Search

This paper argues that it is very possible, even in times of monetary austerity, to decrease the perceived costs of inclusion by resurrecting the vocabulary of belonging, friendship and love. Qualitative research was conducted with special educators' (n = 33) regarding curricular access decisions for students with significant cognitive disabilities in the northeastern US. Results about academic access were published previously but participants' use of capitalist economic language remained troubling, and while achievement was described as a necessity, inclusion was a seeming luxury. Intuitive inquiry and principles of economic theory including orthodoxy: the reverence given to economic explanations, and veto economics: words that can stop a discussion or plan from moving ahead offer a different interpretation of austerity and abundance. Healthy economies depend on frequent reciprocal exchanges and problems occur when there is excessive frugality or spending. A disproportionate focus on independence and discreet skill achievement is being too 'frugal' with students' time. Becoming alert to economic orthodoxy and veto words, i.e. 'individualised' and 'independent' enables educators to challenge the false rationality of exclusion. Rather than being a luxury item, inclusion is a necessity. The cost-benefit trade-off for inclusion must be re-conceptualised to weigh friendship, acceptance and community more heavily.

New York State offered schools scripted curricular modules to assist in meeting the Common Core State Standards. Reports of teacher concerns about rushed and rigid implementation led to qualitative in-depth interviews with general and special educators utilizing the EngageNY modules. While participants expressed appreciation for aspects of the modules, they articulated an alarming ideology that inequities (including disability and poverty) could be remedied by holding students to high standards. As scripted curricula gain popularity within and outside of the U.S. our findings suggest an urgency to interrogate simplified notions of equity and the resulting loss of teacher knowledge and expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) mandates that all students receive access to the general education curriculum but does not define adequate access. Street-level bureaucracy theory was used to investigate special educators' interpretation of their role and responsibility to create academic access for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with elementary, middle, and secondary special educators (n = 33) across one state. Findings revealed that access was ultimately a consistent series of decisions. Participants relied on their ethical beliefs about disability and schooling to make cost-benefit decisions, predicting and assigning value to the long-term benefits of academic activities. Researchers and policymakers concerned with academic access should recognize that special educators' implementation of new interventions will likely be filtered through the process of access described. New initiatives and strategies should explicitly illustrate how they increase the benefits and reduce the costs of inclusive academic experiences for students with severe disabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]