KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2013)
Course Number/Program Name INED
8306
Department Inclusive Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.S/Ed.D. in Special Education
Proposed Effective Date Summer 2014
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
Sections to be Completed
X New Course Proposal
II, III, IV, V, VII
Course Title Change
I, II, III
Course Number Change
I, II, III
Course Credit Change
I, II, III
Course Prerequisite Change
I, II, III
Course Description Change
I, II, III
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and
description), a new course with a new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course
proposed as part of a new program. Current catalog information (Section I) is required
for each existing course incorporated into the program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Patricia McHatton
Faculty Member
Not Approved
Not Approved
Karen Kuhel
Department Curriculum Committee
_____
Date
Date
Patricia McHatton
Department Chair
Date
College Curriculum Committee
Date
College Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Vice President for Academic Affair
Date
President
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Class Hours
____Laboratory Hours_______Credit Hours________
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
___
___
___
___
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number ____INED 8306
_______________________________
Course Title _______ Critical issues in Special / Education __________
Class Hours
3 ____Laboratory Hours____0___CreditHours___3_____
Prerequisites Admission to the Ed.S/Ed.D or Instructor/Program Coordinator Approval
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course engages education leaders in an in-depth analysis of controversial issues in
special and general education. It encourages active debate in three broad areas: 1) special
education and society, social policy, and practice; 2) inclusion, philosophies, and
epistemologies; and 3) issues about exceptionality and critical considerations about
specific issues in the field.
III.
Justification
The history of special / education is frought with critical issues including equity,
access, exclusion, and segregation of students with disabilities or at-risk of
identification, as well as stigmatization and discrimination due to labeling. The
preparation of future special education leaders requires a deep understanding of
these issues which inform how these students are educated and the implications for
today’s schools.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Dr. Patricia Alvarez McHatton (additional instructors who can teach
this course include Dr. Harriet Bessette and Dr. Kate Zimmer
Text: Byrnes, M. (2013). Taking sides: Clashing views in special education
(6th Ed). New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Additional readings pertinent to the weekly topics (see last page of syllabus).
Objectives:
1.
Candidates will examine the concept of history in person and their
positionality within that framework
2.
Candidate will critically reflect on his/her epistemologies and how they
shape individual responses to critical issues in special education
3.
Candidate will reflect on his/her own complicity in issues affecting
special education
4.
Candidate will read and respond to existing literature pertaining to issues
in special education
5.
Candidate will identify, critically examine, and debate issues in the field
of special education
Instructional Method
Face-to-face and online when approved.
Method of Evaluation
Regular
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
This course replaces an existing course. No funds are needed beyond library resources. I have
included $1000 for library resources to purchase books and support journal subscriptions.
Resource
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
Amount
$500
$500
TOTAL
$1000
This course replaces an existing course. No funds are needed beyond library resources
($1000) to purchase books and support journal subscriptions.
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office of
the Registrar once the Office of the President has approved the course.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
INED
8306
Critical Issues in Spec Educ
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
3-0-3
Summer 2014
R
required as prerequisites
APPROVED:
_____________________________________________
___
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __
VII Attach Syllabus
(*Last day to withdraw w/o academic penalty: )
I.
COURSE NUMBER: INED 8306
COURSE TITLE: Critical Issues in Special / Education
COLLEGE OR SCHOOL:
SEMESTER/TERM & YEAR:
II.
INSTRUCTOR:
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
OFFICE:
III.
CLASS MEETINGS:
IV.
TEXTS:
Required:
Byrnes, M. (2013). Taking sides: Clashing views in special education (6th Ed). New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Additional readings pertinent to the weekly topics (see last page of syllabus).
Galileo password:
V. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course engages education leaders in an in-depth analysis of controversial issues in special
and general education. It encourages active debate in three broad areas: 1) special education and
society, social policy, and practice; 2) inclusion, philosophies, and epistemologies; and 3) issues
about exceptionality and critical considerations about specific issues in the field.
