Pub Date : 2023-05-01DOI: 10.1177/00400599231173073
L. S. Stansberry Brusnahan, Erin Maguire, Elizabeth A. Harkins Monaco, Adam D. Leckie, S. Bailey, Marcus C. Fuller
The Council for Exceptional Children studied the profession of special education and found that a substantial number of special educators rated their confidence as lower in culturally responsive instruction strategies (Fowler, et al., 2019). The recommendations in this article highlight how to confront the intersection of racism and ableism and eradicate deficit ideology in educational structures. Leading with an equity lens requires a conceptual framework and diversifying the workforce, adopting a theoretical framework, engaging with diverse students and families, developing skills through systemic professional development, and using practices such as culturally and linguistically sustaining practices, and anti-racist Universal Design for Learning (UDL).
{"title":"Leading With an Equity Lens: Addressing the Intersection of Racism and Ableism in Public Schools","authors":"L. S. Stansberry Brusnahan, Erin Maguire, Elizabeth A. Harkins Monaco, Adam D. Leckie, S. Bailey, Marcus C. Fuller","doi":"10.1177/00400599231173073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231173073","url":null,"abstract":"The Council for Exceptional Children studied the profession of special education and found that a substantial number of special educators rated their confidence as lower in culturally responsive instruction strategies (Fowler, et al., 2019). The recommendations in this article highlight how to confront the intersection of racism and ableism and eradicate deficit ideology in educational structures. Leading with an equity lens requires a conceptual framework and diversifying the workforce, adopting a theoretical framework, engaging with diverse students and families, developing skills through systemic professional development, and using practices such as culturally and linguistically sustaining practices, and anti-racist Universal Design for Learning (UDL).","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43076831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-18DOI: 10.1177/00144029231165506
Kristi L. Morin, Esther R. Lindström, T. Kratochwill, J. Levin, Alyssa M. Blasko, Amanda Weir, Christiana M. Nielsen-Pheiffer, Samantha Kelly, Davit Janunts, E. Hong
Although quality guidelines for single-case intervention research emphasize the importance of concurrent baselines in multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs, nonconcurrent variations on these designs persist in the research literature. This study describes a systematic review of special education intervention studies ( k = 406) between 1988 and 2020 that report using nonconcurrent multiple-baseline or multiple-probe designs to test interventions for individuals with disabilities ages 21 years and younger. We coded and synthesized study characteristics pertaining to participants, settings, interventions, data reporting, and contextual factors. Findings indicate the prevalence of nonconcurrent designs for intervention studies in a variety of settings addressing social and communication needs of individuals with disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice and offer suggestions for improving the validity of nonconcurrent designs. A PRISMA-compliant abstract is available at https://osf.io/sdnj5/?view_only=f386b1fe5f14430a8d63fceed293718d .
{"title":"Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs in Special Education: A Systematic Review of Current Practice and Future Directions","authors":"Kristi L. Morin, Esther R. Lindström, T. Kratochwill, J. Levin, Alyssa M. Blasko, Amanda Weir, Christiana M. Nielsen-Pheiffer, Samantha Kelly, Davit Janunts, E. Hong","doi":"10.1177/00144029231165506","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231165506","url":null,"abstract":"Although quality guidelines for single-case intervention research emphasize the importance of concurrent baselines in multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs, nonconcurrent variations on these designs persist in the research literature. This study describes a systematic review of special education intervention studies ( k = 406) between 1988 and 2020 that report using nonconcurrent multiple-baseline or multiple-probe designs to test interventions for individuals with disabilities ages 21 years and younger. We coded and synthesized study characteristics pertaining to participants, settings, interventions, data reporting, and contextual factors. Findings indicate the prevalence of nonconcurrent designs for intervention studies in a variety of settings addressing social and communication needs of individuals with disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice and offer suggestions for improving the validity of nonconcurrent designs. A PRISMA-compliant abstract is available at https://osf.io/sdnj5/?view_only=f386b1fe5f14430a8d63fceed293718d .","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84675740","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-12DOI: 10.1177/00144029231165500
P. Zirkel, M. Yell
The central obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is to provide each eligible student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court revised the prior substantive standard for determining FAPE that the court had developed in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). The Endrew F. court modified the Rowley standard of requiring the individualized education program (IEP) to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit to requiring a student's IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to “make progress appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.” The purpose of this article is to compare what the post– Endrew F. courts use with what the professional literature recommends as measures of appropriate progress. The results inform special education practitioners about the significant discrepancy between the courts’ focus on the “must” of legal requirements and the “should” of professional recommendations. The discussion suggests ways that special education professionals can use their expertise to inform courts and legislatures to narrow this gap for the benefit of more effective progress for students with disabilities.
