Supporting LGBTQ+ Students in K–12 Mathematics

2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (11) ◽  
pp. 874-884
Author(s):  
Brandie E. Waid

Strategies range from engaging in self-education to creating inclusive classroom spaces and adopting inclusive curriculum and pedagogy.

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 244-248
Author(s):  
Bradley S. Witzel ◽  
David Allsopp

NCTM advocates the use of multiple representations and manipulatives for building mathematical understanding (NCTM 2000). Engaging students in mathematics using manipulatives can have a powerful effect on learning. The use of manipulatives is especially effective for students with high-incidence disabilities, such as learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and mild to moderate mental disabilities (MD). Allowing students to use manipulatives gives them the opportunity to experience multisensory learning, which helps promote success for students with highincidence disabilities. Experiences with manipulative objects can help students develop conceptual understanding. If used appropriately, manipulatives can also help those with high-incidence disabilities connect conceptual understandings of mathematics to the process of doing mathematics (i.e., using effective problem-solving strategies) throughout their K–12 education.


Author(s):  
Kevin D. Biesinger ◽  
Kent J. Crippen

In order for educators to effectively build, select and integrate technology into the delivery of curriculum and pedagogy, an accepted set of critical program design and delivery elements is needed. The authors propose that research based components such as user validation functions, trace methods, and worked examples be among these accepted design elements of technology supported learning environments. As for the pedagogical methods employed to effectively integrate technology into K-12 curricula, an epistemological shift is needed by which more instructors view learning from a student-centered perspective. Systematic changes needed to foster this view include a migration away from the traditional computer lab scenario, on-going professional development as a continuous support system, and the expectation that technology integration is required as an indication of quality instruction as evidenced in teacher evaluations.


Author(s):  
Tiffany L. Gallagher ◽  
Sheila M. Bennett

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify a set of principles that are necessary to overcome the challenges that inclusion coaches encounter with teachers as they transition into an inclusive service delivery model. Design/methodology/approach Online written reflections of 13 inclusion coaches (K-12) who were a part of a larger, mixed-methods research design are the primary data source. For the two years of the project, the inclusion coaches provided bi-annual reflections, each with 7-11 entries. The reflections were downloaded, coded, collapsed, and thematically presented as the inclusion coaches’ perspectives for supporting teachers’ inclusive classroom practices. Findings The findings are presented as six principles for the process of coaching teachers for inclusion: pre-requisite: teachers’ receptivity; process: from building trust to collaborating and reflecting; precipice: tension between knowledge and beliefs; promotion: administrative support; proof: evidence of change, impact, and capacity building; and promise: future of the role. Practical implications These six principles of coaching for inclusion offer considerations, conditions, and guides for inclusion coaches that are striving for fully inclusive classrooms in their jurisdictions. With a view to future practice, the six principles are reiterative as they should be revisited each time a coaching interaction is initiated in a school site and with a classroom teacher. Originality/value As a conclusion, a conceptual model is offered. This spiraling staircase displays the conditions that exist prior to coaching and during coaching interactions and considerations for coaching sustainability.


Author(s):  
Carolyn Laub ◽  
Hilary Burdge

Written from the perspective of advocates, this chapter explores how research has been useful for policy and advocacy efforts to create safer schools for LGBTQ students. The authors discuss the use of population-based research that has provided demographic and baseline data about rates of bullying for LGBTQ students, youth-led research in schools that fuels student advocacy for improvements in school climate, community-based research about the steps schools can take to improve student safety and foster positive learning environments for all students, and public opinion polling designed to support and defend legislation requiring LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum in schools. The chapter also discusses ways that nonprofit organizations may conduct and use research as the foundation for designing and implementing solutions and best practices that improve school climate and reduce bias-motivated bullying against students, such as school policy change, professional development for school personnel, and LGBTQ curriculum inclusion.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. i-iii
Author(s):  
Kelsey Evans-Amalu ◽  
Eric B. Claravall

When the COVID-19 pandemic swept across the world in 2020 and into 2021, the entire system of education faced the most challenging task to provide education to students using virtual instruction. Within the United States specifically, the pandemic transformed teaching. Teachers were and have continued to be compelled to learn digital technology and integrate varied digital tools into their instruction. As guest editors, Eric and I had the opportunity to reflect on the many instructional challenges and valuable lessons learned about virtual teaching and learning in k-12 and higher education. One of the biggest lessons observed was exposure of huge equity gaps between the tech haves and have nots, regarding access to digital devices and reliable Wi-Fi. It was from this observation that the call for proposals of this special issue was developed. What does inclusion look like in the era of digital and virtual teaching?  With this in mind, we were tasked to coedit this special issue of JCSR focusing on the theme “Inclusive Curriculum in the Era of Digital & Virtual Learning.” We had the opportunity to review five exemplary articles responding to the theme.


Author(s):  
Suzanne Stolz

Universal Design for Learning, widely known as UDL, is a framework for creating flexible curriculum and pedagogy that provides access for all students, giving the opportunity to build from their strengths. First introduced in 1998, UDL is centered on three principles: (a) provide multiple means of engagement, (b) provide multiple means of representation, and (c) provide multiple means of action and expression. In applying the framework in K–12 or postsecondary schools, educators first consider the diversity of students, their assets and needs, the barriers that interfere with their success, and then plan lessons that are widely accessible. UDL has close relationship with technology as it provides various ways to present content, engage students, and demonstrate their learning. Research and policy, largely in the United States, support the growth of UDL. Research has created UDL tools like the Strategic Reader, produced recommendations for implementation, and measured efficacy. The National UDL Task Force, a coalition of stakeholder organizations has worked for the integration of UDL principles into local, state, and federal policies. Critiques of the framework note a dearth of empirical evidence and inconsistency in the research. They also help identify a path forward in designing new research and attending to complications in the framework that might better address diversity and bring students to the center.


2021 ◽  
pp. 152483992110064
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Jarpe-Ratner ◽  
Booker Marshall ◽  
Maham Choudry ◽  
Marisa Wishart ◽  
Bianca Reid ◽  
...  

In 2013, the Chicago Public Schools district received funding from the Division of Adolescent and School Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to implement a series of strategies aimed to reduce HIV, STIs (sexually transmitted diseases), and related risk behaviors among students. One such set of strategies included “safe and supportive environments” (SSE), aimed to support lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and other LGBTQ+ students. SSE strategies included professional development and technical assistance provided to K–12 school staff (teachers, administrators, social workers, etc.) to implement the following practices: support for transgender and gender nonconforming students in accordance with district guidelines, use of LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula, posting of signs and symbols of support, and creation of Genders and Sexualities Alliance student clubs. To monitor progress and performance, both quantitative and qualitative process measure data were collected. Quantitative data consisted of key metrics such as number of staff trained and surveillance data collected through school health profiles in collaboration with the CDC. Qualitative data were gathered to understand barriers and facilitators to implementation of SSE practices via interviews with 55 school staff members and four focus groups with 31 high school students. Results indicated an increased uptake of all SSE activities across the 5-year funding period. Findings also reveal additional needed supports, such as increased availability and offering of professional development for all staff, support for staff in engaging parents, and ensuring the LGBTQ+ inclusive sexual health education curriculum is experienced as such by students. Current work to address these needs is described.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document