Pre-requisites: Admission to the doctoral program.
VI.
PURPOSE/RATIONALE
The history of special education is frought with critical issues including equity, access, exclusion,
and segregation of students with disabilities or at-risk of identification as well as stigmatization
and discrimination due to labeling. Artiles (1998; Minnow, 1991) provides a substantive
discussion of the dilemma of difference. Identification of a disability is necessary in order to
obtain necessary services; however, such identification may lead to stigmatization. Failure to
identify a disability results in a lack of services and also may lead to stigmatization due to poor
academic and behavioral outcomes. Furthermore, there is extensive evidence of well-intentioned
policies resulting in unintended consequences (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher, & Ortiz, 2010) for
students with disabilities and other historically marginalized learners. A critical examination of
issues in special education must also examine the socio-cultural context in which our practice is
situated if we are to improve outcomes for students with disabilities (Artiles & Trent, 1994;
Chamberlain, 2006; McLaughlin, 2010; O’Connor & Fernandez, 2006; Skiba et al., 2008). Thus,
history in person in education (Alvarez McHatton, Glenn, Sue, & Gordon, 2012; Holland &
Lave, 2001), coupled with what Gutiérrez (2008) refers to as social dreaming, a conceptual
metaphor that allows for “redefining both the ‘world as it is today’ and the ‘world as it could be”
(p. 158) set the framework for the course.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Candidates will examine the concept of history in person and their positionality within that
framework
Candidate will critically reflect on his/her epistemologies and how they shape individual
responses to critical issues in special education
Candidate will reflect on his/her own complicity in issues affecting special education
Candidate will read and respond to existing literature pertaining to issues in special
education
Candidate will identify, critically examine, and debate issues in the field of special education
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY’S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership
Our vision as a nationally recognized Educator Preparation Program (EPP) is to remain at the
forefront of educator preparation. Informed by responsive engagement in collaborative
partnerships, we advance educational excellence through innovative teaching in an ever-changing
global and digital learning environment. Our mission is to prepare educators to improve student
learning within a collaborative teaching and learning community through innovative teaching,
purposeful research, and engaged service. The essence of our vision and mission is captured in
the theme Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning and Leadership, which
was adopted in 2002 to express concisely the fundamental approach to educator preparation at
KSU.
The Educator Preparation Program (EPP) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers, teacher
leaders and school leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels
of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom
instruction, and to enhance the structures that support all learning. To that end, the EPP fosters
the development of candidates as they progress through stages of growth from novice to
proficient to expert and leader. Within the EPP conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a
process of continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational
leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are entwined and that only through the
implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and reach high levels of
learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the
EPP recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university
and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this collaboration with
professionals in the university, local communities, public and private schools and school districts,
parents and other professional partners, the EPP meets the ultimate goal of bringing all of
Georgia’s students to high levels of learning.
Knowledge Base
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg
(1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning
process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to
preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the
continuum phases, teachers progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms
toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their teaching. We, like Sternberg
(1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
The knowledge base for methods of teaching students learning English continues to develop
rapidly. Current directions include multiple intelligence models, content-based instruction, and
L1/L2 approaches to teaching and learning. The field draws on research literature in the areas
of second language acquisition, bilingualism and cognition, L1/L2 literacy, and social justice.
EPP Diversity Statement
The KSU Educator Preparation Provider (EPP) believes all learners are entitled to equitable
educational opportunities. To that end, programs within the EPP consist of curricula, field
experiences, and clinical practice that promote candidates’ development of knowledge, skills, and
professional dispositions related to diversity identified in the unit’s conceptual framework,
including the local community, Georgia, the nation, and the world. Curricula and applied
experiences are based on well-developed knowledge foundations for, and conceptualizations of,
diversity and inclusion so that candidates can apply them effectively in schools. Candidates learn
to contextualize teaching and draw effectively on representations from the students’ own
experiences and cultures. They learn to collaborate and engage with families in ways that value
the resources, understandings, and knowledge that students bring from their home lives,
communities and cultures as assets to enrich learning opportunities. Candidates maintain high
expectations for all students (including English learners, students with exceptionalities and other
historically marginalized and underrepresented students), and support student success through
research-based culturally, linguistically, and socially relevant pedagogies and curricula.