《残疾人教育法》规定的中心义务是为每个符合条件的学生提供免费的适当的公共教育。在andrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1(2017)案中，美国最高法院修订了法院在Board of Education v. Rowley(1982)案中制定的确定FAPE的先前实质性标准。安德鲁f法院修改了罗利标准，要求合理计算个人教育计划(IEP)以使学生能够获得教育利益，要求学生的IEP合理计算以使学生能够“根据学生的情况取得适当的进步”。本文的目的是比较后安德鲁f法院使用的与专业文献推荐的作为适当进展的措施。研究结果告诉特殊教育从业者，法院关注法律要求的“必须”与专业建议的“应该”之间存在显著差异。讨论提出了特殊教育专业人员可以利用他们的专业知识告知法院和立法机构的方法，以缩小这一差距，从而使残疾学生获得更有效的进步。
{"title":"Indicators of Progress in the Wake of Endrew F.: The Distinction Between Professional Recommendations and Judicial Rulings","authors":"P. Zirkel, M. Yell","doi":"10.1177/00144029231165500","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231165500","url":null,"abstract":"The central obligation under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act is to provide each eligible student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court revised the prior substantive standard for determining FAPE that the court had developed in Board of Education v. Rowley (1982). The Endrew F. court modified the Rowley standard of requiring the individualized education program (IEP) to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit to requiring a student's IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the student to “make progress appropriate in light of the student's circumstances.” The purpose of this article is to compare what the post– Endrew F. courts use with what the professional literature recommends as measures of appropriate progress. The results inform special education practitioners about the significant discrepancy between the courts’ focus on the “must” of legal requirements and the “should” of professional recommendations. The discussion suggests ways that special education professionals can use their expertise to inform courts and legislatures to narrow this gap for the benefit of more effective progress for students with disabilities.","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87431503","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-01DOI: 10.1177/00144029231157610
J. Lloyd, W. Therrien
We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide an issue with excellent reports from fine scholars. Here we show how robust research about special education and rehabilitation is, has been, and will be. Applied and basic research is alive and well, and these articles show it. In the first article for this issue, Cook et al. provide evidence establishing a baseline for special education researchers’ adoption of open practices (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open materials). They analyzed a sample of 250 articles from special education journals to assess authors’ use of open practices. They found that most articles reported some features (e.g., statements about conflicts of interest) but few reported other features (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open peer review). This article earned three openscience badges. In the context of current political controversies, Scott et al. provide a teacher-characteristic study about whether teachers who are racially diverse differentially intend to remain in special education teaching positions. They report that special education teachers of color, especially in urban schools, were more likely to say they would continue teaching. They also found that teachers of color reported good support and that teachers in urban areas said they were more likely to expect to continue teaching than those in more rural areas. Stevens et al. wondered whether adding explicit and detailed vocabulary features to instruction teaching word-problem solving would increase outcomes for students with mathematics disabilities. They compared outcomes of third graders in three groups: business as usual, schema instruction alone, and schema instruction combined with explicit vocabulary instruction. Students who got schema and vocabulary instruction had better outcomes, and those benefits persisted over time. Cumming et al. scrutinized the executive functioning of young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Using sophisticated statistical methods, they examined whether there are patterns among measures of cognition for at-risk children. They found that students’ levels of problematic behavior, social competence, and language difficulties showed severity. Their next task will be to show the extent to which these patterns relate to independently and objectively assessed behavior. Employing their refined professional development strategies for improving instruction for students with autism, Ann et al. assessed the effects of special training on employing evidence-based practices (e.g., reinforcement, prompting, time delay, and visual supports) on paraprofessionals’ implementation of those practices and students’ progress on learning goals. Using a multiple-probe design, they found that the professional development resulted in the use of the practices with fidelity in both separate and inclusive settings. Fuchs et al. continued their efforts to develop effective mathematics instruction. They examined whe
