Search results

The study aims to qualitatively analyze how faculty can mobilize the intellectual capital of higher education institutions (HEIs), comprising human, structural and relational capital to enable the education and learning of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Drawing upon the extant literature, the researcher conducted a qualitative study through written, in-depth interviews with a sample of 40 academic staff/faculty members having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The data was collected through a set of questions formulated as key questions, to be asked to all participants for their responses.

Results of the analysis demonstrated that intellectual capital’s contribution to higher education of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities can be best understood in terms of its three components/dimensions. Accordingly, three main themes, with each comprising two sub-themes were uncovered. The first theme, leveraging human capital comprised: faculty acumen and faculty training as sub-themes; the second theme, resourcing structural capital comprised: tangible and intangible structural capital as sub-themes; and the third theme, nurturing relational capital comprised: in-class engagement and the second is ex-class connection as sub-themes.

The paper collects data from 40 faculty having prior experience in teaching individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities to explore and reveal a completely new perspective of looking at intellectual capital as a means of providing accessible and inclusive higher education to differently-abled students, making them a part of the mainstream.

In this chapter, we focus on specially designed instruction (SDI) as a core value for the field of specific learning disabilities (SLD). SDI is at the heart of special education, and the field of LD has been built on the core value that effective instruction improves student outcomes. We describe a two-step test and an extended example of what is and is not SDI for Matt, a student with an SLD. Finally, we discuss some of the confusion surrounding SDI and the need for the field to return to its core value of individualized, intentional, targeted, evidence- or high leverage practice–based, and systematic instruction for students with SLD.

Values have long guided special education services and supports for students with extensive support needs; over the past four decades, those values have been backed by research evidence demonstrating the critical nature of values related to inclusive education, self-determination, and seeking strengths and assets. In this chapter, we investigate these values and their supporting research, documenting strengths and needs in extant research. We emphasize the need to continue to embrace and maintain these values while pursuing research that addresses research gaps while centering the priorities, perspectives, and preferences of people with extensive support needs.

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.

Four reputed leaders for the coming years in the field of special education for individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) each with a slightly different perspective on the field were asked to respond independently to a prompt asking what does special education mean for students with EBD and what is being done and how do we maintain tradition? The contributors' responses to the prompt are presented and then summarized across the essays. A remarkable consistency emerges across the independent essays. In addition to the tradition of providing a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, the contributors identify needs to support teachers serving this population. Needs in teacher training and the expertise required to meet the needs of individuals with EBD are outlined as well as potential contributions of technology to carry out specific tasks. We conclude with a call for increased advocacy for use of the knowledge that we currently possess and that which will soon be discovered to support students with EBD as well as their teachers. We also note that the contributors' names are listed alphabetically to acknowledge the equality of each person to the final product.

The education of deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) students is largely dependent on the preferred mode of communication. Historically, the mode of communication for d/DHH students was determined by society rather than by students and families. This resulted in divisiveness between the Deaf culture and proponents of oral communication. The adoption of IDEA allowed family participation in the decision-making process. Advances in technology increased student access to sound, resulting in more educational placement options. Despite the positive changes, the complex nature of hearing loss and the wide variety in cultural considerations have made it difficult to determine the best approach to deaf education. Thus, educators and providers are left in a conundrum of which version of “traditional” deaf education is best for students.

What does special education mean for general education teachers of students with disabilities? In this chapter, we share our approach to advancing values in the classroom placement of special education students in the general education setting. We will take the reader on a journey through time with “Jessie,” a special education student, as we examine the historical exclusion of students with disabilities to their inclusion in general education schools, environments and finally, general education classrooms. In doing so, we will examine the evolution of the general education teacher's role and how the historical perspective impacts current practices. Then, we will elucidate the benefits of inclusion, not only for the special education student but for the nondisabled peers as well. We will recommend values that should be maintained and practices that should be examined. This chapter will conclude with a connection between the values and recommendations of best practices for inclusive instruction.