Technology
Technology Standards & Use: Technology Standards for Educators are required by the
Professional Standards Commission. Telecommunication and information technologies will be
integrated throughout the master teacher preparation program, and all candidates must be able to
use technology to improve student learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for
Educators. During the courses, candidates will be provided with opportunities to explore and use
instructional media, especially microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of
productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities, local-net and Internet, feel confident to design
multimedia instructional materials, and use various software. Library research required in this
course is supported by the Galileo system. D2L is a tool available to use for distance learning
and will also be the primary mode of communication, especially in case of weather related
notices regarding class. Course materials will be posted on D2L two to three weeks before they
are discussed in class.
Theoretical Framework for the Ed.D. & Ed.S. in Teaching Field Majors
Conceptual
Theoretical
Contextual
Learner
Practice
Informed pedagogical approaches arise from teachers’ critical understandings of
Theoretical/Conceptual, Contextual, and Practical/Applied influences on the learner. The belief
that all students can learn when the learner is the pedagogical core—promoted by Weimer
(2002)—is the foundation of this program. Within this learner-centered conceptual framework,
learners are embodied as P-16 students, pre-service candidates, teachers, teacher-leaders, and
school and district leaders and administrators, all of whom engage in a coherent, learner-centered
approach (Copland & Knapp, 2006). According to Lambert and McCombs (2000) and Alexander
and Murphy (2000), the confluence of Practical, Contextual, and Conceptual Critical
Understandings forms a lens for understanding Learner-Centered Psychological Principles.
Within the Education and Research Core and the Teaching Field Pedagogy core courses, the
candidates are introduced to key theories/concepts, which are then examined according to the
context of their teaching situation addressing issues of grade level, diversity, and school type. The
assessments of the key theories/concepts in the courses, including formal and informal, are
practical, which means the candidates apply the theories/concepts in a practical situation, such as
a 7th grade science classroom.
VII. POLICIES:
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct,
as published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of
Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding
plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials,
misrepresentation/falsification of University records or academic work, malicious removal,
retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities
and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic
misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary
Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member, resulting in a grade
adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of Conduct's
minimum one semester suspension requirement.
ATTENDANCE POLICY
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. Regular
attendance is required for all scheduled classes in that the candidate is responsible for obtaining
all materials, instruction, etc. presented during class. Attendance at all class meetings (face-toface, synchronous, and asynchronous) is stressed because of the interactive nature of the class. As
a community of learners we are diminished if any one of us is absent. Not all material covered
will be found in the required readings. You are required to inform the instructor in advance of
your absence. Attendance will be monitored and reflected in the class participation/attendance
points (see KSU Graduate Catalog).
CANDIDATE EXPECTATIONS FOR ENGAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATION:
It is expected that candidates not only attend classes online and/or in person (face-to-face)
depending on the delivery mode of the class, but also contribute to discussion boards thoroughly
prepared. “Thoroughly prepared” is defined as having read the readings well enough to verbally and
in writing state the definitions of terms from the readings; discuss ideas, notions, concepts, issues,
and procedures in relation to previous information presented in class, online, or in previous readings;
and apply the information from the readings to problems. It also implies the candidate has reviewed
information from the previous class meetings. When information from the readings is unclear, the
candidate should prepare questions to discuss in class. In addition, group members can ask
candidates who are not contributing equally to the development of the presentation to be removed
from their group.
