The United States is engaged in a debate concerning the efficacy of the public school system and about reforms to address the perceived inadequacies of the current system.This is not a new debate or a unique time in the history of education, for such debates ebb and flow as society's understanding of and emphasis on the purposes of education change.We say "purposes" in plural form intentionally, for despite overheated rhetoric to the opposite, the educational system has always had multiple purposes, from learning for the sake of knowledge itself to preparation for employment and citizenship (Pulliam & Van Patten, 1995).Currently, the debate revolves around the importance of school accountability through, primarily, standards-based reform (Sykes & Plastrik, 1993).Although the intent of this article is not to critique this particular type of reform, there has been concern over the possible conflict between long-held beliefs about the education of students with disabilities and standards-based reform, with special attention to the extent to which testing based on state content and performance standards narrows the curriculum to only core academic content areas and limits the functionality of the curriculum .forstudents with disabilities (Committee on Goals 2000Goals , 1997;; Committee on Appropriate Test Use, 1999; Wehmeyer, Lattin, & Agran, in press).Individualization is a hallmark of the federal legislation mandating the education of students with disabilities and best practice in the field.Consequently, there is considerable concern about the iinpact of mandates to provide access to the general curriculum on the education of these students.We begin this article, which focuses on self-determination and quality of life in special education services and supports, with reference to these concerns for two reasons.First, we recognize that educators working with students with disabilities can no longer consider curricular and instructional content as separate from the general curriculum, whether it is the provision of transition services, the delivery of functional or occupational curriculum, or promoting self-determination to achieve a higher quality of life.Second, we want to examine the issue of promoting self-determination to enhance quality of life within the context of and as representing excellent education for all students.Our contention is that a focus on self-determination provides a means to achieve both objectives.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 179 citations exist upstream.