity, access and evaluate information, be creative, and practice negotiating skills” (Mathis, 2013, p. 1).

In 2003, the P21 revised and updated the Department of Labor’s (1991) report and built an initial framework of 21st-century skills. In addition to knowledge and rigor in the core content areas, the following areas were identified:

Thinking and learning skills, or the ability to think critically, solve problems, communicate effectively, and collaborate with others.

Information, communication, and technology (ICT) skills that require facility in using information and communication technology to acquire new learning and foster innovation.

Life skills that involve interpersonal skills and self-motivation, personal productivity and responsibility, teamwork, adaptability, accountability, leadership, and career awareness.

Twenty-first century content that includes a framework for measuring and assessing 21st-century skills (Bruett, 2006; Kay & Honey, 2006).

P21 identified the following areas relevant to 21st-century content: global and cultural awareness, civic engagement, business, financial and economic literacy, and health and wellness (Kay & Honey, 2006).

In 2007, P21 cataloged a set of requisite skills frequently neglected by educational systems due to a greater focus on acquisition of content knowledge (Human Resources Development Working Group [HRDWG], n.d.). P21 espouses an advocacy vision for every student to “achieve 21st century readiness” (para. 4). Such a vision creates a framework that explores the concepts and skills necessary for the 21st century, combining them with layers of higher levels of academic exploration and achievement. The framework “takes 20th century skills to a higher level” and allows students to use and apply what they know in the context of “real world situations while integrating 21st century skills” (Velez, 2012, p. 19). The P21 framework overlaps with 20th-century curriculum with the stated intent to “help practitioners integrate skills into the teaching of core academic subjects” (P21, 2009, p. 1). The following skills were named as essential for success: (a) work ethic, (b) collaboration, (c) communication, (d) social responsibility, and (e) critical thinking and problem solving (HRDWG, n.d.).

Critical to providing equity and access for all students, Rotherham and Willingham (2009) issued the following warning: “If we are to have a more equitable and effective public education system, skills that have been the province of the few must become universal” (p. 16).

Although Rotherham and Willingham promote an inclusionary approach for all students, the development of 21st-century skills contained within the 21st-century policy frameworks have been glaringly absent in regard to the concepts driven by IDEA (2004; Ludlow, 2011) that we believe would be better informed by the QOL framework.

New Reform and Policy Initiatives

Blueprint for Reform

Although the articulated need for 21st-century skills originated a decade prior to the start of the 21st century, the imperative to acquire such skills proliferates, as evidenced in language contained in more recent reform initiatives and proposed legislation. In 2010, “A Blueprint for Reform” (USDOE) was released to set the stage for the reauthorization of the NCLB Act (2002) or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In an introductory letter prefacing the blueprint’s reform agenda, President Barack Obama advances a national policy goal that every student graduate from high school, “well prepared for college and a career” (p. 1) and equipped with the requisite knowledge and skills to achieve success after high school through the pursuit of a post-secondary education or in the workplace. The blueprint calls for a “re-envisioned federal role” (p. 3) to oversee a national goal to raise standards for all students and advance the expectation that every student will graduate, college and career ready, “regardless of their income, race, ethnic or language background, or disability status” (p. 3). An overarching initiative of the blueprint articulates the need for schools to provide “appropriate instruction and access to a challenging curriculum” with “additional supports and attention” (p. 5) if necessary.

The inclusive education mandates of free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and least restrictive environment (LRE) advance the expectation that students with disabilities be assured access to the general education curriculum in the regular education classroom to the maximum extent appropriate (IDEA, 2004). In that the “Blueprint for Reform” (USDOE, 2010) incorporates the descriptor of “students with disabilities” (USDOE, 2010, p. 5) within one of their stated priorities to assure “Equity and Opportunity for All Students” (USDOE, 2010, p. 5), the IDEA mandates appear to be supported by the expanded vision set forth in the document. Among other diverse learners, students with disabilities are to be afforded the opportunity to receive “appropriate instruction” and be exposed to a “challenging curriculum” so they can “meet college- and career-ready standards” (USDOE, 2010, p. 5).