Various cooperative learning group activities - in class and online - will enable candidates to
apply new skills and knowledge. Each candidate has something unique to contribute to the class
experience that will facilitate the learning of other class members. For full credit, candidates must
demonstrate professionalism by:
a) Participating fully in collaborative group work and focus groups
b) Practicing active listening during presentations
c) Refraining from working on other assignments during class presentations (or
checking email)
All assignments must be submitted on or before the class meeting on the assigned due date. All
grading will be done as objectively as possible. Rubrics will be provided for class presentations,
postings, facilitation, and projects. In case of qualitative assessment, evaluation will be based on
instructor judgment. Points will be cumulative and final course grades will be based on the
percent of total points earned (i.e., A = 100 - 90%, B = 89 - 80%, etc.).
DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR
The University has a stringent policy and procedure for dealing with behavior that disrupts the
learning environment. Consistent with the belief that your behavior can interrupt the learning of
others, behavior that fits the University's definition of disruptive behavior will not be tolerated.
Candidates should refer to the University Catalog to review this policy.
HUMAN RELATIONS
The University has formulated a policy on human relations that is intended to provide a learning
environment that recognizes individual worth. That policy is found in the University Catalog. It is
expected, in this class, that no Professional should need reminding but the policy is there for your
consideration. The activities of this class will be conducted in both the spirit and the letter of that
policy.
VIII. COURSE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
The objectives of this course are consistent with the EPP Advanced Proficiencies, EDD/EDS
program standards, and SPED EDD/EDS program standards.
EDD Performance Outcome
SPED EDD/EDS Objectives
1. Candidates foster a
responsive, learner-centered
educational environment
that promotes collaboration
and democratic
participation for student
learning and may include
co-teaching.
Candidates apply a critical
lens to collaboration among
key stakeholders to promote
equitable practices within
culturally responsive and
sustaining educational
contexts leading to
improved outcomes for all
learners.
2. Candidates demonstrate
pedagogical approaches,
which incorporate
contextual,
theoretical/conceptual, and
practical influences on the
learner and learning.
3. Candidates advance
teaching and learning
through the innovative use
of technology based on
sound educational theory
and knowledge of the
learner.
4. Candidates demonstrate indepth foundational
knowledge of content-based
research, scholarship, and
socio-political influences in
the teaching field and use
this knowledge to analyze
and interpret problems and
implement solutions within
their profession.
5. Candidates demonstrate and
apply various types of
assessment to inform the
learner’s ability to analyze,
monitor, and improve their
learning as well as interpret
and use data to inform their
own pedagogical
effectiveness.
Course Objective
Knowledge,
Skills
Dispositions
(Advanced
CPI)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
Activities, Coursework,
Assignments & Key
Assessment
1.2 (K;S)
1.3 (K;S)
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 - 2.6
(K;S;D)
1.2 (K;S)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
2.4 (K;S)
Candidates demonstrate an
understanding of how
historical legacies,
legislation, and litigation
have served to both include
and segregate students with
disabilities and utilize this
knowledge to serve as
change agents within
educational and community
settings.
1.
Candidates will
examine the
concept of history
in person and their
positionality
within that
framework
1.1 (K)
1.2 (K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
Self-reflection
Class discussion
6. Candidates engage in
scholarly, applied research
to advance knowledge of
teaching, the learner, and/or
learning.
Candidates engage in
inquiry based learning as
both consumer and
producer of research.
Drawing from theoretical
and conceptual frameworks
in educational research they
apply these theories to their
practice and develop
alternative critical
pedagogies to provide
socially just schooling for all
students.
4.
7. Candidates reflect on their
professional, scholarly
practice, and analyze the
ways in which they have
changed in their thinking,
beliefs, or behaviors toward
improved learner-centered
practices.
Candidates are
knowledgeable of critical
issues within the field of
special/education and
engage in critical reflection,
which involves taking an
inquiry stance, relating
theory to practice, stating an
argument and supporting it
with evidence, making
comparisons and evaluating
their own positionalities and
epistemologies.
2.
