Search results

This chapter discusses the significance of Sally Tomlinson’s article, The Irresistible Rise of Special Education and of her sociological thinking more generally. The paradox highlighted in the Tomlinson’s article, that is, the constantly evolving expansion, globally, of special education, alongside a simultaneous growth in support for the idea of inclusive education, is discussed in this chapter. Tomlinson’s influence on the sociological direction of Julie Allan’s work is traced and exemplified, and the continuing tensions in inclusive education are explored.

For teachers to fully enact pedagogy rooted in equity and inclusion, they must have access to purposeful systems and tools supporting proactive and collaborative planning built explicitly to center the needs of those historically denied full access to learning. This chapter takes on the historical injustices that have been perpetuated within public education in the United States since its inception and presents practical tools and systems (rooted in research and refined in the field) that can promote more equitable day-to-day teaching and learning in classrooms.

This chapter discusses the contribution of Sally Tomlinson’s Sociology of Special Education (1998, 2012). Following a brief biographical overview of Sally Tomlinson, the chapter provides an account of the way in which Tomlinson’s work has contributed to demystifying the social reality surrounding special and inclusive education. This is followed by a consideration of some of the outstanding issues and dilemmas connected with Tomlinson’s work. The chapter concludes by looking to the next decade and beyond and the way in which sociology may contribute to understandings of the field of special and inclusive education.

The situating of pimatisiwin as a framework for spatial justice and self-determination aids educators in strengthening their understandings of Indigenous knowledges to support an authentic inclusion of Indigenous students with disabilities. Through the sharing of Canada’s colonial history, and by critically examining the principles of care within special education, the author exposes its relationship with ableism, normalcy, eugenics, and white privilege to show how Indigenous peoples continue to be marginalized in the twenty-first century. This justice work asks educators to shift their perspectives of inclusion and wellness through the insertion of an Indigenous lens, one to help them see and hear the faces and voices of disabled Aboriginal children and their kinships. The chapter discusses the social model of disability, the psychology of Gentle Teaching, Indigenous ethics, and principles of natural laws through the voices of Nehiyawak and other knowledge keepers, in order to suggest an agenda for educators to come to an understanding of an emancipatory and gentle education. Spatial justice and Indigenous epistemologies merge as synergistic, inclusive, and holistic entities, to support Aboriginal children and youth as both they and those who teach learn to celebrate disabled ontologies. The chapter concludes by presenting how Gentle Teaching and Indigenous ways of knowing should be honored in this quest of creating an equitable, caring, and inclusive society for all disabled Indigenous children and youth.

Inclusion, defined as nondiscriminatory education for all, involves embracing gifted students whose special needs should be considered in curriculum planning and in the teaching methods used. However, inclusion has often been connected with disability and special needs education. It has been claimed that inclusion neglects the needs of the gifted. This chapter identifies ethical challenges in inclusive education, with gifted students as a case example. Several critical misconceptions about gifted students and gifted education are identified as leading to ethical challenges for teachers. These misconceptions are discussed in the ethical framework of distributive justice in teaching, and recommendations are given for ways to support teachers in meeting the needs of gifted students in inclusive educational settings.

We consider the theory and evidence supporting learning styles, and contrast these with the related concepts of learning preferences and student choice. Although the theory of learning styles remains popular in the field of education as one guidepost teachers might use to maximize the effectiveness of instruction for individual students, including students with learning and behavioral disabilities, a review of the evidence supporting a learning styles approach suggests that it offers little benefit to students with disabilities. In contrasting learning styles with the related concept of learning preferences, we posit that interventions based on student choice may offer a more parsimonious and evidence-driven approach to enhancing instruction and improving outcomes for students with learning and behavioral disabilities.