Whole Child Approach to Education

On July 8, 2014, Representatives Bonamici and Davis submitted a bipartisan resolution to the 113th Congress, referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, advancing the provision of “a whole child approach to education for each student” (p. 1). Language contained within the bill highlights the need to counter current reform initiatives, recognizing each student’s right “to be challenged academically, exposed to a comprehensive education that promotes critical thinking and creativity, and prepared for higher education, meaningful employment in our global economy, and lifelong success” (p. 1). The resolution emphasizes the following priorities for learning:

“to be supported by qualified, caring adults and receive access to personalized learning” (p. 1)

“to learn about and practice a healthy lifestyle” (p. 1)

“to learn in an environment that is physically and emotionally safe” (p. 2)

“to be actively engaged in learning and connected to the school and broader community” (p. 2)

“to know how to communicate, collaborate, be creative, and think critically” (p. 3)

The language and intent of the resolution recognizes the uniqueness, strengths, and potential of every student and their right to be granted the opportunity to be challenged as they traverse through elementary and secondary school and graduate, fully prepared to pursue their post-secondary goals for education and employment. Reform rhetoric or reality for all? Only time will tell.

Higher Education Opportunity Reform Act

Conversations underway to strengthen and support avenues for individuals with disabilities to pursue post-secondary education (see Govtrack.us, 2014b; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2009) led to Congress’ passage of The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (2014; Govtrack.us, 2014a) on July 9, 2014. The bill aims to bolster employment opportunities for young adults with disabilities as they transition from education to employment so they can compete in the 21st century through skills training and strongly aligned programs “to ensure that individuals receive the services, technology, and support they need to live inclusive, successful lives” (Congress of the U.S., 2014, p. 2). Yet, the discrepancies between former federal legislation NCLB Act (2002), recent reform initiatives (“Blueprint for Reform,” USDOE, 2010), and IDEA (2004)—compounded by the omission and apparent silenced consideration of students with disabilities and special education as an integral and substantive partner in future-oriented educational policies that include 21st century and college and career-ready conversations—stand in stark contrast to what students with disabilities have been able to accomplish (Dougherty, 2014).

Reauthorization of the ESEA

Strengthening America’s Schools Act

On June 4, 2013, Senator Tom Harkin, serving as the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, introduced the Strengthening America’s Schools Act to amend NCLB (2002), also referenced as the ESEA of 1965. The bill extended state-level reforms that support teacher and school efforts to “prepare America’s children with the skills and knowledge they need to succeed in college and careers” (U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions [HELP], 2013, para. 2) and “prepare all children for success in the 21st century” (para. 14).

Every Child Ready for College and Career Act (ECRCC)

On June 6, 2013, Senator Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the Senate Education Committee, introduced the ECRCC of 2013 as a discussion draft with the stated intent that states “adopt challenging academic content and achievement standards for mathematics, reading or language arts, and science that ensure that all of their public school students graduate from high school fully prepared for postsecondary education or the workforce” (Library of Congress, 2015, para. 3). In January 2015, as the new HELP Committee Chair, Alexander released a similar draft bill with the same title, adjusted for 2015, purporting “to ensure that all children have a fair, equitable, and significant opportunity” (Alexander, 2015, p. 2) to access and receive a “high-quality education” (p. 3) that would preclude them from needing remediation.

Student Success Act

On February 11, 2015, the House Education and Workforce Committee passed the Student Success Act (H.R. 5). Although the bill acknowledges that Title I funds should be used to provide all children—including students with disabilities—the opportunity to graduate high school, prepared to pursue post-secondary education or the workforce, the stated purpose and intent of the bill is based on four key principles: (a) reducing the federal footprint, (b) empowering parents, (c) supporting effective teachers, and (d) restoring local control. H.R. 5 allows Title I funds to follow the student through choice options and opens up the possibility that financial support for disadvantaged students will be redistributed to charter schools and/or more affluent schools and districts. Ranking Member Representative Robert Scott, in support of the Democratic substitute of H.R. 5, issued an amendment to the bill, noting that their substitute bill “builds upon the lessons of the last 13 years to bring our education system into the 21st century to ensure all students are ready for the global economy” (Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats, 2015, para. 2). In late February 2015, the bill was pulled prior to a vote due to concerns that the bill’s attempt to limit the role of the federal government was not sufficient and would likely not pass (Kelly, 2015).

Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA)

On April 7, 2015, Senate Education Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander and Ranking Member Patty Murray announced their intent to work together in a bipartisan effort to rewrite and “fix” the NCLB Act (2002) with the ECAA with plans to meet and begin discussion on April 14, 2015 (U.S. Senate Committee on HELP, 2015). As of April 17, 2015, key features of ECAA were to (a) return control to states and local education agencies to create accountability systems, including the use of innovative methods, while maintaining federal requirements to disaggregate data regarding student achievement for student subgroups, including students with disabilities and the establishment of “challenging academic standards for all students” (HELP, 2015, para. 6) and make that information available to parents, teachers, and communities; (b) include the maintenance of effort requirements tied to federal dollars that would also apply to students covered under IDEA (2004); (c) provide resources to ensure that states and districts can implement activities for teachers, administrators, and other educators, particularly in supporting new teachers and professional development opportunities for all educators; and (d) allow states to determine the academic standards they choose to adopt for use. The ability to allow Title I federal funds for low-income students to be directed to public or private schools of choice was excluded (HELP, 2015). Additional takeaways relevant to policies that could affect students with disabilities included the following:

an amendment to strengthen the provision of wrap-around services by increasing the number of school counselors and social workers

an amendment to allow parents the right to counter state or local laws and opt their student out from taking tests

an amendment to “improve access to high-quality STEM [science, technology, engineering, mathematics] courses” and “train and recruit teachers for STEM subjects” (Camera, 2015, para. 17)

an amendment that would “require the reporting of the number and percentage of students attaining career and technical proficiencies” by the state, district, and on school report cards (Tavelin & Fern, 2015, para. 18)

The ECAA of 2015 (S.1177, 2015) calls for schools to (a) provide instructional supports and mentoring services so students, representative of all subgroup populations, are prepared for and made aware of opportunities regarding post-secondary education and the workforce that includes career and technical educational programs; (b) offer courses, programs, and/or activities designed to help students meet high academic standards; and (c) administer strategies to help improve a student’s academic and nonacademic skills deemed essential for his or her success. The strong language linking college and career readiness that was present in the ECRCC of 2015 appears to be less direct, and to a great extent, watered down in favor of a greater emphasis on repairing the alleged mistakes of the NCLB Act (2002) tied to stringent accountability reform mechanisms and linked to curriculum standards, student achievement and testing, and teacher evaluation.

Discussion

After much debate, compromise, and revision of numerous amendments on both parts of Congress, on July 8, 2015, H.R.5, the Student Success Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, and shortly thereafter, on July 16, 2015, S.1177, the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 passed in the U.S. Senate. At first glance, various components of these new reforms and policy initiatives seem to support efforts to cross into new, uncharted territory by rewriting current policy frameworks to include the development of 21st-century skills and honoring the post-secondary goals and aspirations of a student population that has traditionally been marginalized from leadership and policy-oriented considerations: students with disabilities. Nevertheless, in the midst of the nation’s policy-making endeavors, we must closely examine the possibilities, potential benefits, and/or challenges inherent in ensuring that students with disabilities are able to obtain equitable access to quality programs and instruction by incorporating the four components of disability policy: (a) equal opportunity, (b) full participation, (c) independent living, and (d) economic self-sufficiency (Turnbull et al., 2003; Yell, 2012) that are largely informed and enhanced by the eight domains and accompanying subdomains of the QOL framework.

Nearly 20 years ago, Phelps and Hanley-Maxwell (1997) questioned the intent of individuals authoring and sponsoring educational reform initiatives of the day—Goals 2000, the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS; U.S. Department of Labor, 1991) Report, and the School-to-Work Opportunities Act—which they characterized as “debatable” in terms of including “students with disabilities in their references to all students” (p. 199) and recommended that policies include a “richly integrated curricula” that connects “academic, occupational, and employment outcomes” (p. 221). They recognized the usefulness of the QOL framework to provide a context in which the articulated goals and outcomes of national reforms that include students with disabilities could “be nested” (p. 202). We, too, contend that the QOL framework is important because it offers a framework for integrating the previously described educational initiatives.

