KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2013)
Course Number/Program Name INED 8310
Department Inclusive Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.S/EdD in Special Education
Proposed Effective Date Summer 2014
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
Sections to be Completed
New Course Proposal
X Course Title Change
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
X Course Prerequisite Change
X Course Description Change
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
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
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Susan Brown
Faculty Member
_____
Date
Karen Kuhel
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Patricia McHatton
Department Chair
College Curriculum Committee
College Dean
GPCC Chair
Dean, Graduate College
Date
Date
Date
Date
Date
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date

President Date
I.
II.
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number INED 8310
Prerequisites None
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
___
___
Course Title Inclusive Policies and Practices in Special Education ___
Class Hours __3__Laboratory Hours___0____Credit Hours 3 ________
___
This course assists school leaders in developing their skills in distributed leadership, particularly in terms of managing large scale change. Class discussion focuses upon the federal and state laws and policies for general and special education in the key areas of accountability, assessment, curriculum, funding, professional development and governance and how they translate into daily practice at the district and local level.
Secondarily, the course assists aspiring school leaders with basic collaborative strategies to implement policy at the local levels through shared governance and site-based management. (For those who are otherwise qualified, successful completion of this course may lead to an endorsement as special education administrator.)
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number _____INED 8310___________________
Course Title ____ Education Policies: Impact on Special – Education
Class Hours _3___Laboratory Hours______0_Credit Hours 3 ________
Prerequisites Admission to the Ed.S/Ed.D or Instructor/Program Coordinator Approval
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
The focus of this course is inquiry of educational policies at the local, state, national and international level from multiple analytic perspectives,. Analysis of the process of policy development and implementation will include both the benefits and unintended consequences of these policies. Impact of these policies on the education of students with disabilities will include attention to how educators can serve as advocates to correct and/ or support policies.
III. Justification
With the change in degree title from Ed.D. in Inclusive Education to Ed.D. in Special Education related to
Georgia Professional Standards Commission policy requiring degree names to match certification fields, a thorough review of the courses within the sequence that previously served both English for Speakers of Other Languages and Special Education doctoral candidates was conducted. INED 8310 also expanded from a school and district focus to include state, national and international perspectives.
Education policies in the last half of the 20 th Century had significant impacts on students with disabilities and other key stakeholders, both intended and unintended. This course engages candidates in a deep analysis of, at times, taken for granted policies, providing them with the expertise in order to be able to advocate for students with disabilities and their families.

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 course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 30 spaces)
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
required as prerequisites
INED
8310
Education Policy Impact on SWD
3-0-3
Su 2014
Regular
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee __

VII Attach Syllabus
(*Last day to withdraw w/o academic penalty: )
I.
COURSE NUMBER: INED 8310
COURSE TITLE: Education Policies: Impact on Special – Education
COLLEGE OR SCHOOL: Bagwell College of Education
SEMESTER/TERM & YEAR:
II. INSTRUCTOR: Varies
TELEPHONE:
FAX:
E-MAIL:
OFFICE:
III. CLASS MEETINGS:
IV. TEXTS: Required
Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive education, politics and policymaking. NY: Bloomsbury.
Weishaar, M.K. (2007). Case Studies in Special Education Law: No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Person.
Yell, M.L. (2012 ). Law and Special Education. Pearson.
V. CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION: The focus of this course is inquiry of educational policies at the local, state, national and international level from multiple analytic perspectives. Analysis of the process of policy development and implementation will include both the benefits and unintended consequences of these policies. Impact of these policies on the education of students with disabilities will include attention to how educators can serve as advocates to correct and/ or support policies.
VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE: The history of special education reflects a continued lack of attention by policy makers until the mid-twentieth century. Parent advocacy and litigation eventually led to federal policy recognition that students with disabilities were entitled to a free and appropriate education (PL