8. Candidates support
academic and linguistic
needs of the learner,
enhance cultural
understandings, and
increase global awareness
of all students.
3.
Candidate will
read and respond
to existing
literature
pertaining to issues
in special
education
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
Candidate will
critically reflect on
his/her
epistemologies and
how they shape
individual
responses to
critical issues in
special education
3.2 (K;D)
Position Paper
Class participation
Self-Reflection
What I Learned
Candidate will
reflect on his/her
own complicity in
issues affecting
special education
Candidates move beyond a
culturally responsive
framework by adopting a
reflexive multicultural
approach that validates and
sustains the cultural identity
of learners.
9. Candidates demonstrate
professional dispositions,
fluency of academic
language in a variety of
contexts, , and ethical
practice expected of an
engaged scholarpractitioner.
Critiques
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
5.
Candidate will
identify, critically
examine, and
debate issues in the
field of special
education
Candidates employ a critical
lens to dismantle,
reconfigure, and construct
equitable educational
institutions by identifying
and challenging power and
ideology in teaching
practices, curricular
materials, and education
reform efforts.
IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS & ASSIGNMENTS
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
3.1 – 3.5
(K;D)
Class Participation
Critiques
Position Paper
Critiques/Critical Reflections
Critiques/critical reflections on class readings are due beginning the second week of class. One
critique per week is required encompassing all the readings for the week. Documents should be of
sufficient depth and breadth to demonstrate a clear understanding of the topics and how the topics
intersect with the reader and the current context in which the reader operates. Individual personas
and lens(es) should be highlighted, as well the role that each plays in meaning making. It is
expected that reflections will connect with course readings and discussions as well as how what is
discussed aligns to the local, state, national, and international practice as well as individual
practice. Appropriate use of APA is expected (e.g., citations supporting statements). Note: Do not
summarize the readings.
Facilitation of Critical Issues Discussions
Beginning the second week of class, participants will take turns facilitating a critical dialogue of
the class readings. It is expected that discussions will focus on synthesis, analysis, critique, and
implications for current educational.
In-Depth Exploration of a Critical Issue in Special / Education
Based on the information gained through course readings and class discussions, identify an issue
you feel passionate about focused on some aspect of special / education. Examine the literature on
both sides of the issue. Provide a synthesis of each stance. Culminate with a reflection on your
position on the issue. Include a rationale for your position.
Instructor will determine additional assessments.
X. Evaluation and Grading:
A = 90 – 100%
B = 80 – 89%
C = 70 – 79%
D = 60 – 69%
Late Work: No make-up work or extra credit will be given. Assignments are due on the
specified date and will not be accepted past the due date.
NOTE: Emailed assignments will not be accepted. If, due to absence or emergency, an
assignment must be submitted digitally, via the course website located at http://
http://d2l.kennesaw.edu/. You must send an email indicating that you have submitted the
assignment and receive a confirmation of receipt from the instructor. REMEMBER: this
process is only acceptable due to excused absence or emergency.
XI. COURSE OUTLINE:
Tentative course schedule (subject to change with notice). NOTE: Course topics are based on
current trends and issues in special / education and thus will be revised as necessary to keep
the course current.
Date
Week
1
Content
Getting to know each other
Seminar introduction
Keeping it Real
Ground Rules
Syllabus reconstruction
Issues in Special/Education: Brainstorming Session
Possible Guest Speakers
Revisiting Issues in Special/Education
Selection of Guest Speakers
Topics:
School Reform
History of Special Education
History in Person and Figured Worlds
Writing workshop: APA and Position Papers
Readings / Assignments Due
Week
3
Equity and Special Education
Labeling
Writing workshop: Position Papers and Abstracts
Readings:
 Byrnes (p. 2-23)
 Artiles (2011)
 Terzi (2005)
 Fierros & Conroy (2002)
 McLaughlin (2010)
 Skiba et al. (2008)
Week
4
Guest Speaker: Laurie deBettencourt (TESE Editor)
Writing workshop: Outlining and other Strategies
Disproportionality
Readings:
 Byrnes (p. 49-68)
 Waitoller , Artiles, & Chaney
(2010)
 Artiles et al (2010)
 Chamberlain (2006)
 Albrecht et al.