As an integrative framework, the QOL concept provides a language of thought and actions that integrates the core QOL principles of equity, empowerment, self-determination, and inclusion. Therefore, we ask, can QOL, as a concept, make a difference, particularly in terms of informing education policy and reform? Can we apply the QOL concept to improve the lives of students with disabilities? Schalock (1997) posed a number of questions that apply to each of our lives: “What futures can we look forward to? What roles do we have in the community? What significant relationships are there in my life? What has to change for my life to be improved?” (p. xii).

Although the intent and purposes of IDEA (2004) appear to embrace the conceptual underpinnings of the QOL framework, the 21st-century skills framework and relevance to college and career readiness that is prevalent in current educational policy discourse, at best, skims the surface when applied to students with disabilities. Despite well-intentioned language that is threaded throughout national reform agendas and policies, we have yet to establish a clear definition of quality. Yet, such a definition seems to be integral to our efforts to provide the type of education we wish our children to receive and a clear picture of how the desired student outcomes identified in IDEA can be purposefully aligned with a quality framework for 21st-century learning.

Conclusion

We believe it is imperative to activate an advocacy-oriented stance and voice that requires current reform policies and initiatives to adhere to the spirit and letter of the legislative mandates of IDEA (2004). Within the context of achieving IDEA’s four goals of equal opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency, Turnbull et al. (2003) asserted that the “quality of life paradigm has vast implications for special and general education supports” (p. 73). To break down the current barriers due to national, state, and local policies that prioritize student-learning outcomes—based on a narrow set of academic standards—over QOL outcomes, we must first start at the policy level. To restate their injunction in regard to incorporating the goals and intention of IDEA into current policy frameworks and schools, “it is time to be serious about compliance with IDEA” as “mere access to the general education curriculum does not suffice” and “IDEA really intends a far more robust curriculum to be available for students with disabilities” (p. 73).

To adhere to the four goals of IDEA (2004) and promote equity and advocacy on behalf of students with disabilities, we, as a nation, must move beyond the lip-service discourse that has been prevalent in current education reform agendas and policy frameworks. Disability can no longer be used as an add-on term to current and future policy reform initiatives and legislation, couched in deficit models and “an old and outdated model of disability” rather than “strengths-based models of disability” (Wehmeyer, 2015, p. 21). We must combine our efforts so that the lives of students with disabilities can be enhanced. Otherwise, we stand in judgment as articulated by Turnbull et al. (2003): “Anything less mocks the nation’s policies and diminishes one of its greatest resources—educators and their students” (p. 73).

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achieve. (2013a). Closing the expectations gap. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/2013ClosingtheExpectationsGapReport.pdf

Achieve. (2013b). Graduation requirements for students with disabilities: Ensuring meaningful diplomas for all students. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/Achieve%20-%20NCEO%20-%20Graduation%20Requirements%2013Nov2013.pdf

Alexander

(2015, January). 114th Congress 1st session: Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2015. Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/AEG15033.pdf

Barnes

Slate

J. R.

(2013). College-readiness is not one-size-fits-all. Current Issues in Education, 16(1). Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1070

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. (2010). Fewer, clearer, higher: Moving forward with consistent rigorous standards for all students. Retrieved from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/highschools/Documents/fewer-clearer-higher-standards.pdf

Bonamici

(2014, July). 113th Congress 2d session: H. Res 658. Retrieved from https://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hres658/BILLS-113hres658ih.pdf

Bruett

(2006). Why American business demands twenty-first century skills: An industry perspective. In Schwarz

Kay

(Eds.), New directions for youth development: The case for twenty-first century learning (pp. 25–30). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

Camera

(2015, April). Fresh battles loom when full senate takes up ESEA rewrite. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/04/22/fresh-battles-loom-when-full-senate-takes.html?tkn=YNRFuvJtQteiFbStM9Qre%2FGlg0Lyr9lOs%2BIl&print=1

Carter

E. W.

Brock

M. E.

Bottema-Beutel

Bartholomew

Boehm

T. L.

Cease-Cook

(2003). Methodological trends in secondary education and transition research: Looking backward and moving forward. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 36, 15–24. doi:10.1177/2165143413475659

10.

Cole

(2006). Closing the achievement gap series: Part III. What is the impact of NCLB on the inclusion of students with disabilities? Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED495750.pdf

11.

Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats. (2015). Remarks of ranking member Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA) in support of the democratic substitute to H.R. 5 education and workforce committee full committee markup of H.R. 5, the “Student Success Act.” Retrieved from http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/sites/democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/files/documents/2.11.15-RCSOStatementinSuportofDemSubstitutetoHR5-formatted.pdf

12.

Congress of the United States. (2014, May). Statement of the managers to support the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Retrieved from http://www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/ee9c8cfd-cb3f-4dd5-8574-92d9337f02c9/signed-wioa-managers-statement.pdf

13.

Deil-Amen

DeLuca

(2010). The underserved third: How our educational structures population an educational underclass. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 15, 27–50. doi:10.1080/10824661003634948

14.

Dougherty

(2014, May). Catching up to college and career readiness: The challenge is greater for at-risk students. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/CatchingUp-Part3.pdf

15.

Equity and Excellence Commission . (2013, February). For each and every child: A strategy for education, equity, and excellence. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/equity-excellence-commission-report.pdf

16.

Faircloth

S. C.

(2004). Understanding the impact of U.S. federal policies on the education of children and youth with disabilities. International Studies in Educational Administration, 32, 32–46.

17.

Felce

(1997). Defining and applying the concept of quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 41, 126–135.

18.

Fulton

Gianneschi

Blanco

DeMaria

(2014, April). Developmental strategies for college readiness and success. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.

19.

Govtrack.us. (2014a). H.R. 803: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr803?utm_campaign=govtrack_email_update&;utm_source=govtrack/email_update&utm_medium=email

20.

Govtrack.us. (2014b). H.R. 4612 (113th): Higher Education Reform and Opportunity Act of 2014. Retrieved from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4612#summary

21.

House Education and Workforce Committee. (2015, February). Student Success Act 113th. Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/studentsuccessact113/

22.

Hughes

Hwang

(1996). Attempts to conceptualize and measure quality of life. In Schalock

R. L.

(Ed.), Quality of life: Vol. 1. Conceptualization and measurement (pp. 51–61). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

23.

Human Resources Development Working Group. (n.d.). 21st century competencies. Retrieved from http://hrd.apec.org/index.php/21st_Century_Competencies

24.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

25.

Katsiyannis

Zhang

Ryan

J. B.

Jones

(2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: Challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 160–167.

26.

Kay

Honey

(2006). Establishing the R&D agenda for twenty-first century learning. In Schwarz

Kay

(Eds.), New directions for youth development: The case for twenty-first century learning (pp. 63–80). San Francisco, CA: Wiley.

27.

Kelly

(2015, April). Senate panel approves bipartisan K-12 education bill. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/16/education-bill-bipartisan-senate/25716235/

28.

Kohler

P. D.

Field

(2003). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 174–183. doi:10.1177/00224669030370030701

29.

Ladwig

J. C.

(2010). Beyond academic outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34, 113–141. doi:10.3102/0091732X09353062

30.

Library of Congress. (2015). S.1101: Every Child Ready for College or Career Act of 2013. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/1101

31.

Ludlow

(2011). The value of the 3 Rs in the digital age. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(4), 6.

32.

Mathis

(2013, May). Research-based options for education policymaking: Twenty-first century skills and implications for education. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-options-8-21stcent.pdf

33.

McLaughlin

(2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 265–278.

34.

Morningstar

M. E.

Lombardi

Fowler

C. H.

Test

D. W.

(2015). A college and career readiness framework for secondary students with disabilities. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2165143415589926

35.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). Chapter 3: Postsecondary education. In Digest of education statistics: 2012 (NCES 2014-2015). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/ch_3.asp

36.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). Digest of education statistics: 2012 (NCES 2014-015, Table 48). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_048.asp

37.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2015c). Digest of education statistics: 2012 (NCES 2014-015, Table 269). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_269.asp

38.

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

39.

P-16 Council. (2012). P-16 college readiness and success strategic action plan. Retrieved from http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/files/dmfile/P16CollegeReadinessandSuccessStrategicActionPlanPROGRESSREPORT.pdf

40.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2009). P21 framework definitions. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf

41.

Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (n.d.). Framework for 21st century learning. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/about-us/p21-framework

42.

