Festus E. Obiakor

Self concept Assessment & intervention

Self‐concept is a construct that cuts across old and new perspectives with continuing disagreements on definition, assessment interpretation, and utility. The contemporary definition in which self‐concept is viewed as an individuals repertoire of self‐descriptive behavior appears to be most beneficial when developing assessment measures and interventions. The purpose of this paper is to discuss self‐concept models and assessment procedures as a basis for broadly reviewing methods of enhancing self‐concepts using contemporary models.

MULTICULTURAL LEARNERS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES: BEYOND EUROCENTRIC PERSPECTIVES

Based on the aforementioned data, the risk index (RI) identifies the percentage of all students of a given racial/ethnic group in a given disability category. The RI is calculated by dividing the number of students in a given racial/ethnic group served in a given disability category (e.g. LD) by the total enrollment for that racial/ethnic group in the school population. The 1998 OCR data revealed risk indices for all racial/ethnic groups that were higher for LD than those found for MR. The NRC (2002) report stated that, “Asian/Pacific Islander have placement rates of 2.23%. Rates for all other racial/ethnic groups exceed 6%, and for American Indian/Alaskan Natives, the rate reached 7.45%” (p. 47). The second index, odds ratio, provides a comparative index of risk and is calculated by dividing the risk index on one racial/ethnic group by the risk index of another racial/ethnic group. In the OCR and OSEP databases, the odds ratios are reported relative to White students. If the risk index is identical for a particular minority group and White students, the odds ratio will equal 1.0. Odds ratios greater than 1.0 indicate that minority group students are at a greater risk of identification, while odds ratios of less than 1.0 indicate that they are less at risk. Using the 1998 OCR placement rates, the LD odds ratio for American Indian/Alaskan Natives is 1.24, showing that they have a 24% greater likelihood of being assigned to the LD category than White students. Odds ratios for Asian/Pacific Islander are low (0.37). For both Black and Hispanic students, the odds ratios are close to 1.0. The third index, composition index (CI), shows the proportion of all children served under a given disability category who are members of a given racial/ethnic group and is calculated by dividing the number of students of a given racial or ethnic group enrolled in a particular disability category. Two underlying assumptions of the CI are that the sum of composition indices for the five racial/ethnic groups will total 100%, and baseline enrollment of a given racial/ethnic group is not controlled. More specifically, the CI may be calculated using the percent of 6- through 21-year old population with the racial/ethnic composition of IDEA and U.S. census population statistics. For example, if 64% of the U.S. population is White, 15% is Black, 16% is Hispanic, 4% is Asian, and 1% is American Indian these data not interpretable without knowing the percentage of the racial/ethnic composition with IDEA. Hypothetically, IDEA data may show that of the 6–21 year olds served under IDEA, 63% are White, 20% are Black, 14% are Hispanic, 2% are Asian, and 1% is American Indian. To calculate disproportionality, a benchmark (e.g. 10%) against which to measure the difference between these percentages must be used. If the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of population exceeds +10, then the racial/ethnic group is overrepresented. Conversely, if the difference between the two percentages and the difference represented as a proportion of the group’s percent of the population is larger than −10, then, the racial/ethnic group is underrepresented.

Self-concept of Young Children with Special Needs: Perspectives for School and Clinic

Young children are consistently faced with problems that are beyond their limited range of experiences. These problems range from abuse and neglect to frightening uncertainty about the future. One method for reducing the negative consequences associated with these threats to normal development is the enhancement of young childrens self concepts. Contemporary researchers have suggested that school and clinic personnel view self-concept as a self-descriptive behavior that is observable, measurable, and situation-specific. Two (perceptual and operational) models have dominated the debate on the construct of self-concept and a logical extension of both is that self-concept can be operationally enhanced. In this article, the authors discuss the self-concept of young children with special needs and delineate operational self-concept enhancement strategies that school and clinic personnel will find helpful in planning interventions for them.

Viewpoints on Intervention for Learners with Disabilities: An Introduction

People with disabilities have always existed in our communities and societies; however, how we treat them has always been an issue. For example, for a long time, people with physical disabilities received more attention than those with disabilities that we could hardly see (e.g., learning disabilities). Very early research focused on students with sensory impairments and then the focus shifted to students with cognitive impairments. Finally, the focus was on students with learning disabilities and emotional behavioral disorders. Early research with this last group of students focused on comparing students with and without disabilities to document deficits and characteristics of these individuals. Over time, when the characteristics were established, researchers moved their attention to interventions or ways to improve deficits in specific content areas such as reading and mathematics. This chapter is an introduction to the rest of this volume that addresses different viewpoints on interventions for students with different types of disabilities.

Inclusion in General and Special Education in an Age of Change: Concluding Thoughts

Abstract Our world is changing and also getting smaller. We now know what is happening outside our narrow confines – this means that we must all be involved in solving educational, societal, community, and global problems in inclusive fashions. For example, in education, we must be collaborative, consultative, and cooperative in solving school problems and in advancing school programs. To a large measure, inclusion in general and special education has become imperative in today’s educational programming. Though it is seen by some as complex and appears to attract conflicting perspectives, it enhances different professional viewpoints and practices that help general and special education learners to maximize their fullest potential. Some schools end up doing inclusion well and others continue to work on it; however, many believe it has made education more efficient and effective. Inclusion strives to include all students with and without disabilities within the general education classroom and curriculum. This chapter discusses our conclusive thoughts on inclusion and where we think it is headed in the future.

Chapter 10 Beyond traditional placement: Making inclusion work in the general education classroom

The process of placing students into special education programming often begins with the teacher being able to identify appropriate educational placements (Rizza & Morrison, 2003). It is important that educators know how decisions regarding placement will impact the daily lives of students including their social interactions with peers and the curriculum used to service students. The least restrictive environment (LRE) mandate of the Education of All Handicapped Childrens Act of 1975, later reauthorized as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 stated that students with disabilities must be educated with non disabled peers to the “maximum extent appropriate,” “and that they may be removed from the general education environment only if they cannot be satisfactorily educated with the use of supplementary aides and services” (Hosp & Reschly, 2003, p. 68). Furthermore, the LRE ensures that students with disabilities must have access to the general curriculum and be taught with their nondisabled peers (Turnbull, 2003). As a result, fully integrated applications of learning strategies designed originally for students with disabilities are implemented, and scores on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) have increased, and sanctioned accountability measures for all students have increased (Sailor & Roger, 2005).