Week
2-3
Week
5
Guest Speaker: Maggie McLaughlin
Guest Speaker: Erica McCray
School Choice and Special Education
Writing workshop: Consider Language and Purpose
Week
6
Guest Speaker: Julia White
Disability Studies
Least Restrictive Environment: Inclusion for All
Readings:
6. Johnson & Johnson
7. Holland & Lave
8. Ravitch (p. 1-14)
9. Dorn
10. Urietta
Due:
11. Critique 1
Readings:
4. Byrnes (P. 113-131)
5. US GAO
6. Rhim & McLaughlin (2007)
7. Ravitch (p. 113-147)
8. Howe & Welner
Readings:
 Byrnes (p. 279-297)
 Baglieri et al. (2011)
 Moore & Keefe
 Zyon & Blanchette


Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino
Echoes of Brown (video)
Due:
 Critique 2
Week
7
Week
8
Week
9
Individual Writing Meetings by Appointment
Week
10
Guest Speaker: Carolyn Scott, Pepin Academy Director
Education as a Business
Writing workshop: Critical Friends
Week
11
Independent Study: Position Paper
Guest Speaker: David Houchins
Discipline
Writing workshop: Critical Friends
Guest Speaker: M. Byrnes
Teacher Preparation: The Merging of General and Special
Education
Readings:
12. Byrnes (p. 91-112)
13. Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera
14. Schiff
15. Rose, Monda-Amayo, &
Espelage
16. Echoes of Incarceration
(video)
Readings:
 Ravitch (195-222)
 Altwerger & Strauss
 Gabriel & Lester
 WND (online resource)
 Huffington Post (online
resource)
Due:
17. Critique 3
Readings:
18. Byrnes (p.199-227)
19. Brownell et al
20. Simonsen et al 2010
Due:
 Position Manuscript
Week
12
Finals
Week
Panel Presentations
What I learned
Celebration
Revised Papers (if necessary)
Due
 Conference Proposal
Additional Readings:
Albrecht, S. F., Skiba, R. J., Losen, D. J., Chung, C. & Middelberg, L. (2012). Federal policy on
disproportionality in special education: Is it moving us forward? Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 23(1), 14-25. doi: 10.1177/1044207311407917
Altwerger, B., & Strauss, S. L. (2002). The business behind testing: What are the motives of
corporate America regarding the standards and testing movement in education? Language
Arts, 79(3), 256-262.
Artiles, A. J. (2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and
difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431-445.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X11429391
Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., Trent, S. C., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and
explaining disproportionality, 1968-2008: A critique of underlying views of culture.
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279-299.
Baglieri, S., Bejoian, L. M., Broderick, A. A., Connor, D. J., & Valle, J. (2011). [Re]claiming
“Inclusive Education” Toward cohesion in education reform: Disability studies unravels
the myth of the normal child. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2122-2154.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model.
Exceptional Children, 76(3), 357-377.
Chamberlin, S.P. (2006). Issues of overrepresentation and educational equity for culturally and
linguistically diverse students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 228-232. doi:
10.1177/10534512060410040501
Dorn, S. (2002). Reading the history of special education (279-301). In Paul, J., et al. Rethinking
Professional Issues in Special Education. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Fierros, E. G., & Conroy, J. W. (2002). Double jeopardy: An exploration of restrictiveness and
race in special education. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequity in special
education (pp. 39-70). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gabriel, R. & Lester, J. N. (2011). Race to the top era of education consulting: A call to reform
the reformers, International Journal of Educational Policies. 5 (1), 33-46.
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J., & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39, 59-68.
Holland, D., & Lave, J. (2009). Social practice theory and the historical production of persons.
