Search results

The education of deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) students is largely dependent on the preferred mode of communication. Historically, the mode of communication for d/DHH students was determined by society rather than by students and families. This resulted in divisiveness between the Deaf culture and proponents of oral communication. The adoption of IDEA allowed family participation in the decision-making process. Advances in technology increased student access to sound, resulting in more educational placement options. Despite the positive changes, the complex nature of hearing loss and the wide variety in cultural considerations have made it difficult to determine the best approach to deaf education. Thus, educators and providers are left in a conundrum of which version of “traditional” deaf education is best for students.

What does special education mean for general education teachers of students with disabilities? In this chapter, we share our approach to advancing values in the classroom placement of special education students in the general education setting. We will take the reader on a journey through time with “Jessie,” a special education student, as we examine the historical exclusion of students with disabilities to their inclusion in general education schools, environments and finally, general education classrooms. In doing so, we will examine the evolution of the general education teacher's role and how the historical perspective impacts current practices. Then, we will elucidate the benefits of inclusion, not only for the special education student but for the nondisabled peers as well. We will recommend values that should be maintained and practices that should be examined. This chapter will conclude with a connection between the values and recommendations of best practices for inclusive instruction.

Values have long guided special education services and supports for students with extensive support needs; over the past four decades, those values have been backed by research evidence demonstrating the critical nature of values related to inclusive education, self-determination, and seeking strengths and assets. In this chapter, we investigate these values and their supporting research, documenting strengths and needs in extant research. We emphasize the need to continue to embrace and maintain these values while pursuing research that addresses research gaps while centering the priorities, perspectives, and preferences of people with extensive support needs.

Family–school partnerships are an essential component of the special education process for children with disabilities. Notably, recent legislative reauthorizations of IDEA (2004) have focused on increasing parent involvement. For many parents, participation occurs primarily through the individualized education program (IEP) meetings. Parent involvement often includes parent advocating for their children. However, many parents face barriers when advocating to obtain appropriate special education services for their children with disabilities. Culturally and linguistically diverse families face greater systemic barriers (e.g., language and cultural differences) to access services for their own children with disabilities. School professionals can foster opportunities to help families be active members of the IEP process. For example, school professionals should connect families with resources to learn about their special education rights. Specifically, school personnel can encourage families to reach out to their local Parent Training and Information (PTI) Center to be educated and empowered to advocate for services. In addition, parents can be encouraged to attend parent advocacy programs to help increase knowledge, advocacy, and empowerment to access and advocate for services for their own children. Advancing the values of working with parents of students with special education needs is discussed.

The number of students from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds continue to increase in classrooms across the United States. These students have complex needs as they experience more barriers to success when compared to their peers. These barriers are further compounded when CLD students are also identified as having disabilities. To address the barriers and meet the needs of CLD students with disabilities, teaching professionals should move away from the traditional American educational values of individual freedom and self-reliance, equal opportunity and competition, and material wealth and hard work. Conversely, schools and teaching professionals should incorporate the modern values of social justice, diversity, equity, inclusion, accessibility, and belonging when working with students from CLD backgrounds who have disabilities. This chapter presents these values and provides recommendations for teaching professionals and schools.

This chapter discusses what special education means for students with visual impairments (that is, those who are blind or have low vision) including what is being done and how traditions are maintained. More specifically, this chapter explores the importance of advancing values for the diverse population of students with visual impairments, focusing on cultivation of supportive, inclusive, and collaborative educational environments that continue to stand the test of time. This chapter highlights the increasing heterogeneity of this population of students and specific instructional strategies to support the cultural and linguistic diversity of learners with visual impairments in today's classrooms. This chapter also discusses the significance of promoting core concepts that are rooted in a traditional and specialized instructional framework for students who are visually impaired.

This chapter provides an overview on the traditions and values of teaching students with traumatic brain injury (TBI). First, we discuss the prevalence, identification, and characteristics associated with TBI and how those characteristics affect learning, behavior, and daily life functioning. Next, we focus on instructional and behavioral interventions used in maintaining the traditions in classrooms for working with students with TBI. Findings from a review of the literature conclude that there are no specific academic curriculums designed specifically for teaching students with TBI; however, direct instruction and strategy instruction have been shown to be effective educational interventions. Current research on students with TBI is predominately being conducted in medical centers and clinics focusing on area of impairments (e.g., memory, attention, processing speed) rather than academic achievement and classroom interventions. Finally, we conclude with a list of accommodations and a discussion of recommendations for future work in teaching students with TBI.

In this chapter, we focus on specially designed instruction (SDI) as a core value for the field of specific learning disabilities (SLD). SDI is at the heart of special education, and the field of LD has been built on the core value that effective instruction improves student outcomes. We describe a two-step test and an extended example of what is and is not SDI for Matt, a student with an SLD. Finally, we discuss some of the confusion surrounding SDI and the need for the field to return to its core value of individualized, intentional, targeted, evidence- or high leverage practice–based, and systematic instruction for students with SLD.

The contemporary focus on extracurricular activities, here the educational incubator environment, accentuates a need to understand what we offer students in terms of the curricular and extracurricular learning environments when situated in the same higher education institution (HEI). Current research points towards breaking down the invisible barriers and silo thinking. In this conceptual study, we apply the Didaktik triangle as a theoretical and conceptual framing to make comparisons of structurally based conditions for curricular and extracurricular entrepreneurship education (EE). We present a framework that helps bridge the ‘what’, ‘why’, and ‘how’ questions in the two different learning spaces and, thereby, conjoin educators and consultants in possible pedagogical discussions on how they work with the students. The suggested bridge frames a wider ‘why’ and adds a more holistic and cohesive view of the two different types of settings. Our study contributes to the literature on how to bridge the blurred lines between curricular and extracurricular activities and break down the silos. The framework can act as an inspiration for entrepreneurship educators and practitioners who wish to provide more suitable and sustainable structures and develop a holistic learning environment.

This performance autoethnography may or may not be interpreted as a continuation of a conversation regarding the experiences of those with devalued statuses in academic settings. The authors rely on “strange accounting” to consider their experiences in the academy from various standpoints: before and after promotion, before and after leaving academia. While reflecting on our past experiences, we introduce the concept of “everyday precariousness” as a way of explaining the normalization of instability, insecurity, and negative affect that is part of everyday life for those with devalued statuses in academic settings and beyond. Everyday precariousness is an embodied experience for those in vulnerable positions. Normalized exposure to risks, such as discrimination, harassment, bullying, or structural instability, produces an undercurrent of threat that permeates academic culture. Our stories of everyday precariousness span race, ethnicity, class, academic roles, and gender boundaries (among many others). Analyzing these experiences furthers previous work on the uses of strange accounting as well as the dynamics of status silencing. In the final analysis, unresisted and unabated, everyday precariousness and status silencing can lead to institutional failure and resonance disasters.