94-142, 1975). Significant progress has been made in the education of students with disabilities as a result of this landmark legislation (200,000 children receive early intervention services and over six million students received special education services (OSEP, 2007). A deeper analysis also reveals that although legislation included full funding by the federal government, , annual budgets have never met the promised level, increasing financial stress on state and local school finances. The reauthorization of
94-142 (IDEA, 1997; 2004) emphasized access to the general education curriculum by students with disabilities and introduced manifestation determination to ensure due process for removing students with disabilities to more restrictive environments due to behavior. These changes led to higher expectations for students with disabilities and provided protections while at the same time placing increased emphasis on ensuring districts provided these benefits. The No Child Left Behind Act placed additional attention on the academic achievement of students with disabilities and other subgroups through disaggregation of state and district assessments was mandated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB,
2001). This mandate resulted in sanctions if schools failed to demonstrate adequate yearly progress by students in these sub-groups. In addition to the requirement to disaggregate student data, the concept of a highly qualified teacher was defined with a focus on content expertise creating significant challenges for special education teachers whose assignment could fluctuate among multiple content areas. Each of the policies noted have had significant impacts on students with disabilities and other key stakeholders, both intended and unintended. This course engages candidates in a deep analysis of, at times, taken for granted policies, providing them with the expertise in order to be able to advocate for students with disabilities and their families.
In 2006, the United Nations published the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, drawing attention to worldwide issues. Comparative analysis of progress towards inclusive educational policies in developed and developing countries will provide candidates with a greater insight into the policy development and implementation processes. Comparative analysis will support an understanding of the differences in language within policies and in policy discussions. Parallel factors, such as a history of stigmatization and the impact of parent advocacy, provide a foundation for historical analysis. The evolution of inclusive policies provide a foundation for analysis of implementation and consequences.
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 everchanging 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: pre- service, 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
Learner
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, learnercentered 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 7 th 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.
Candidates will demonstrate the ability to:
1.
Analyze the historical and socio-political contexts of public educational policies and their impact on the education of students with disabilities.
2.
Conduct a comparative analysis of educational policies and their implementation across districts, states, nations.
3.
Locate and analyze data on the implementation of policies related to students with disabilities to identify impact patterns.
4.
Analyze legal and political discussions in relation to students with disabilities to identify patterns related to institutional and/or professional power.
5.
Develop a model for advocacy to support policy development that supports the academic and social achievement of students with disabilities.
6.
Identify issues and problems for further study and summarize, synthesize and critique related readings.
7.
Reflect on their own complicity (both intentional and unintentional) in the development and implementation of policies.

1.
EDD Performance
Outcome
Candidates foster a responsive, learnercentered educational environment that promotes collaboration and democratic participation for student learning and may include coteaching.
2.
Candidates demonstrate pedagogical approaches which incorporate contextual, theoretical/conceptua l, 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 in-depth foundational knowledge of contentbased research, scholarship, and sociopolitical influences in the teaching field and use this knowledge to analyze and interpret problems and implement solutions
SPED EDD/EDS
Objectives
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.
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
Course Objective Knowledge,
Skills
Dispositions
(Advanced
CPI)
5 Develop a model for advocacy that
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D) addresses the application of language to support policy development to support the academic and social achievement of students with disabilities.
1.
Analyze the historical and socio-political contexts of public educational policies and their impact on the education of students with disabilities.
2.3 (K;S)
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
2.6 (K;S)
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)
1.1
(K)
1.2
(K;S)
3.1 (K;D)
3.2 (K;D)
3.3 (D)
3.4 (D)
3.5 (D)
Activities,
Coursework,
Assignments & Key
Assessment
Advocacy model.
Data analysis report with research support.

within their profession. community settings.
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.
6.
Candidates engage in scholarly, applied research to advance knowledge of teaching, the learner, and/or learning.
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 learnercentered practices.
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.
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.
2.4 (K;S)
2.5 (K;S)
3.2 (K;D)
3. Locate and analyze data on the implementation of policies related to students with disabilities to identify impact patterns.
3.2 (K;D)
3.5 (D)
2.
Conduct a comparative analysis of educational policies and their implementatio n across districts, states, nations.
6. Identify issues and problems for further study and summarize, synthesize and
3.2 (K;D)
Data analysis report with research support.
Comparative analysis paper

critique related readings .
7.Reflect on their own complicity
(both intentional and unintentional) in the development and implementation of policies
8.
Candidates support academic and linguistic needs of the learner, enhance cultural understandings, and increase global awareness of all students.
9.
Candidates demonstrate professional dispositions, fluency of academic language in a variety of contexts, , and ethical practice expected of an engaged scholarpractitioner.
10.
Candidates move beyond a culturally responsive framework by adopting a reflexive multicultural approach that validates and sustains the cultural identity of learners.
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.
4. Analyze legal and political discourse in relation to students with disabilities to identify patterns related to institutional and/or professional power.
1.4 (K;S;D)
2.1 – 2.6
(K;S;D)
1.4(K;D)
2.1 (D)
2.2 (K;S;D)
3.1 – 3.5
(K;D)
Advocacy paper.

