Teaching ELL Students in the Elementary Grades

This chapter presents information regarding teaching ELL students with high incidence disabilities in the mild to moderate range. Specific disabilities to be discussed are learning disabilities, dyslexia, cognitive impairments, and autism. Identification procedures and implications for the individual education plan are offered. Learning characteristics that are manifested with these disabilities are explored. Instructional strategies that are most effective for children with these disabilities are explained. The impact of ELL on the disability is discussed. Accommodations to instructional strategies for ELL students are suggested. The misidentification of ELL students as having a disability is examined as well as misplacement into special education.

Culturally Responsive Teaching and Inclusion for Online Students With Exceptionalities and Other Needs

Teaching learning-diverse students, English learners (Els), and students with disabilities has become of paramount importance as it relates to each unique student's need, directed by an Individual Education Plan (IEP), 504, English Language Plan, and related services, especially for those students served primarily under the Individual Disabilities Education Act. The students' unique cultural and familial needs also become important used to promote achievement in both the F2F and online educational setting, inclusive of multiple intelligences (MI), learning styles, and appropriate differentiated instruction. As such, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the learners and the diversity that they bring to the online learning community so that instructors may prepare culturally responsive and inclusive pedagogy and online universally designed learner-centered (UDLC) and differentiated practices that include them beyond their disability or exceptionality and to become culturally responsive instructional leaders (CRIL).

The visual construction of the individual education plan and parent involvement

In educative practices, planning documents play an important role in communicating the educational needs of students with disabilities. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) is the main document that facilitates and enables accommodation for students with special education requirements. The IEP describes a student’s individual learning outcomes and services based on his or her level of educational performance (Griangreco, 1994). Research on the IEP work process has demonstrated that it can be confusing, frustrating, or ineffective in many cases (Ng, 2013). By taking the parents’ perspective and experience in the creation of the IEP, one can seek to understand why this can be such a taxing communicative process. As the literature can attest, there is great emphasis on parent involvement and positive outcomes in the IEP work process. However, parent input does not appear to be of great value or importance within the IEP document. In order to address the problem of poor parent involvement in the creation of the IEP, the IEP document template must be carefully analyzed. By taking the perspective of the parents in the IEP work process, the following research questions will be addressed: Primary Research Question • How do the textual and visual constructions of the IEP document elicit parent involvement in individual education planning? When analyzing IEP documents, the visual construction and the layout can be examined in order to understand why parent involvement may be limited. Written language can be analyzed by semiotic theory, which studies a system of signs, including a sign, signifier, and signified (Warner, 1990). Semiotic analysis questions what constitutes representation and the use of signs and sign systems to make messages (Nuessel, 2012). Thus, using semiotic analysis can help to understand how parents perceive the IEP document in practice. By gaining a richer understanding of the IEP template, one can hypothesize how parental involvement is communicated in the IEP work process. In considering the composition of a document, effective design enables the reader to understand information by visually grouping elements into units and indicating order through visual hierarchy (Martin, 1989). By referring to the document design and layout of a textual document, one can assess and interpret cues such as order, proximity, visual hierarchy, and visual prominence. Further, through the implementation of a semiotic content analysis of IEP templates employed across Ontario school boards, the notion of parent involvement can be better understood.

The visual construction of the individual education plan and parent involvement

In educative practices, planning documents play an important role in communicating the educational needs of students with disabilities. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) is the main document that facilitates and enables accommodation for students with special education requirements. The IEP describes a student’s individual learning outcomes and services based on his or her level of educational performance (Griangreco, 1994). Research on the IEP work process has demonstrated that it can be confusing, frustrating, or ineffective in many cases (Ng, 2013). By taking the parents’ perspective and experience in the creation of the IEP, one can seek to understand why this can be such a taxing communicative process. As the literature can attest, there is great emphasis on parent involvement and positive outcomes in the IEP work process. However, parent input does not appear to be of great value or importance within the IEP document. In order to address the problem of poor parent involvement in the creation of the IEP, the IEP document template must be carefully analyzed. By taking the perspective of the parents in the IEP work process, the following research questions will be addressed: Primary Research Question • How do the textual and visual constructions of the IEP document elicit parent involvement in individual education planning? When analyzing IEP documents, the visual construction and the layout can be examined in order to understand why parent involvement may be limited. Written language can be analyzed by semiotic theory, which studies a system of signs, including a sign, signifier, and signified (Warner, 1990). Semiotic analysis questions what constitutes representation and the use of signs and sign systems to make messages (Nuessel, 2012). Thus, using semiotic analysis can help to understand how parents perceive the IEP document in practice. By gaining a richer understanding of the IEP template, one can hypothesize how parental involvement is communicated in the IEP work process. In considering the composition of a document, effective design enables the reader to understand information by visually grouping elements into units and indicating order through visual hierarchy (Martin, 1989). By referring to the document design and layout of a textual document, one can assess and interpret cues such as order, proximity, visual hierarchy, and visual prominence. Further, through the implementation of a semiotic content analysis of IEP templates employed across Ontario school boards, the notion of parent involvement can be better understood.

Disabling language practices: discursive constructions of children in individual education plan resource documents

Background: The Individual Education Plan (IEP) and related resource documents shape the lived realities of children in special education programs. Although these documents aim to assist children in achieving their educational goals, a point of disjuncture can exist between the documents’ intentions and the actual experiences of children. Addressing this issue is crucial in order to prevent inequality and to foster educational development and social well being for children. Purpose: This study explores the discursive construction of children in IEP resource documents in order to illuminate the underlying implications of the language comprising these texts. Method: Data was collected by gathering IEP resource documents from the Ontario Ministry of Education website. Discourse analysis was then employed to examine the presence of the equative and attributive models, the passive voice, and the possessive construction. Lastly, disability theory was used to explore how these language practices conceptualize children. Results: The data set included zero instances of the equative model, an infrequent use of the attributive model, and a strong presence of both the passive voice and the possessive construction. These findings contributed to representations of children as exceptional, passive, and subordinate despite an explicit attempt to resist such conceptions. Conclusion: This study serves as a model through which the language practices of other special education documents can be critically evaluated, and offers potential avenues for creating documents that avoid disabling children further.

Disabling language practices: discursive constructions of children in individual education plan resource documents

Background: The Individual Education Plan (IEP) and related resource documents shape the lived realities of children in special education programs. Although these documents aim to assist children in achieving their educational goals, a point of disjuncture can exist between the documents’ intentions and the actual experiences of children. Addressing this issue is crucial in order to prevent inequality and to foster educational development and social well being for children. Purpose: This study explores the discursive construction of children in IEP resource documents in order to illuminate the underlying implications of the language comprising these texts. Method: Data was collected by gathering IEP resource documents from the Ontario Ministry of Education website. Discourse analysis was then employed to examine the presence of the equative and attributive models, the passive voice, and the possessive construction. Lastly, disability theory was used to explore how these language practices conceptualize children. Results: The data set included zero instances of the equative model, an infrequent use of the attributive model, and a strong presence of both the passive voice and the possessive construction. These findings contributed to representations of children as exceptional, passive, and subordinate despite an explicit attempt to resist such conceptions. Conclusion: This study serves as a model through which the language practices of other special education documents can be critically evaluated, and offers potential avenues for creating documents that avoid disabling children further.