Search results

As teachers make desperate pleas for more paraeducators to be hired to support a diverse student population, the number of paraeducators working in public and private school classrooms is steadily rising as it reaches nearly half a million in the United States alone (Stockall, 2014). “Teacher shortages, increasing numbers of English language learners and the rising enrollment of students with disabilities and other special needs are just some of the factors that make the need for a dynamic school team more necessary than ever” (National Education Association, 2014, para. 1). Currently, limited research exists on paraeducators’ perceptions of their role in the inclusive classroom. Paraeducators are responsible for many duties throughout the course of the school day, have a high level of responsibility for the quality of services they provide to the students, and have many concerns and challenges related to their work (Downing, Ryndak, & Clark, 2000; Monfore, Lynch, & Erickson, 2013; Rosales, n.d.). This chapter expresses the voices of many paraeducators in the field and highlights their thoughts on best practices and the continued implementation of collaboration, effective teaming, and equality.

Facilitating inclusive supports and services for learners with low-incidence disabilities involves collaborative teaming, understanding the benefits and challenges involved in delivering inclusive supports, and appreciating the diverse and unique needs of this population. In this chapter, we provide families, educators, researchers, academics, related service personnel, and other professionals with examples of models of service and support delivery. Emphasis will be on school-age learners with low-incidence disabilities. Additionally, an insider perspective of the opportunities for, as well as benefits and barriers to, successful implementation of supports and services for learners with low-incidence disabilities is presented. The chapter concludes with future directions for research.

Purpose – This chapter will examine the role of Central Park in setting in motion certain practices related to park development as well as revolutionizing park financing in the mid-nineteenth century and again in modern times. It will examine the shift from public financing of parks to the development of public–private partnerships to design, build, fund, and administer urban parks.

Design/methodology/approach – The author takes an historical approach to put contemporary park debates vis-à-vis funding and administration in context. Archival materials are used to examine park financing models all over the country.

Findings – Central Park still continues to revolutionize urban park financing. Cities are cutting back on funding for public parks; as a result, there is a greater reliance on private financing options. Not all parks are in a position to rely heavily on private financing, and this raises questions about access to open space in cities.

Originality/value – The chapter raises questions about equity in the shift toward the private financing of urban parks. It extends the environmental justice discourse to examine open space issues. It examines long-term historical trends in helping the reader understand the contemporary state of urban park financing.

We initiated a conversation between two prominent scholars in the field of employee mobility who come from different disciplinary backgrounds: Rajshree Agarwal (from the human capital research tradition) and Matthew Bidwell (from the human resource management research tradition). Their cumulative work leads to vastly different conclusions. In this chapter we had an opportunity to explore their differences and share the roots of their motivations, interests, and research philosophies. The discussion provides diverging, yet insightful, directions for future research.

Political dissent threads through the history of the Olympic Games. Although the International Olympic Committee (IOC) openly prohibits athletes from injecting politics into the Games, Olympians have nevertheless staged protests, using the Olympics to challenge the predominant power structures and institutions. This chapter analyzes outbursts of athlete activism in the context of wider social movements that make these political paroxysms more viable. Social movements scythe political space for athletes, spark athletes' political imaginary, and provide support and cover. From the early days of the Games, Olympic athletes have expressed dissent, as when Irish track-and-field athlete Peter O'Connor rebelled against British colonialism at the 1906 Olympics in Athens. At the Mexico City 1968 Games, Czech gymnast Vera Čáslavská carried out a politically symbolic acts as did US sprinters John Carlos, Tommie Smith, and Wyomia Tyus. At the 1972 Munich Games, US track medalists Vincent Matthews and Wayne Collett protested in nonchalant fashion on the medal stand. At the 1980 Olympics, Polish Olympian Władysław Kozakiewicz issued politically provocative symbology on the pole vault mat that challenged Soviet hegemony. In the twenty-first century, numerous Olympians have made political statements, despite a rule in the Olympic Charter that forbids such activity. In each case, athlete activists were bolstered by vibrant political movements in their home country. In this chapter, I trace the relationship between political Olympians and social movements as well as the wider dialectic of resistance and restriction that encompasses the interplay between dissident Olympians and the IOC.

Collegiality is the modus operandi of universities. Collegiality is central to academic freedom and scientific quality. In this way, collegiality also contributes to the good functioning of universities’ contribution to society and democracy. In this concluding paper of the special issue on collegiality, we summarize the main findings and takeaways from our collective studies. We summarize the main challenges and contestations to collegiality and to universities, but also document lines of resistance, activation, and maintenance. We depict varieties of collegiality and conclude by emphasizing that future research needs to be based on an appreciation of this variation. We argue that it is essential to incorporate such a variation-sensitive perspective into discussions on academic freedom and scientific quality and highlight themes surfaced by the different studies that remain under-explored in extant literature: institutional trust, field-level studies of collegiality, and collegiality and communication. Finally, we offer some remarks on methodological and theoretical implications of this research and conclude by summarizing our research agenda in a list of themes.