Pazey

B. L.

Vasquez Heilig

Cole

H. A.

Sumbera

(2015). The more things change, the more they stay the same: Comparing special education students’ experiences of accountability reform across two decades. The Urban Review, 47, 365–392. doi:10.1007/s11256-014-0312-7

43.

Phelps

L. A.

Hanley-Maxwell

(1997). School-to-work transitions for youth with disabilities: A review of outcomes and procedures. Review of Educational Research, 67, 197–226.

44.

Plotner

A. J.

Mazzotti

V. L.

(2014). Secondary education to adult life transition policy and practice. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 25, 3–4. doi:10.1177/1044207314529157

45.

Rotherham

A. J.

Willingham

(2009). 21st century skills: The challenges ahead. Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://cesa7ita2009.pbworks.com/f/21st+Century+Skills+Curriculum+Teachers+Assessment.pdf

46.

S. 1177. (2015, April). Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. 114th Congress, 1st session. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1177pcs/pdf/BILLS-114s1177pcs.pdf

47.

Salpeter

(2003, October). 21st century skills: Will our children be prepared? Technology and Learning, 24(3), 17–26.

48.

Schalock

R. L.

(1996). Reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of quality of life. In Schalock

R. L.

(Ed.), Quality of life: Vol. 1: Conceptualization and measurement (pp. 123–139). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.

49.

Schalock

R. L.

(1997). Preface. In Schalock

R. L.

Siperstein

G. N.

(Eds.), Quality of life: Volume II: Application to persons with disabilities (pp. xi–xiii). Washington, DC: American Associations on Mental Retardation.

50.

Schalock

R. L.

Brown

Cummins

R. A.

Felce

Matikka

Parmenter

(2002). Conceptualization, measurement, and application of quality of life for persons with intellectual disabilities: Report of an international panel of experts. Mental Retardation, 40, 457–470.

51.

Schalock

R. L.

Verdugo

M. A.

(2012). A leadership guide for today’s disability organizations: Overcoming challenges and making change happen. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

52.

Tavelin

Fern

(2015, April). Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee markup of the Every Child Achieves Act of 2015. Retrieved from http://wpllc.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/HELP-markup-ECAA-day-11.pdf

53.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

(2012). Leadership for transition to postsecondary settings. In Crockett

Billingsley

Boscardin

M. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of leadership in special education (pp. 337–357). London, England: Routledge.

54.

Test

D. W.

Mazzotti

V. L.

Mustian

A. L.

Fowler

C. H.

Kortering

L. J.

Kohler

P. H.

(2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post-school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development and Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160–181.

55.

Thomas

S. B.

Dykes

(2011). Promoting successful transitions: What can we learn from RTI to enhance outcomes for all students? Preventing School Failure, 55, 1–9. doi:10.1080/10459880903217978

56.

Trilling

Fadel

(2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

57.

Turnbull

H. R.

Turnbull

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Park

(2003). A quality of life framework for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 67–74.

58.

U.S. Department of Education. (2010). ESEA blueprint for reform. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/index.html

59.

U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. Retrieved from wdr.doleta.gov/SCANS/whatwork/whatwork.pdf

60.

U.S. Department of Labor. (2014). Office of disability employment policy: Youth employment rate. Retrieved from http://www.dol.gov/odep/categories/youth/youthemployment.htm

61.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2009). Higher education and disability: Education needs a coordinated approach to improve its assistance to schools in supporting students. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-33

62.

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2012). Students with disabilities: Better federal coordination could lessen challenges in the transition from high school. Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-594

63.

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2013, June). Harkin, HELP committee democrats introduce bill to prepare all children for success and fix “No Child Left Behind.” Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=e561493c-1cc4-46ba-8e8d-b427b82891be

64.

U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (2015, April 7). Alexander, Murray announce bipartisan agreement on fixing “No Child Left Behind.” Retrieved from http://www.help.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=4cea5b0a-0acb-448c-bad9-d3fa00de0e66

65.

Velez

(2012). Preparing students for the future: 21st century skills (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

66.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2015). Framing the future: Self-determination. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 20–23.

67.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. (2014, July). Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/workforce_innovation_and_opportunity_act_-_one_pager.pdf

68.

Yell

M. L.

(2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

69.

Yell

M. L.

Shriner

J. G.

Katsiyannis

(2006). Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31, 1–24.