{"title":"Preview","authors":"J. Lloyd, W. Therrien","doi":"10.1177/00144029231157610","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029231157610","url":null,"abstract":"We are pleased to have the opportunity to provide an issue with excellent reports from fine scholars. Here we show how robust research about special education and rehabilitation is, has been, and will be. Applied and basic research is alive and well, and these articles show it. In the first article for this issue, Cook et al. provide evidence establishing a baseline for special education researchers’ adoption of open practices (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open materials). They analyzed a sample of 250 articles from special education journals to assess authors’ use of open practices. They found that most articles reported some features (e.g., statements about conflicts of interest) but few reported other features (e.g., preregistration, registered reports, open peer review). This article earned three openscience badges. In the context of current political controversies, Scott et al. provide a teacher-characteristic study about whether teachers who are racially diverse differentially intend to remain in special education teaching positions. They report that special education teachers of color, especially in urban schools, were more likely to say they would continue teaching. They also found that teachers of color reported good support and that teachers in urban areas said they were more likely to expect to continue teaching than those in more rural areas. Stevens et al. wondered whether adding explicit and detailed vocabulary features to instruction teaching word-problem solving would increase outcomes for students with mathematics disabilities. They compared outcomes of third graders in three groups: business as usual, schema instruction alone, and schema instruction combined with explicit vocabulary instruction. Students who got schema and vocabulary instruction had better outcomes, and those benefits persisted over time. Cumming et al. scrutinized the executive functioning of young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Using sophisticated statistical methods, they examined whether there are patterns among measures of cognition for at-risk children. They found that students’ levels of problematic behavior, social competence, and language difficulties showed severity. Their next task will be to show the extent to which these patterns relate to independently and objectively assessed behavior. Employing their refined professional development strategies for improving instruction for students with autism, Ann et al. assessed the effects of special training on employing evidence-based practices (e.g., reinforcement, prompting, time delay, and visual supports) on paraprofessionals’ implementation of those practices and students’ progress on learning goals. Using a multiple-probe design, they found that the professional development resulted in the use of the practices with fidelity in both separate and inclusive settings. Fuchs et al. continued their efforts to develop effective mathematics instruction. They examined whe","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73553685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.1177/00400599231161799
Endia J. Lindo, Kathleen B. Kyzar, Tracy Gershwin
Research has shown the importance of family-school collaboration in promoting positive student outcomes, but also the lack of satisfaction and trust on the part of both teachers and family members, especially with cross-cultural interactions. A key barrier is the lack of teacher professional development regarding research-based practices and systemic support (e.g., resources, time). This paper presents a research-based conference strategy designed to cultivate a trusting relationship between families and educators, referred to as Building Equitable Trusting Relationships (BETR). Critical to this trust-building process is understanding how one's own (and the organization’s) culture and norms shape the expectations and actions in support or detriment of establishing trust. The three-step process for engaging in the ongoing and iterative work of becoming more culturally competent: 1) Cultural Self-Study, 2) Acquiring Cultural Knowledge, and 3) Putting Knowledge to Practice (CAP) is demonstrated in the context of the BETR meeting model. Evidence, illustrations, and possible adaptations for implementing this strategy with diverse families across contexts are addressed.
