Abstract
Teacher educators have the critical task of equipping pre- and inservice teachers with the historical and practical knowledge necessary to address the unique needs of students identified with disabilities. Students identified with disabilities, as with any marginalized group of students, deserve equitable educational opportunities, especially when considering how students’ intersecting identities might impact their educational journeys. That is, while education-based decisions for students identified with disabilities might, in many cases, focus solely on their disability status, socioemotional adjustment, behavior, and academic performance, we argue that school officials must also consider students’ intersecting social identities when collaborating with service providers in making critical decisions about students’ education-based needs. For example, while two students with a similar disability status might seem similar in need, it would be a mistake for school officials to ignore how both students’ unique social identities (e.g., racial identity, gender identity, and sexual orientation) intersect to influence how they are perceived by others – and the quality of services they receive to support their daily functioning within the educational environment. Therefore, if we expect teachers to provide equitable services to students identified with disabilities, then teacher educators must first ensure that their curriculums are built on critical knowledge regarding the historical and current marginalization of students identified with disabilities in the United States. Teacher educators must also provide a critical overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides federal guidelines for accommodating the needs of all students identified with disabilities. Teacher educators must further provide pre- and inservice teachers with theoretical and research-based knowledge on best practices for effectively addressing the unique needs of students identified with disabilities, especially as they relate to the challenges associated with students’ intersecting social identities. Lastly, teacher educators must ensure that pre- and inservice teachers are provided with practical community-based activities that connect policy (and theory) to practice.
To meet these objectives, we propose three pillars of effective instruction for teacher educators in helping pre- and inservice teachers to support students identified with disabilities. These pillars are grounded in IDEA and include an exploration of (1) the historical foundation of special education services for children identified with disabilities and its link to the Civil Rights Movement; (2) current federal education policies regarding children identified with disabilities; and (3) effective strategies for child and family advocacy. As we discuss these pillars in full, we will include a brief history of the intersection of students’ disability status with their race in the United States, as well as provide practical applications of IDEA federal guidelines. We strongly believe that structuring curriculum in relation to the three proposed pillars will help teacher educators in equipping both pre- and inservice teachers with critical knowledge for effectively working with students identified with disabilities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American public school law. Cengage Learning.
Baglieri, S. (2012). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for creating least restrictive attitudes. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28.
Blanchett, W. J. (2009). A retrospective examination of urban education: From Brown to the resegregation of African Americans in special education—It is time to “go for broke”. Urban Education, 44(4), 370–388.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Cheatham, G. A., Hart, J. E., Malian, I., & McDonald, J. (2012). Six things to never say or hear during an IEP meeting: Educators as advocates for families. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 50–57.
Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Wiley.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Cruz, R. A., & Rodl, J. E. (2018). An integrative synthesis of literature on disproportionality in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 52(1), 50–63.
DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94–142 (1975).
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).
Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2005). Tools of exclusion: Race, disability, and (re) segregated education. Teachers College Record, 107(3), 453–474.
Fish, W. W. (2008). The IEP meeting: Perceptions of parents of students who receive special education services. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(1), 8–14.
Hatch, T., & Grossman, P. (2009). Learning to look beyond the boundaries of representation: Using technology to examine teaching (overview for a digital exhibition: Learning from the practice of teaching). Journal of Teacher Education, 60(1), 70–85.
Heward, W. L. (2012). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Hunt, C. (2015). Least Restrictive Environment. Retrieved from https://www.thinglink.com/scene/708455600446504961.
IDEA. Sec. 300.115 Continuum of alternative placements. Retrieved from https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.115.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Lake, J. F., & Billingsley, B. S. (2000). An analysis of factors that contribute to parent—School conflict in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 21(4), 240–251.
Least Restrictive Environment (n.d.). Retrieved from https://educ6300kwiep.weebly.com/lrespecial-delivery.html
Lo, L. (2008). Chinese families’ level of participation and experiences in IEP meetings. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(1), 21–27.
Marx, T. A., Hart, J. L., Nelson, L., Love, J., Baxter, C. M., Gartin, B., & Schaefer Whitby, P. J. (2014). Guiding IEP teams on meeting the least restrictive environment mandate. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(1), 45–50.
Mills v. board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).
Mueller, T. G. (2015). Litigation and special education: The past, present, and future direction for resolving conflicts between parents and school districts. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 26(3), 135–143.
National Council on Disability (2018). The segregation of students with disabilities. Washington, DC. https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Segregation-SWD_508.pdf
National Education Association (2007). Truth in Labeling: Disproportionality in special education. Washington, DC. http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/EW-TruthInLabeling.pdf
Pang, Y. (2011). Barriers and solutions in involving culturally linguistically diverse families in the IFSP/IEP process. Making Connections: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Cultural Diversity, 12(2), 42–51.
Parette, H. P., & Petch-Hogan, B. (2000). Approaching families: Facilitating culturally/linguistically diverse family involvement. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(2), 4–10.
Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. Racial inequity in special education, 15–37.
Pruitt, P., Wandry, D., & Hollums, D. (1998). Listen to us! Parents speak out about their interactions with special educators. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 42(4), 161–166.
Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children (PARC) v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (1971). 334 F. Supp. 1257 (1971).
Salas, L. (2004). Individualized educational plan (IEP) meetings and Mexican American parents: Let’s talk about it. Journal of Latinos and Education, 3(3), 181–192.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288.
Stone, G. R., Seidman, J. C., Seidman, A. R., Sustein, C. R., Tushnet, M., Karlan, P., Tushnet, R., Tushnet L. (2009). Constitutional Law. (6th ed.) New York: Aspen Publishers.
Taylor, S. J. (2004). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive environment. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(4), 218–230.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. Washington, DC.
Wakelin, M. M. (2008). Challenging disparities in special education: Moving parents from disempowered team members to ardent advocates. Nw. JL & Soc. Pol’y, 3, 263.
Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., & Bradley, M. R. (2011). The individuals with disabilities education act: The evolution of special education law. In Handbook of special education (pp. 61–76). Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, New York, NY.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply
About this entry
Cite this entry
Harven, A.M., Perouse-Harvey, E. (2020). Instructing Pre- and Inservice Teachers to Support Students with (Dis)abilities: Pillars, Practical Applications, and Students’ Intersecting Identities. In: Papa, R. (eds) Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_132
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_132
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-14624-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-14625-2
eBook Packages: EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education