Search results

Every successful program needs someone to champion its cause. This also applies to programs for students with disabilities. It is upon this person's shoulders that responsibility falls for initiating the steps to bring disability programs to fruition at an institution. Support services are typically coordinated by this full-time staff member who is responsible for providing students with disabilities a variety of “academic adjustments” that are mandated under Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act. Again, this law requires that post-secondary institutions make modifications to their academic requirements and ensure that they do not discriminate against a qualified student with a disability (Frank & Wade, 1993; Simon, 2001). These modifications may include appropriate academic adjustments such as the provision of course substitutions, adaptation of instruction methods, alternate exam formats, and modifications in the length of time for the completion of requirements; or the provision of auxiliary aids, such as taped texts, sign language interpreters, guide dogs, use of tape recorders, readers or writers, and access to adaptive technology (see Pavone & Rotatori, 1994). The individual who provides these core supports is often instrumental in linking students with disabilities with other support services on campus (e.g., writing laboratory, math tutorial, and academic development center) (Smith, 2004).

Transition planning is an important part of special education. It is a process that helps to individualize instructions and assists students in maximizing their fullest potential. Transition planning for students with traumatic brain injury (TBI) should mirror the regular transition process. The purpose of this chapter is to (1) describe causes, symptoms, and challenges following TBI, (2) examine the broader array of issues and challenges that impact transition planning, (3) overview educational considerations, (4) provide overview model of transition, and (5) review evidence-based practices in transition.

Education is primary a state and local responsibility in the United States. It is states and communities, as well as public and private organizations of all kinds, that establish schools and colleges, develop curricula, and determine requirements for enrollment and graduation. The appropriate roles for state in the education of all children continue to be an issue of urgent concern. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act mandates cooperating and reporting between state and federal educational agencies. State educational agencies, in turn, must ensure that local schools and teachers are meeting the state’s educational standards. The importance of this responsibility creates controversy on how public education should be implemented and what policy directions state and local governments should take. It is apparent that enhancing public education programs to benefit all students requires a process of system change, as opposed to isolated programs and invalidated instructional practices often common with programming in some school districts. This chapter discusses the role of government agencies in enhancing special education and problems associated with it.

The historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger (1999), once wrote that “a basic theme of American history has been the movement, uneven but steady, from exclusion to inclusion” – a movement “fueled by ideals” (p. 173). He might well have been talking about the United States’ public education system where it has become evident that segments of its pupil population have been overlooked or neglected. The good news is that there have been some efforts to ameliorate this problem. However, despite these efforts, there continues to be lingering problems for culturally and linguistically diverse students with gifts and talents. In this chapter, we address how to maximize the success potential of these students.

It has become increasingly apparent that one's perception of issues depends largely on his or her personal history. Human beings, professionals, and stakeholders vary in their perspectives, strategies, and solutions. Rather than arbitrarily selecting issues or seeking consensus among interdisciplinary but disparate groups, it is critical to examine the broader array of values and issues that impact learners with exceptionalities and the future of special education. In addition, it is important to conceptualize effective techniques to reverse traditional problems or difficulties while considering the “cycles” of change in general and special education. These cycles are based on the view that educational perspectives have their time since they come and go. When they are innovative, they become the status quo and become finally obsolete as the next group of methods, beliefs, and educational initiatives takes hold. In special education, we have fundamental values that must be respected and followed to deliver services to learners with exceptionalities. These values are sometimes not valued by ill prepared and unprepared professionals, especially since good professionals believe in change. This chapter focuses on how these values can be respected to protect and advance special education and education as a whole.

The transition from school to work or to post-secondary training is a critical period for all students (Gilmore, Bose, & Hart, 2001; Zaft, Hart, & Zimbrich, 2004). Thus, a challenge for educators is to develop educational programs and services that embrace the characteristics that is prevalent in highly successful adults with and without disabilities. For years, adolescents and adults with development disabilities did not receive much attention from general or special educators. Fortunately, special educators now are reorganizing the complex needs of these older individuals and are making progress in designing interventions to meet their diverse needs. However, they alone cannot ensure the success of these students in secondary and post-secondary situations (see Hart, Mele-McCarthy, Pasternack, Zimbrich, & Parker, 2004). Legislators and policymakers must consider the special needs of this population in reforming secondary education; and general and special educators must share the responsibility of preparing them for graduation and post-secondary planning (see Bailey, Hughes, & Karp, 2004). In addition, community services must join forces with educators and employers to provide individuals with developmental disabilities with a continuum of services throughout their life span. Many students with developmental disabilities find themselves unprepared at college entry in a number of areas including inadequate knowledge of subject content, underachieving in academic skills, poor organizational skills (e.g., time management and study skills), poor test taking skills, lack of assertiveness, and low self-esteem (Dalke & Schmitt, 1987; Mull, Sitlington, & Alper, 2001; Stodden & Whelley, 2004).

Young children under the age of five are particularly overrepresented in traumatic brain injury (TBI) due to accidents and falls. To remediate the problems, confronting young children with TBI, is critical that they are introduced to opportunities to be placed in general education classrooms at the earliest possible point. The purposes of this chapter are to (1) describe causes, symptoms, and challenges following TBI (e.g., physical, emotional, and cognitive difficulties), (2) distinguish mild TBI (MTBI) from other mild categories of disability, (3) identify classroom interventions and strategies, and (4) identify parenting strategies that may provide essential support for them in adjusting to and managing their young child’s difficulties.

Assessment is used to describe the process of gathering information to make judgments about how well someone has performed, how much progress has been made, and how much potential someone has. In other words, gathering information and forming judgments are both indispensable to good teaching. Educational institutions, government agencies, and professional associations are placing increasing emphasis on assessing performance in relevant areas of their domains. In this chapter, several issues important to the establishment of appropriate assessment procedures and the potential uses of both traditional and innovative assessment techniques are discussed. Finally, the limitations of traditional assessment techniques are considered, followed by the future perspectives on assessment techniques.

There has been a grass roots movement among parents and educators requiring answers to precise questions about students’ academic learning behaviors in relation to actual classroom instruction – a movement that is requiring the very character of educational assessment to assume a more direct role in determining the instructional needs of students. Both parents and teachers want their children to receive a good education and to be successful in school relative to their developmental skills. To achieve this, there is no better or more immediate way than through assessing how well children function in relation to the daily instruction they are receiving within their classroom assignments. Clearly, the curriculum establishes itself as the relevant medium for assessing both students’ needs and the directions to be taken by teachers in meeting those needs (McLaughlin & Lewis, 2001). Progress monitoring has of late been on the agenda of educational policy decision makers and administrators. With standard-based reform and school accountability at the forefront of educational policy (e.g., No Child Left Behind Act of 2001), it has become clear that if all students are to meet rigorous academic standards, assessment tools are needed to track student progress toward those standards and to quickly and accurately identify students at risk for failing to read them. Moreover, some have suggested the use of progress monitoring as part of a nondiscriminatory, response-to-intervention approach for special education referral and identification (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003). For students receiving special education services, progress monitoring is viewed as a way to uphold major tenets of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) by aligning goals and objectives on Individualized Education Programs with performance and progress in the general curriculum (Nolet & McLaughlin, 2000).