{"title":"Cultural Considerations for Building Equitable and Trusting Relationships (BETR) With All Families","authors":"Endia J. Lindo, Kathleen B. Kyzar, Tracy Gershwin","doi":"10.1177/00400599231161799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231161799","url":null,"abstract":"Research has shown the importance of family-school collaboration in promoting positive student outcomes, but also the lack of satisfaction and trust on the part of both teachers and family members, especially with cross-cultural interactions. A key barrier is the lack of teacher professional development regarding research-based practices and systemic support (e.g., resources, time). This paper presents a research-based conference strategy designed to cultivate a trusting relationship between families and educators, referred to as Building Equitable Trusting Relationships (BETR). Critical to this trust-building process is understanding how one's own (and the organization’s) culture and norms shape the expectations and actions in support or detriment of establishing trust. The three-step process for engaging in the ongoing and iterative work of becoming more culturally competent: 1) Cultural Self-Study, 2) Acquiring Cultural Knowledge, and 3) Putting Knowledge to Practice (CAP) is demonstrated in the context of the BETR meeting model. Evidence, illustrations, and possible adaptations for implementing this strategy with diverse families across contexts are addressed.","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44146929","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-22DOI: 10.1177/00400599231155604
Hunter A. Matusevich, K. Shogren, Sheida K. Raley, Dale W. Matusevich
All students go through a variety of transitions throughout their life (i.e., middle school to high school, high school to the workforce). However, students with disabilities tend to experience disparities compared to their peers without disabilities in regard to in-school and postschool outcomes. One way to enhance outcomes for students with disabilities is providing opportunities for students to enhance their self-determination. One evidence-based practice to enhance self-determination is the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI). To support self-determination in transition planning, teachers can use the SDLMI to enable students to direct their own learning and work towards self-selected transition goals related to enhanced in-school and postschool outcomes, such as goal attainment, competitive integrated employment, and community participation. This article describes how teachers can support students in setting and working towards goals while also supporting progress in their IEP to enhance student voice and student-directed transition planning
{"title":"Student-Led Transition Planning Using the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction","authors":"Hunter A. Matusevich, K. Shogren, Sheida K. Raley, Dale W. Matusevich","doi":"10.1177/00400599231155604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231155604","url":null,"abstract":"All students go through a variety of transitions throughout their life (i.e., middle school to high school, high school to the workforce). However, students with disabilities tend to experience disparities compared to their peers without disabilities in regard to in-school and postschool outcomes. One way to enhance outcomes for students with disabilities is providing opportunities for students to enhance their self-determination. One evidence-based practice to enhance self-determination is the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI). To support self-determination in transition planning, teachers can use the SDLMI to enable students to direct their own learning and work towards self-selected transition goals related to enhanced in-school and postschool outcomes, such as goal attainment, competitive integrated employment, and community participation. This article describes how teachers can support students in setting and working towards goals while also supporting progress in their IEP to enhance student voice and student-directed transition planning","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48316835","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-10DOI: 10.1177/00400599231155587
L. S. Stansberry Brusnahan, Elizabeth A. Harkins Monaco, Marcus C. Fuller, Korto Dixon
For education to be a means of social transformation that is equitable for all, including students with disabilities, it is important for educators to understand and infuse student’s multiple social identities and culture into educational planning and preparation for life. Intersectionality theory is a way to understand inequities by acknowledging how multiple overlapping social identities and culture impact and oppress certain student populations (Crenshaw, 1991). In this article, we discuss intersectional self-determination skills, specifically self-advocacy. We provide tools for educators to recognize their own and their students’ social and cultural identities and the impact of constructs on students with disabilities with diverse identities. We call on educators to center justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) into educational practices and adopt culturally and linguistically sustaining practices.
