Search results

Promoting the self-determination of students, particularly adolescents, with disabilities has become best practice in special education and transition services. Research documents that students who leave school as more self-determined young people achieve more positive employment and independent living outcomes and experience a higher quality of life. Further, promoting self-determination can provide an entry point to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities, and instruction to promote self-determination can enable students to better engage with and learn in the general education curriculum. This chapter defines the self-determination construct as it applies to the education of students with disabilities, examines the importance of such instruction, and provides information with regard to prevailing practices in assessment and instruction to promote this outcome.

Promoting the self-determination of youth and young adults with disabilities has become best practice in the field of special education. Such efforts have been shown to positively impact student educational goal attainment, access to the general education curriculum, student involvement in educational and transition planning, and more positive postschool outcomes. This chapter discusses the self-determination construct, reviews the literature pertaining to what is known about promoting self-determination and goal attainment, and introduces assessments, evidence-based practices, and strategies for promoting student involvement.

Indigenous peoples are often alienated from their lands and culture. This has arguably resulted in Indigenous peoples figuring disproportionately in the social and economic statistics. The right of self-determination is often touted as a panacea to these statistics. The focus of this paper is to rethink the notion of self-determination and examine whether the process afforded by the United Nations Decolonization Committee can assist or whether the sway of State politics and State power impedes this right for Indigenous peoples.

If students with developmental disabilities are to develop self-determination skills, instruction in targeted competencies must, of necessity, begin in the public schools. Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, and Mason (2004) have noted that “promoting access to the general education curriculum provides the chance to more fully infuse efforts to promote self-determination and student involvement actually provides a means to promote the participation of students with disabilities in the general curriculum” (p. 417). Teachers working with students with disabilities thus can (a) facilitate progress in the general education curriculum by teaching standards-based skills and knowledge associated with elements of self-determination (that are typically reflected in state and local standards); and (b) teaching specific self-determination skills, including self-regulation, self-management, goal setting, decision-making, and problem-solving (see Wehmeyer et al., 2004).

Researchers have found that enhanced self-determination can contribute to integrated employment and social inclusion outcomes for adults with disabilities. This chapter will provide an overview of the Self-determined Career Design Model (SDCDM) and research on its implementation. The SDCDM is an evidence-based career design model implemented by a facilitator (e.g. school professional, community service provider, or any supporter) to enable young people with disabilities to design their career trajectory. The SDCDM has the three phases: (1) set a goal, (2) take action and (3) adjust goal or plan. The SDCDM promotes social inclusion by enabling young people with developmental disabilities to leverage their strengths, interests and resources available to reach self-selected career-related goals. The chapter will specifically consider factors (e.g. culture, family background) that influence the development and expression of self-determination and goal-directed behaviour across the lifespan. A case study of the implementation of the SDCDM with two young women with developmental disabilities who participated in a larger study examining the impact of the SDCDM on employment outcomes will be used to demonstrate the use and impact of the model.

Although improving, students with learning disabilities (LD) still do not experience positive postsecondary outcomes at the same rate as their nondisabled peers. Research indicates that inclusion in the general education classroom for core content courses correlates to better outcomes; however, the large amount of content to be covered in these courses makes it difficult to deliver targeted transition services, such as instruction in self-determination skills, in these settings. In this chapter, we briefly summarize the research on transition services for students with LD and then provide examples of opportunities for instruction and practice of self-determination skills in the general education classroom.

Take the image of the entrepreneur as a driven accepter of risk, an individual (or set of individuals) hungry to amass a fortune as quickly as possible. This image is consistent with the traditional finance theory view of entrepreneurial startups, one that assumes that profit maximization is the firm’s sole motivation (Chaganti, DeCarolis & Deeds, 1995). Myers’s (1994) cost explanation of the pecking order hypothesis (i.e. entrepreneurs prefer internally generated funds first, debt next, and external equity last) incorporates this economically rational view of entrepreneurs’ financing preferences. According to this view, information asymmetry and uncertainty make the availability of external financing very limited and the cost of it prohibitively high. To compensate, entrepreneurs must give up greater and greater control in order to “buy” funds needed to achieve the desired growth and profitability. Indeed, Brophy and Shulman (1992, p. 65) state, “Those entrepreneurs willing to relinquish absolute independence in order to maximize expected shareholder wealth through corporate growth are deemed rational investors in the finance literature.” Undoubtedly, cost and availability explanations of financing choices are valid for many new and small businesses. However, many entrepreneurship researchers have long been dissatisfied with the incompleteness of this perspective.