IX. COURSE REQUIREMENTS & ASSIGNMENTS
Data analysis report with research support: Identify one policy reported on the CCRPI and analyze the data across at least 3 years to track impact on student achievement. Provide an analysis of the data and include references from the legal and educational literature to address both positive trends and unexpected consequences.
Comparative analysis paper: Conduct a comparative analysis of a US policy and a related policy from another nation. Integrate literature to address socio-political contexts impacting similarities and differences. Include alignment with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Advocacy model: Develop an advocacy model that provides guidelines for effective use of language to challenge and address power and ideology in policy development to support students with disabilities and their families.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). Course requirements and homework assignments are indicated on the chart below, but the weekly agendas will provide the specific due dates.
Wk Topic
1
2
Orientation
Introductions
Syllabus Review2
Legal Research in the law library and on the internet
Assignment/Reading
Yell (2012) Ch 2
Perspectives on Inclusion: Discourses, Politics and Educational Practice
Liasidou (2012) Ch 1
Yell (2012) Ch 12
Assignment
Discussion Board:
Introductions
Discussion Board:
3 Special Education Policymaking: A Critique Liasidou (2012) Ch 3
The History of Law and Children with
Disabilities
Yell (2012) Ch 1
Discussion Board:
Submit 3 questions for guest speaker

4
5
6
7
Understanding Education Policymaking
Introduction to the American Legal System
Policy, procedures and practices alignment
Identifying issues/problems for research projects
Liasidou (2012) Ch 4
Yell (2012) Ch 3
Guest Speaker: US Congressional Education
Aide
Weishaar (2007) Ch 1
Lather, 2004 (see references)
Data Analysis: Impact of policy on student achievement
Writing Workshop
Ga Dept of Educ website: CCRPI data analysis
Webquest
(formative assessment)
Data analysis report with research support.
8 Equity policy
Pedagogy for Inclusion
9 Identification, Assessment, and Evaluation
Due Process
Discipline
Data Analysis activity: SLDS discipline data & swd
Skiba, Simmons, Ritter,
Gibb, Rausch,
Cuadrado, & Chung
(2008).
Yell (2012) Ch 8
Weishaar (2007) Ch 2
Liasidou (2012) Ch 2, 6
Weishaar (2007) Ch 3,
4, 6
Weishaar (2007) Ch 5,
9
Yell (2012) Ch 13, 14

10-11 Comparative Analysis: Cross-cultural
Perspectives on Inclusive Education
Policymaking
International perspectives
Liasidou (2012) Ch 7
UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with
Disabilities
Comparative
Analysis
Selected readings
12 Public policy and school reform – the Georgia perspective
GPEE.org
Guest Speaker: Skip Yow, Metro RESA legislative consultant
Top Ten Issues to
Watch
Economics of
Education
13 Advocacy Liasidou (2012)Ch 5
Guest Speaker: Leslie Lipson, Georgia Advocacy
Office
Weishaar (2007) Ch 10
Thegao.org
Selected readings
14 Writing Workshop
Advocacy
Model

INED 8310 References
Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing identity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture and space. Harvard Educational Review, 73(2), 164-202,247.
Bender, V., & Bechtoldt, J. L. (2008). A policy analysis: The intersection of the individuals with disabilities education act and the no child left behind act. (Order No. 3440980, Saint
Louis University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 196. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/849295590?accountid=11824. (849295590).
CCBD.(2013). CCBD'S position summary on federal policy on disproportionality in special education. Behavioral Disorders, 38(2), 108-120.
Crawford, L., & Tindal, G. (2006). Policy and practice: Knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment.
Remedial and Special Education, 27(4), 208-217.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The "blurring" of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3),
301-323.
Furney, K. S., Susan, B. H., Kelly Clark/Keefe, & Hartnett, J. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children,
70(1), 81-94.
Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008). The impact of federal public policy on curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom. Preventing School
Failure, 52(2), 5-11
Jameson, J. M., & Huefner, D. S. (2006). "Highly qualified" special educators and the provision of a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities. Journal of Law and
Education, 35(1), 29-50. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/200976246?accountid=11824
Kossar, K., Mitchem, K., & Ludlow, B. (2005). No child left behind: A national study of its impact on special education in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 3-8.
Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: a critical perspective. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 20, 14-30.
Lather, P. (2006). Foucauldian Scientificity: rethinking the nexus of qualitative research and educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19, pp.
783.791.
Liasidou, A. (2009 ). Critical policy research and special education policymaking: a policy trajectory approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7, 107-130.
Liasidou, A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and inclusive education policies: the power to exclude. Journal of Educational Policy, 23, 483-500.
Liasidou, A. (2012). Inclusive education, politics and policymaking. NY: Bloomsbury.