Based on the principle of equality, individuals with disabilities have the right to equal job opportunities and career advancements and to actively participate in the economy like other members of society. This study aims to provide an integrated description of discriminatory occupational practices and behaviours that individuals with disabilities face. This study followed the descriptive analytical approach to achieve the objectives. A questionnaire was used for data collection purposes.

The target population for this study was male and female employees with disabilities working in the Jordanian Government sector for the years 2019–2022 in all governorates of Jordan. The sample method used was purposive-convenient random sampling, and the size of the sample valid for statistical analysis was n = 1,043. Using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (v26), a number of statistical tests were conducted to infer the features of the researched phenomenon.

This study found an overall moderate level (mean = 2.76) of practices and behaviours of job discrimination against individuals with disabilities in the Jordanian public sector. All proposed practices and behaviours were at moderate levels of agreement, with the highest discriminatory behaviours being in the areas of training and learning opportunities (2.88), followed by job performance evaluation (2.84), work leave and vacation (2.75), integration and social participation (2.74), career advancement and promotion (2.73) and, last, the distribution of tasks and responsibilities (2.61). Furthermore, it was found that there are significant differences in the levels of discriminatory practices and behaviours towards people with physical disabilities, individuals with visual impairments and psychological disabilities, new employees at work and those with a low level of education. In addition, employees at higher administrative levels (manager, deputy/assistant manager and head of department/division) and workers in the southern and central governorates are exposed to the highest levels of discrimination.

Lack of data: There is often a lack of reliable and comprehensive data on employees with disabilities, making it difficult for researchers to accurately study and understand the experiences of this population. Stigma and discrimination: People with disabilities often face stigma and discrimination, which can make it challenging for researchers to engage with them and collect accurate information.

Moreover, it was found that the main agencies to which cases of discriminatory practices towards individuals with disabilities working in the Jordanian public sector are reported are the direct managers/supervisors (n = 381), the ministry to which the institution/department belongs (n = 278) and the Higher Council for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (n = 261).

Supporting social inclusion: Employment can provide a sense of purpose, identity and social inclusion for people with disabilities, which can have a positive impact on their disabilities and overall quality of life. Improving diversity and inclusion: The inclusion of employees with disabilities can contribute to a more diverse and inclusive workplace, where all employees feel valued and respected.

This study found that discriminatory practices against employees with disabilities in the Jordanian public sector were largely because of a lack of awareness of reporting mechanisms and negative attitudes towards individuals with disabilities. This study proposes solutions such as raising awareness among non-disabled employees, implementing penalties for discriminatory behaviour and updating legislation for the rights of individuals with disabilities.

Intrinsic values to the field of special education include advocacy, inclusivity, individuality, and empiricism. From early days of providing custodial care in segregated settings, special education has evolved into a program that seeks to educate students with a wide range of learning needs in inclusive settings and identify a robust research base that informs its policies and practices. Important concepts such as inclusion and continuum of services have not only been valuable in conceptualizing and in providing intervention for students with disabilities but have also been valuable in advancing the field. Research in special education and students with disabilities has been instrumental in moving the field forward. In the future, special education will continue to be valuable in supporting students whose learning and survival needs deviate from the norm in meaningful ways by delivering responsive evidence-based instruction.

The evolution and trends of special education and educational leadership are evident, especially in recent years. The former has strived to provide equitable educational opportunities to students with disabilities. The latter has dealt with how people in positions of authority in K-12 schools create policy, use resources, and influence other people to achieve educational goals. Together, these notions constitute an idea that school leaders and administrators can provide insight, oversight, assistance, and guidance toward creating educational environments for students with and without disabilities. This chapter examines the current state of special education and educational leadership by exploring the evolution of special education, relevant legal cases, and the enactment of inclusive education. Furthermore, this chapter addresses contemporary issues for leaders, such as the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, while dealing with special education and the increasing pressure from families for equity for students with disabilities.