Actio: An International Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2, 1-15.
Howe, K. R., & Welner, K. G. (2001). School choice and the pressure to perform: Déjà vu for
children with disabilities? Remedial and Special Education, 23, 212-21. doi:
10.1177/07419325020230040401
Johnson, d. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Energizing learning: The instructional power of
conflict. Educational Researcher, 38(1), 37-51.
McLaughlin, M. J. (2010). Evolving interpretations of educational equity and students with
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 265-278.
Moore, V. M. & Keefe, E. B. (2004). “Don’t get your briefs in a bunch”: What high school
students with disabilities have to say about were they receive their services. Issues in
Teacher Education, 13(1), 7-17.
Ravitch, D. (2010). What I learned about school reform. In The death and life of the great
American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education, (pg. 1-14).
Philadephia, PA: Perseus Books Group.
Ravitch, D. (2010). Choice: The story of an idea. In The death and life of the great American
school system: How testing and choice are undermining education, (pg. 113-147).
Philadephia, PA: Perseus Books Group.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The billionaire boys’ club. In The death and life of the great American
school system: How testing and choice are undermining education, (pg. 195-222).
Philadephia, PA: Perseus Books Group.
Rhim, L. M., & McLaughlin, M. (2007). Students with disabilities in charter schools: What we
now know. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(5), 1-12.
Rose, C., A., Monda-Amaya, L. E., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Bullying perpetration and
victimization in special education: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special
education, 32(2), 114-130.
Schiff, M. (2013). Dignity, Disparity and Desistance: Effective Restorative Justice Strategies for
Closing the ‘School-to-Prison’ Pipeline.’ Invited paper presented at Closing the School
Discipline Gap, Research to Practice Conference. Washington DC.
Simonsen, G., Shaw, S. F., Faggella-Luby, M., Sugai, G., Coyne, M. D. Rhein, B., Madaus, J.
W., & Alfano, M. (2010). A schoolwide model for service delivery: Redefining special
educators as interventionists. Remedial and Special Education, 31(1), 17-23.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadro, J., & Chun, C.
(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.
Terzi, L. (2005). Beyond the dilemma of difference: The capability approach to disability and
special educational needs. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 39(3), 443-459.
Urrieta, Jr., L. (2007). Figured worlds and education: An introduction to the special issue. The
Urban Review, 39(2), 107-116. doi: 10.1007/s11256-007-0051-0
U.S. Government Accountability Office, (2012, June). Charter schools: Additional federal
attention needed to help protect access for students with disabilities. (Publication No.
GAO-12-543). Retrieved from http://gao.gov/products/GAO-12-543
Waitoller, F. R., Artiles, A. J., & Cheney, D. A. (2010). The miner’s canary: A review of
overrepresentation research and explanations. Journal of Special Education, 44, 29-49.
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the
climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189-204.
Zion, S., & Blanchett, W. (2011). [Re]conceptualizing inclusion: Can critical race theory and
interest convergence be utilized to achieve inclusion and equity for African American
students? Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2186–2205.
On-Line Resources:
http://www.wnd.com/2013/03/bill-gates-100-million-database-to-track-students/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/03/student-database-gates-foundation_n_2800684.html
http://voices.yahoo.com/gates-foundation-funding-wrist-bracelets-monitor11465184.html?cat=15
Echoes of Incarceration (http://www.mediathatmattersfest.org/films/echoes_of_incarceration)
Multi-Media:
Echoes of Brown
References:
Alvarez McHatton, P., Glenn, T. A., Sue., & Gordon, K. (2012). The plight of special education
leaders in challenging contexts: Purpose, potential, and possibility (Invited). Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 25(1), 38-47.
Artiles, A. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with
theory and context. Journal of Special Education, 32, 32-36.
Artiles, A.J & Trent, S.C. (1994). Overrepresentation of minority students in special education: A
continuing debate. The Journal of Special Education, 27(4), 410-437.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.