Reconciling Ecological Educational Planning with Access to the Common Core: Putting the Cart before the Horse?: A Response to Hunt and McDonnell

Abstract

There is a well-worn joke retold with multiple variations, most of which involve either rival universities or college majors looked at with disdain. It starts off with something like BWhat did the political science graduate say to the engineering graduate?[ and finishes with BWelcome to Starbucks. What can I get started for you?[ The suggestion, clearly, is that what one learns in schoolVwhat one studiesVwill influence the sorts of jobs available to them and where they fall in the social hierarchy. Hunt, McDonnell, and Crocket (2012) highlight the current curriculum debate occurring in the area of severe disabilities and suggest that that a middle ground exists between these competing views: one emphasizing the general curriculum (e.g., Common Core) for all students and the other one stressing an ecological approach focused on current and future student needs. Their effort at reconciling these vying points is, in part, a way to provide educators with a framework to navigate the demands of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the needs of a students not captured by typical educational standards. The field needs an open, in-depth, and scientific discussion on this matter; any less would be unjust. In this brief commentary, I hope to draw attention to some of the ideas proposed by Hunt et al., first at the individual level and then at the broader level of the field at large. Regarding the tired joke above, there are some systemic issues beyond what students study in school (and how effectively it is taught) that have not fully entered the debate; as in the joke, these issues relate, at least partially, to employment. I plan to elaborate on this later in the discussion. At the Student Level, What Should Drive Curriculum Decisions?