Marshall, C., & Patterson, J. A. (2002). Confounded policies: Implementing site-based management and special education policy reforms. Educational Policy, 16(3), 351-386.
Mingat, A. & Tan, J-P. (2003). Tools for Educational Policy Analysis. World Bank
Minzenberg, B. G. (2008). A content analysis of policies and procedures for serving children with special school health needs in early education environments. (Order No. 3349284,
University of Pittsburgh). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, , 228-n/a. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304497168?accountid=11824. (304497168).
Mueller, T. G. (2009). Alternative dispute resolution: A new agenda for special education policy.
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 20(1), 4-13.
Neal, J. D. (2006). New directions in special education: Eliminating ableism in policy and practice.
Choice, 43(9), 1649.
Nowell, B. L., & Salem, D. A. (2007). The impact of special education mediation on parent-school relationships: Parents' perspective. Remedial and Special Education, 28(5), 304-315.
Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of the special education referral process: a case study. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 24
Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Routledge.
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C. (2008).
Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges.
Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264-288.
Skrtic, T.M.Harris,K. & Shriner, J.G. (Eds.) (2005). Special Education: Policy and Practice:
Accountability, instruction, and social challenges. Denver, CO: Love.
Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in ‘new times’: using critical discourse analysis, Journal of Education Policy, 20.
Turnbull, H. R. (2009). Today's policy contexts for special education and students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 3-9.
Winzer, M.A. & Mazurek, K. (2011) International Practices in Special Education: Debates and
Challenges. Gallaudet University Press.
Wood, L.A. & Kroger, R.O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Sage Publishers.
Woodside-Jiron, H. ( 2003).Critical policy analysis: Researching the roles of cultural models, power, and expertise in reading policy. Reading Research Quarterly,
Woodside-Jiron, H., & Gehsmann, K. (2009). Peeling back the layers of policy and school reform:
Revealing the structural and social complexities within. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 56(1), 49-72.
Yell, M.L. ( 2012 ). Law and Special Education. Pearson.

Selected International References
Américo, B. L., Carniel, F., & Takahashi, A. R. W. (2012). Special education management and formalism in inclusive public policies: The case of brazil. Public Administration Research,
1(1), 72-84. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1269464358?accountid=11824
Ball, S. J. (1998). Big policies/Small world: An introduction to international perspectives in education policy. Comparative Education, 34(2), 119-130. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/195125943?accountid=11824
Clough, P. (1998). Balancing acts: Policy agenda for teacher education and special educational needs. Journal of Education for Teaching, 24(1), 63-71. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201131128?accountid=11824
Dyson, A., & Gallannaugh, F. (2008). Disproportionality in special needs education in england.
The Journal of Special Education, 42(1), 36-46. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194707822?accountid=11824
Fortune, K. (2013). The impact of policy and legislation on maori children with special needs in
Aotearoa/New zealand. Support for Learning, 28(1), 41-46. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12014
Geppert, C., Bauer-Hofmann, S., & Hopmann, S. T. (2012). Policy reform efforts and equal opportunity - an evidence-based link? an analysis of current sector reforms in the austrian school system. CEPS Journal : Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal,
2(2), 9-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1095606013?accountid=11824
Gumpel, T. P., & Awartani, S. (2003). A comparison of special education in israel and palestine:
Surface and deep structures. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 33-48. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194706754?accountid=11824
Korkunov, V. V., Nigayev, A. S., Reynolds, L. D., & Lerner, J. W. (1998). Special education in russia: History, reality, and prospects. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31(2), 186-92.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/194221558?accountid=11824
Novacheska, I. (2013). Organization of international conference: modern aspects of special education and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities. The Journal of Special
Education and Rehabilitation, 14(1), 105-106.
Peters, S. J. (2007). "Education for all?": A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(2), 98-108.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/211212338?accountid=11824
Pini, M., & Gorostiaga, J. M. (2008). Teacher education and development policies: Critical discourse analysis from a comparative perspective. International Review of Education,
54(3-4), 427-443. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-008-9094-z

Syriopoulou-Delli, C. (2010). A historical review of educational policy in greece for children with pervasive developmental disorders, behavioral difficulties and other special educational needs. Review of European Studies, 2(1), 2-14. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/817656670?accountid=11824
Selected Resources
U.S. Department of Education http://www2.ed.gov/policy/landing.jhtml Data analysis report with research support.
Brookings Institute: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2013/06/18-specialeducation-no-child-left-behind-bleiberg-west
The Education Policy and Leadership Center http://www.eplc.org/education-policy/educationissues/special-education/
Children, Families and Learning http://mn.gov/mnddc/past/pdf/00s/00/00-ISE-MDE.pdf
Education Law Center: Special Education http://www.edlawcenter.org/issues/special-ed.html
Center for Education Policy Analysis http://cepa.stanford.edu/
SRI International: Center for Education Policy http://www.sri.com/about/organization/education/cep
Center for Education Policy Analysis http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA/BuechnerInstitute/Centers/CEPA/Pages/Ce nterforEducationPolicyAnalysis.aspx
Project Forum (archived materials) available from NASDSE.org
Center for Education Policy Analysis http://cepa.uconn.edu/