This paper seeks to reconcile two very different views existing in the literature concerning how exchange and demand affect the magnitude of commodity values. Traditionally, value is considered to be created in production and subsequently realized in exchange. An alternative monetary approach posits that exchange itself contributes to the determination of commodity values. Proponents of each view claim that significant parts of Marx’s theory of value are compromised if their interpretation of the role of exchange is not adopted. Drawing on the work of Rosdolsky and Roberts, I argue that it is necessary to distinguish between the effects of exchange and demand. Exchange acts to reduce concrete, private labor to abstract social labor, while demand affects the magnitude of labor considered “socially necessary” in the sense of being expended in accordance with existing social need. I identify a new category of exchange value – the market-price of production – and use it to explain how changes in demand act to redistribute value across industries by affecting the magnitude of abstract labor considered to be socially necessary. In this way the major claim of the two approaches to exchange are reconciled. The magnitude of value is fully determined in production. At the same time monetary exchange effects, or brings about, a social division of labor by reducing concrete, private labor to abstract social labor and by distributing value according to social need as expressed by effective demand.

In general, all differences between the Employer and the Contractor are firstly addressed by the Engineer, usually under Sub-Clause 3.7 [Agreement or Determination]; if the Parties have confidence in the Engineer’s capability to act fairly, many differences will be finally settled under the Sub-Clause 3.7 procedure. However, if either of the Parties is dissatisfied with a determination by the Engineer, a Notice of Dissatisfaction (a NOD, see Sub-Clause 1.1.57) can be filed; thereafter, either Party may proceed in accordance with Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision], see Sub-Clause 3.7.5 [Dissatisfaction with Engineer’s determination]. The dispute resolution procedure under the 2017 edition is outlined in Figure 20B. The first two Sub-Clauses of Clause 21 [Disputes and Arbitration] deal with the formation of the Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board (Sub-Clause 21.1 [Constitution of the DAAB]), including how to move forward with the DAAB if either of the Parties fail to appoint a member of the DAAB (Sub-Clause 21.2 [Failure to Appoint DAAB Member(s)]). Sub-Clause 21.3 [Avoidance of Disputes] describes the DAAB’s role in avoiding the escalation of any issues or disagreements into Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.4 [Obtaining DAAB’s Decision] outlines the procedure before the DAAB in respect of the resolution of Disputes. Sub-Clause 21.5 [Amicable Settlement] includes an invitation for the Parties to resolve disagreements about a decision from the DAAB amicably, while Sub-Clause 21.6 [Arbitration] provides the ultimate procedure for resolution of Disputes, arbitration. Sub-Clause 21.7 [Failure to Comply with DAAB’s Decision] entitles either Party to refer the failure of the other Party to comply with a decision from the DAAB. Finally, Sub-Clause 21.8 [No DAAB In Place] outlines the procedure to follow if no DAAB is in place when a Dispute arises (the Dispute may be referred directly to arbitration).

Purpose: The aim is to explore how family relations are affected by societal changes in relation to informal and formal caregiving and self-determination of older adults.

Design/methodology/approach: Care managers (CMs)/social workers (SWs) (N = 124) participated in a comparative vignette study including Japan, South Korea, and Sweden. Systems theory was used.

Findings: Japanese CMs/SWs clearly describe their efforts to create networks in a relational way between formal and informal actors in the community. South Korean CMs/SWs balance between suggesting interventions to support daily life at home or a move to a nursing home, often acknowledging the family as the main caregiver. In Sweden, CMs/SWs highlight the juridical element in meeting the older adult and the interventions offered, and families primarily give social support. Regarding self-determination, the Japanese priority is for CMs/SWs to harmonize within the family and the community. South Korean CMs/SWs express ambivalent attitudes to older adults’ capability for self-determination in the intersection between formal and family care. Swedish CMs/SWs adhere to the older adult’s self-determination, while acknowledging the role of the family in persuading the older adult to accept interventions. The results suggest emerging defamilialization in South Korea, while tendencies to refamilialization are noticed in Japan and Sweden, albeit in different ways.

Research limitations/implications: In translation, nuances may be lost. A focus on changing families shows that country-specific details in care services have been reduced. For future research, perspectives of “care” need to be studied on different levels.

Originality/value: Using one vignette in three countries with different welfare regimes, discussing changing views on families’, communities’ and societal caregiving is unique. This captures changes in policy, influencing re- and defamilialization.