{"title":"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Teaching Intersectional Self Determination Skills with a Focus on Disability, Social Identity, and Culture","authors":"L. S. Stansberry Brusnahan, Elizabeth A. Harkins Monaco, Marcus C. Fuller, Korto Dixon","doi":"10.1177/00400599231155587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231155587","url":null,"abstract":"For education to be a means of social transformation that is equitable for all, including students with disabilities, it is important for educators to understand and infuse student’s multiple social identities and culture into educational planning and preparation for life. Intersectionality theory is a way to understand inequities by acknowledging how multiple overlapping social identities and culture impact and oppress certain student populations (Crenshaw, 1991). In this article, we discuss intersectional self-determination skills, specifically self-advocacy. We provide tools for educators to recognize their own and their students’ social and cultural identities and the impact of constructs on students with disabilities with diverse identities. We call on educators to center justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) into educational practices and adopt culturally and linguistically sustaining practices.","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42162777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-10DOI: 10.1177/00400599231157029
Bradley Witzel, Jonté A. Myers
Solving word problems is a large part of algebra coursework and statewide testing. However, solving secondary mathematics word problems is difficult for most students and extremely challenging for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). In recent meta-analyses, two problem solving strategies emerged as effective for secondary students with SLD: Schema-Based Instruction (SBI) and General Heuristics Instruction (GHI). While SBI has been highlighted in recent works, GHI deserves further explanation. In this article, we provide details of GHI and highlight its flexibility and utility using different algebra examples.
{"title":"Solving Algebraic Word Problems Using General Heuristics Instruction","authors":"Bradley Witzel, Jonté A. Myers","doi":"10.1177/00400599231157029","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231157029","url":null,"abstract":"Solving word problems is a large part of algebra coursework and statewide testing. However, solving secondary mathematics word problems is difficult for most students and extremely challenging for students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). In recent meta-analyses, two problem solving strategies emerged as effective for secondary students with SLD: Schema-Based Instruction (SBI) and General Heuristics Instruction (GHI). While SBI has been highlighted in recent works, GHI deserves further explanation. In this article, we provide details of GHI and highlight its flexibility and utility using different algebra examples.","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44214625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-01DOI: 10.1177/00400599231167479
V. Walker, Megan E. Carpenter, Angus Kittelman, D. Rowe
This “View From the Field” column is the second in a three-part series dedicated to defining and promoting inclusive practices in educational settings for students with disabilities. In the first column, Rowe and colleagues (2023) described that “inclusive education” goes beyond meeting the legal requirement of placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment but, rather, includes a philosophical and collective shift to ensure these students have equal access to universal supports and services in general education classrooms (e.g., effective classroom management practices, peer interactions, general education curriculum). The academic and social benefits of inclusion have been well documented for students with and without disabilities (Gee et al., 2020; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015). In this column, we draw on lessons learned for enhancing inclusion in general education classrooms. Our goal is to provide practical considerations for developing and arranging individualized supports to promote inclusion and sustaining these changes through collaborative teaming and continuous improvement.
{"title":"Supports Planning to Improve Access and Participation in General Education Classrooms for Students With Disabilities","authors":"V. Walker, Megan E. Carpenter, Angus Kittelman, D. Rowe","doi":"10.1177/00400599231167479","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599231167479","url":null,"abstract":"This “View From the Field” column is the second in a three-part series dedicated to defining and promoting inclusive practices in educational settings for students with disabilities. In the first column, Rowe and colleagues (2023) described that “inclusive education” goes beyond meeting the legal requirement of placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment but, rather, includes a philosophical and collective shift to ensure these students have equal access to universal supports and services in general education classrooms (e.g., effective classroom management practices, peer interactions, general education curriculum). The academic and social benefits of inclusion have been well documented for students with and without disabilities (Gee et al., 2020; Oh-Young & Filler, 2015). In this column, we draw on lessons learned for enhancing inclusion in general education classrooms. Our goal is to provide practical considerations for developing and arranging individualized supports to promote inclusion and sustaining these changes through collaborative teaming and continuous improvement.","PeriodicalId":46909,"journal":{"name":"Teaching Exceptional Children","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47852320","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：