Search results

Students with learning disabilities are a large part of the population of students with disabilities as well as the total student body. In fact, for many students the general education classroom is where most of these students acquire their content knowledge. This, however, is not the only school placement in which students can receive services. This chapter will describe the historical perspectives regarding placement of students with learning disabilities. Next, it will compare the different instructional settings and interventions that have been effective for these individuals. The impact of the individualized education program will be discussed as well as controversial issues regarding the placement of these students. After reading this chapter readers will have a better understanding of placement issues surrounding students with learning disabilities.

The evaluation of minority children for special education by law should be nondiscriminatory. To be in compliance with federal mandates such as the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA), No Child Left Behind (NCLB), and Public Law 94-142, minority children who are also English language learners (ELLs) should be assessed in their native language or other appropriate mode of communication. During assessment, the child's language skills in terms of both Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) should be considered. Assessments like the Woodcock-Munoz and Student Oral Language Observation Matrix (SOLOM) can be used to determine the child's dominant language and proficiency in both their first (L1) and second (L2) languages. Models such as that proposed by Olvera and Gomez-Cerrillo (2011) which includes procedures for formal and informal assessments, as well as data collection and observation, can help guide a school psychologist or diagnostician when assessing a bilingual child. One main goal of this type of evaluation is to distinguish academic delays caused by a learning disability from those caused by a lack of proficiency in English. Cautions with respect to the testing of ELLs are highlighted.

Misidentification of students with disabilities is a widely publicized aspect of the shortcomings of our special education programs. Many factors can contribute to misidentification. In the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress (Apling, 2001), three issues were specifically identified as reasons for possible misidentification. “Misidentification can result from failing to identify those with disabilities, from identifying children with disabilities they do not have, and from delaying identifying children with disabilities” (p. 2). In addition to the aforementioned concerns, an overrepresentation of minorities in special education programs has been a focal point for critics of special education programs and eligibility criteria for decades (see Harry & Klinger, 2006). Biases in assessment often lay the foundation for overrepresentation of minorities. Others express serious concerns regarding misidentification due to a direct result of the referral (or lack of effective prereferral) and evaluation practices used in many states (Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Richey, & Graden, 1982). Last, misidentification due to the changing eligibility criteria and differences in eligibility criteria across states has been added to the concerns in the field of special education.

In a world of ever-changing educational trends, it is essential for educators to provide a continuum of services to meet the needs of all students. Therefore, employing an inclusive structure or environment is imperative to the implementation of Special Education laws, according to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Every Student Succeeds Act. As stipulated in law, all students should be educated in the least restrictive environment with their typically developing peers. This chapter focuses on the role of the special education professional as it specifically relates to the mainstream or inclusion setting. Topics covered in this chapter include an overview of inclusion, the inclusion model, an in-class support model, a content mastery model, and characteristics of an effective special educator, understanding disabilities, assessing and referring to appropriate supports, collecting data for individualized education program meetings, differentiated instruction, and strategies for inclusion. The goal of the chapter is to provide the overall view of inclusion in today’s classrooms in relation to the role of the special education teacher.

This article assesses pronatalism in the non-industrialized Caribbean in light of contributions that children make to household production. The place that the economic utility of children has in determining pronatal attitudes and behavior has been increasingly neglected by social scientists. This trend is especially unwarranted in regard to the traditional Caribbean. As an example, it is shown that the primary reason farmers in Jean Rabel, Haiti, are in favor of high birth rates and reject contraceptives is because the farmers conceptualize children as necessary to their economic survival.

Since the late 1980s we’ve been inspired by feminist theorizing to interrogate our field of organization studies, looking critically at the questions it asks, at the underlying premises of the theories allowing for such questions, and by articulating alternative premises as a way of suggesting other theories and thus other questions the field may need to ask. In so doing, our collaborative work has applied insights from feminist theorizing and cultural studies to topics such as leadership, entrepreneurship, globalization, business ethics, issues of work and family, and more recently to sustainability. This text is a retrospective on our attempts at intervening in our field, where we sought to make it more fundamentally responsive to problems in the world we live in and, from this reflective position, considering how and why our field’s conventional theories and practices – despite good intentions – may be unable to do so.

The 2000–2006 housing market bubble conformed to a classic boom–bust scenario that triggered the most serious and costly financial crisis since the Great Depression. The 2008 subprime mortgage collapse leveraged a financial system that privatizes profits and socializes risks. Several factors converge to set up the subprime mortgage market as an easy target for industry insiders to exploit. Enabling legislation expanded the potential pool of borrowers eligible for subprime mortgages and structured incentives to lenders willing to assume the risks. The securitization of subprime mortgages transformed bundles of high-risk loans into mortgage-backed securities that were in demand by domestic and foreign investors. Pressure to edge out competition produced high-risk loans marketed to unqualified borrowers. The final piece in the setup of the subprime lending crisis was a move from an origination model to a distributive model by many financial institutions in the business of lending. We find that the diffusion and totality of these business practices produced a criminogenic opportunity structure for industry insiders to profit at the expense of homebuyers and later investors.