Instructing Pre- and Inservice Teachers to Support Students with (Dis)abilities: Pillars, Practical Applications, and Students’ Intersecting Identities
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.
KeywordsSpecial education Special needs Students with disabilities Students identified with disabilities Children identified with disabilities Disability (Dis)ability Dis/ability Disabilities Teacher educators Teacher Teachers Preservice Inservice Pre- and inservice Early intervention Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEA Individualized Education Program IEP Least restrictive environment LRE Intersectionality Advocacy
- Alexander, K., & Alexander, M. D. (2009). American public school law. Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- Baglieri, S. (2012). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for creating least restrictive attitudes. Routledge, Taylor & Francis, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar
- Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Education for All Handicapped Children Act, P.L. 94–142 (1975).Google Scholar
- Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. ___ (2017).Google Scholar
- Heward, W. L. (2012). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education. (10th ed.). New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
- 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).Google Scholar
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).Google Scholar
- Least Restrictive Environment (n.d.). Retrieved from https://educ6300kwiep.weebly.com/lrespecial-delivery.html
- Mills v. board of Education of District of Columbia 348 F. Supp. 866 (1972).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Parrish, T. (2002). Racial disparities in the identification, funding, and provision of special education. Racial inequity in special education, 15–37.Google Scholar
- Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children (PARC) v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (1971). 334 F. Supp. 1257 (1971).Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar