DS 2210A Past Paper Fall 2024 PDF

DS 2210A Tying it All Together! Reviewing “Big Ideas” in DS 2210A | Fall 2024 W1: Foundational DS, Histories of Exclusion part 1 ❑ Social model of disability: barriers in society create disability ❑ Mallet & Runswick-Cole: Medical model is the dominant discourse of disability, focuses o...

DS 2210A Tying it All Together! Reviewing “Big Ideas” in DS 2210A | Fall 2024 W1: Foundational DS, Histories of Exclusion part 1 ❑ Social model of disability: barriers in society create disability ❑ Mallet & Runswick-Cole: Medical model is the dominant discourse of disability, focuses on medicalization and ‘fixing’ ○ Distinction between impairment (limitation caused by sensory, mental, or physical impairment) and disability (limited opportunities to take part in the community because of barriers) ❑ Roeher: the way disability is diagnosed and perceived shapes how society sees those with disabilities ○ Disability as individual pathology Biomedical approach (caused my a mental or physical condition) Functional approach (individual needs to be ‘fixed’ to fit into society) ○ Disability as social pathology Environmental approach (barriers are in the environment not the individual) Rights-outcome approach (impairments are a natural part of human diversity and exist everywhere) ❑ Linton: socio-political-cultural approach (how those factors impact disability and opportunities) ○ Fault lines (points out the faults in our current system) Disability as a problem Individualizes disability ○ DS moved beyond the medicalizing corrective mindset W1: Foundational DS, Histories of Exclusion part 2 ❑ Why is there a need for the social model in DS? ○ The medical field adopts the medicalization of disability ○ Informs society’s understanding of disability and impairment ○ Only looks at the objective ‘truth’ ○ Semantics and language matter ❑ Paradigm shift 1 ○ Where is the problem located? Individual pathology Individual is the problem, a burden, and needs fixing Control and power is dominated by professionals Social pathology Barriers in society are the problem, society bears the burden Society needs to fix barriers and make daily life more accessible Individual is the expert ❑ Paradigm shift 2 ○ What are you going to do/fix? From people fixing mindsets to environment changing mindsets  W2: Established Infrastructure Jessica ❑ LFA ○ K-12 resource guide + trys to meet all learners’ needs ❑ 3 Ps ○ Personalization = Put the learner at the center of programming ○ Precision = Sense level of readiness ○ Professional Learning = Ongoing learning for educators ❑ UDL core concepts ○ Safe environment ○ Appropriately designed space(s) = Accessibility ○ Universality and equity = Teaching is tailored to draw on strengths, meet needs ○ Flexibility and inclusiveness =accommodating to different learning types ○ Simplicity = Avoid unnecessary complexity ❑ DI = To differentiate is to recognize variation and preference ○ DI uses the flow chart to make sure kids have a good level of challenge without feeling anxious Includes: Providing alternative IN&A activities; Challenging students at appropriate level(s); Using a variety of groupings to meet student needs; Does NOT Include: Doing something different for each student in the class; Using fixed groupings; Using small groupings only and never engaging in whole-class activities;Providing only group work or collaboration  W2: Established Infrastructure Jessica ❑ Tiered Approach = Approach to prevention and intervention; to identify students facing challenges in learning plan to address needs ○ Timely and appropriate intervention ❑ What is Reg 189/98 for? ○ Identify students with an exception then place where these students would best learn ○ Sets out contents of Statements of Decisions (i.e., whether a pupil is exceptional) Description of strengths, needs ❑ What is included on an IEP ○ a written plan describing the special education program and/or services required ○ a record of the particular accommodations ○ a working document that identifies alternative expectations ○ an accountability tool for the student, the student’s parents, and everyone who has responsibilities under the plan for helping the student meet goals 2 different IEPs 1 = Identified as exceptional 2= Not identified as exceptional by IPRC ❑ Placements ○ 1 - Regular classroom with indirect support; ○ 2 - Regular classroom with withdrawal support ○ 3 - Self-contained class W3: Models of Support; Pathologizing for Access 1 ❑ SM: socially constructed, challenges normality and advocates collective responsibility, participation capacity predetermined by environment, oppression and barriers due to ideas, beliefs, and attitudes ❑ MM: based on biological and physical basis, goal of bringing students with disabilities up to expected norms, underpinnings in infrastructure, metrics, assessments, and interventions ❑ Cosier and Ashby (2016) are not trying to eliminate special education, but showcase how DS alone is not equitable. They believe deeply in the experiences of educators and provide tools for equitable access: ○ High-quality education, Grade-level curricula, Social experiences ❑ They propose the need for a model that combines all the existing discourses so they could fill in each other’s gaps. DSE must be used in conjunction with other funds of knowledge (interdisciplinary). ○ Pros of DSE: looking at the whole child, extra support, natural diversity, reduced stigma, promotes understanding from SM, exists between special education and inclusion, challenges all models and promotes critical thinking ○ Why Special Education Scholars may be wary: concerned that special education will be eliminated, jobs and schooling will be restructured, other models won’t account for the medical piece of special education W3: Models of Support; Pathologizing for Access 1 ❑ Kate and her class: ○ Even when Kate was able to convince teachers to include students from her class into their mainstream classrooms, these students would not be on the attendance, would not have name tags, or school supplies as all other students had. ○ Having to work within a system that “seemed set up to fail continually” (p. 2). ○ With IDEA (2004) requiring the identification and labelling of students with disabilities in order to receive services and supports, Cosier and Ashby (2016) describe the “necessary evil” of educators having to work within systems they rejected. ❑ Shelley Moore “7-10 Split”: ○ When you aim for the front middle bowling pins, you can’t hit them all. We have to change our aim to hit more bowling pins through universal design and planning for diversity. Approach the hardest pins to hit, this way of teaching and supporting will often help the entire class.  W4: Models of Support; Pathologizing for Access 2 ❑ Nature of invisible disabilities makes it easier to pass as “normal, but also makes it harder to get accommodations. May question the validity/existence of the disability, also might not understand it; do not believe what cannot be seen ○ Blue spot: marker for having a disability that can be shown to prove that the student does have a disability, but can easily be concealed ○ Question: Is this truly beneficial in the long-term? Would require everyone to understand what the blue spot means. Does it really stop people from asking disabled people to validate themselves? ❑ There exists this tension where students are forced to pathologize themselves to access support services/accomodations ○ Unfortunately, not all impairments are recognized universally i.e. ADHD, central auditory processing disorders ❑ Many barriers exist within higher education, such as transition to university, physical barriers, and attitudinal barriers i.e. lack of awareness about disabilities ○ Consider how highschools cancelled exams during COVID, and how that made students less prepared for university W4: Models of Support; Pathologizing for Access 2 ❑ Society largely values the written word, which is how knowledge is assessed; i.e. have to write essays, but what about visual art? ○ Could this also devalue the importance of lived experience?  W5: Unpacking Constructions (TUT 1) Ghosts: Invisible in participation, representation, acknowledgement Guests: Welcome into the space, but the space is not theirs Pets: affection/ attention but not equal, patronizing Ableism: Systemic privileging of able-bodiedness, medical model, attitudinal barriers Disablism: While ableism is rooted in privileging ability, disablism highlights stereotypes, stigmas, lack of opportunity, etc. Case Studies: Stacey: “distraction”, in the classroom but not included in participation, guest, Lance: Removal of plan, support and resources to “promote inclusion” Inclusion Confusion: how we confuse inclusion in schools - Facilitating success and meeting needs are the goals however are lost in the concept of what inclusion means. Lance is a great example of this confusion.  W6: Closer Look at Accessibility ❑Forms of Accessibility ○ Physical ○ Emotional ○ Environmental ○ Intellectual ❑ Assumptions/Misconceptions and counternarratives of Giftedness ○ The following are myths and assumptions about giftedness Gifted students are academically advantaged; ‘asset’ expectionality; they will be fine on their own Some students come in with prior knowledge, runs the risk of the ‘ceiling effect’ (learning stops because they’ve ‘maxed out’ and hit the ceiling within the set classroom and curriculum given, we have the understanding that achievement = learning, but that isn’t the case) Gifted programs are elitist Prejudiced perspectives see the gifted as the ‘haves’ and the students struggling to achieve satisfactory are the ‘have nots’ When in reality gifted students are equally as far removed from the norm as those struggling to meet the norm  W6: Closer Look at Accessibility Gifted students will succeed/achieve in all subjects Giftedness is about potential and not always universal across all subjects That students cannot be gifted; they are getting poor grades Grades do NOT necessarily equal learning or potential, There are different needs and different factors that go into grades Gifted education means skipping grades Acceleration is only one option and not the path for every gifted child ❑ Bell Curve and Specific Needs ○ The bell curve is one way to look at learners needs, those with LD would be considered to the left of the norm and gifted students to the right, but important to remember that they are equally as far from the norm, yet we still see those to the left as needing more support to bring them up to the norm but the gifted students are left stuck at ‘the ceiling’ and not given supports ○ Giftedness is about potential and capacity and doesn’t mean that these learners don’t have needs  W6: Closer Look at Accessibility ❑ AODA and activity - most disabilities recognized by society are only visible ones, there is still a lack of recognition and accessibility being prioritized for invisible disabilities ○ Buildings are easier to change than attitudes ❑ Chu & Myers ○ Students have distinctly different learning needs ○ People assume they will always succeed and never face challenges but this isn’t the case ❑ “Quiet Crisis” - labelled as non-conformists but they fail to perform so far outside the norm that their performance runs the risk of endangering the reputations of educational systems in the public eye; not seen as a liability that are deserving of ‘vocal crisis’ status  W7: Equity through Inclusion vs. Segregation ❑ Self contained classes : smaller groups, resulting in a more tight knit community designed for students with significant intellectual and emotional needs ❑ Programs and schools vs. withdrawal support and the regular classroom ❑ Tensions between pedagogy/belief ❑ Individual student needs ❑ Chris Friesen  W8: Environmental & Placement Considerations GUEST LECTURE - JULIANNE The MOE provides the services of 3 Demonstration Schools in Ontario for English-speaking pupils with a severe LD:: (Amethyst (London), Trillium (Milton), Sagonaska (Belleville)) The demonstration schools: goals and objectives Established to meet the needs of pupils w severe learning disabilities Made available resource services for the learning disabled Policy/program memorandum 89 - 1990 The program objectives of the demonstration schools: 1. to provide programs for pupils with severe learning disabilities; 2. to assist enrolled pupils to develop personal life and learning strategies which will enable them to return to programs within local school boards, other educational jurisdictions, or the community; 3. to provide in-service teacher education; 4. to provide resource services for school boards as required, including pupil assessment and/or programming assistance. Amethyst key struggles LfA connection 1. Amethyst Research Sources (Pedagogy) 2. Evidence-Based Direct Explicit Instruction Programming -Kids needing treatment and thereby deserve a 3. Research Informed Technology program to meet them where they are at Steps to acquire proficient reading - meeting individual needs ***Tailoring the plan to the individual*** Phonological awareness – sound (no text) ○ Teaches skills that students might not have ○ Through listening Phonic knowledge – introducing print (matching sounds to letters) Vocabulary – understanding Comprehension while reading Applications and consultations Applications are made by local school boards Packages: Consultation, Phase I and Phase II School Resource Teachers Play Integral Role The Provincial Committee on Learning Disabilities (PCLD) governs the admissions process. *huge application process – costs money so huge process to ensure money is well spent KC Can be a deterrent  W8: Environmental & Placement Considerations GUEST LECTURE - CASEY ECPP “... provides critical support to meet the needs of (children) who cannot attend school due to their primary need for care, treatment and/or rehabilitation …” by Ministry of Education Website *crux Every child has a right to education Collaborative partnership ○ School board provides education ○ Government facility* provides treatment Ministry-funded ECPP Students Discharge Process Placements typically last 90 days (sometimes ECPP in London extended, need more time to observe) Child and Parent Resource Institute (CPRI) ○ Voluntary; if students wanted to go TVDSB and LDCSB affiliations after 90 days they could 3 classrooms at Saint Thomas Aquinas Meetings throughout placement involve families, ○ Dual Diagnosis, Male Mental Health, Female Mental Health home school, community agencies, social Wing locked off from the main school workers, clinical team Separated genders as men had sexualized tendencies Discharge assessments - medical, educational Keep everyone safe verbally Post-discharge follow-up meetings (Community Behaviour Consultants) to monitor re-entry to ECPP Classrooms home school/community Dual Diagnosis: focus is on literacy, numeracy, life and learning skills (can change the focus depending on what they need) If the student feel anxious abt going back to a Male and Female (separate) Adolescent Mental Health : focus is on earning high school credits toward diploma or certificate smaller or community in general Capped enrollment / small class sizes (dropped after COVID) Students will play tough role early on, and then after Each student program is unique discharged they are attached to the treatment they get at Child and Youth Workers / School Support Staff the school Early days – had the high school schedule on top of the additional learning Realized how crazy and altered to accommodate Dealing w other schools boards in terms of where the kids are at If students were at risk to others, teacher were never alone Ppl attached to those specific students for safety reasons KC  W9/10: Accountability, Neoliberalism, & Efficiencies ❏ Political underpinnings: - Neoliberalism: ongoing attempt to privatize, transfer of public wealth to private hands, goal of the market is profit (not a political party, but about policies) - Slow creep: neoliberal ideas have crept into our public goods (e.g., education -> we are pins not people, etc.) ❏ Accountability and achievement measures in education: - Standardized tests (e.g., New York State Regents exams) - How do we view education? (e.g., Bloom’s taxonomy) -> standardized tests focus on bottom rung (knowledge or remembering) - EQAO (Education Quality and Accountability Office) -> how do we measure, compare and present data (e.g., A. B. Lucas example) ❏ Implications: - Big ideas from Stein (2002) & implications: how does a model of consumers translate into education?, how has efficiency structured our school systems?, schools structured like factories, compete with other countries -> increased accountability measures, value productivity even if that means putting more on teachers’ plates, schools structured more & more like markets (greater inequality), utilitarianism -> ‘teaching to the middle’, does creating competition for public services impact integrity, quality of education, equity, etc.? ❏ Jeopardy? - Structuring education systems through neoliberal values & prioritizing accountability measures (for money, competition, status, etc.) places the education that serves students’ needs in jeopardy  W11: Reconceptualising Special Needs (TUT 2) ❑ Multicultural education, intended to promote cultural proficiency and educational equity, instead limits understanding by having a small scope of culture/individuals. - Gen Ed and Spec-Ed; parallel system. Divides students and solidifies a Hegemony of normalcy. Separate students considered different, however those in the same system considered similar. - Disability is not treated as a culture in multicultural education, yet it meets the qualifications. True disabled perspectives and realities of struggles and abilities would go against the notion of ‘deficit of difference schools perpetuate. - “Identities and Experiences are too complex to be captured in discrete and exclusive categories”. - True multicultural education embraces all elements and nurtures multiple identities so that students understand and embrace pluralistic perspectives. - How are we treating disability in educational culture and general culture, what is our representation, also look at Roeher, Linton, Cosier and Ashby, Mullins and Preyde, Gable. How do our schools situate disabled students, how does this add to difference, identity. How do we understand disability and how do we act on it. - Examine Special Education, it’s flaws and how it has contributed to the separation within schools.  W12: Next Steps for DS in Education ❑Clayton ❑Rugby ○ You can only pass backwards ○ It’s a team game, you need support of current teachers ○ Meet people where they are at ❑ Hidden Curriculum ○ Teacher need time and space to unpack and critically investigate ○ Interrogation of segregated schools ○ We learn a lot of things in school without explicit teaching ○ Be mindful of language and behaviour…think about what you’re communicating ○ Importance of unpacking and unlearning assumptions ○ Use of simulations to illustrate what students might experience in school (e.g., withdrawal for remediation) ❑ ‘Membership’ in inclusive spaces ○ Think Jose, teacher wanted to bring them up to grade level with additional support but feels as if it failed when it didn’t. This is not meeting the student where they are at ○ Think building an airplane around the student in the sky ❑ DSE Approach ○ minimize the distance between MM and SM  Course Scholars: Gable (2014) Jessica ❑ How gable builds off the laminated system ○ he emphasised the complexity of disability ○ She says we con not order the layers as that makes it messy and it does not fully account for all layers ❑ “Laminated” = disability is examined through examining multiple layers of reality - as it cannot be exmaplin by just on layer (like just genetics) - this is because disability is complex and you need a holistic view ❑ Interstanding = Recognizes the interplay between physical, symbolic, discursive forces in this disability phenomenon; forces cannot be reduced to a single level of understanding; focus on what happens between ideas ❑ Practical Adequacy = Theories hold practical adequacy when knowledge makes a contribution to our understanding and is then “collectively considered an improvement  Course Scholars: Gable (2014) Jessica Examples of each: ❑ = No Infustructure for wheelchairs = Giftedness - policy recognizes some exceptionalities = Socioeconomic class = PTSD = Learning Disability = stroke or heart diseases = Mood Disorder = Chromosome mutation (down syndrome)  Course Scholars: Gable (2014) Jessica ❑ Why critical realism is needed to explain the complex pheromone of disability ○ Gable is trying to show us we are missing things by just focusing in the MM- for example not seeing a kid creativity or other abilities ○ Critical realism give us a holistic approach of a child Relates to chris students - he was able to see his students holistically ❑ What other course scholars connect? ○ Stacy case (week 5) = she was just a “ghost” in the classroom even though she had so many abilities her general education teacher only saw her as a student in a wheelchair - there was a lot of stigma ○ Kate's story (cosier +ashby) = Kate was able to see her kid holistically however the other teacher again only saw the kids in a medical model way that needed to be fixed ○ Chu + Myers = Many gifted students were seen as an “asset” and doing just fine based on testing score - however if teacher used a holistic approach they would have realized gifted students need just as much support as students with LD ○ Vlad case (week 5) = Here the laminited system was used as the spec ed teacher that we working with vlad understood him holistically and saw his strengths and needs - they used personalization (another connection to LFA) for lessons which was done because they were able to get to know vlad and took the time to to understand his interest and applied them to his work which allowed him to succeed  Course Scholars: Sutherland & Stack (2014) ❑ ❑ SEN withdrawal intervention – medical model focused: received support back in the mainstream ❑ ASN community connections and learning, trying to develop a socially developed society holistic approach to providing support in a variety of areas. ❑ CFE – curriculum for excellence: developed in 2002 officially rolled out in 2010. 2019 refreshed the narrative on it. Coherent comprehensive curriculum for ages 3-15 and includes lots of interdisciplinary learning. 8 subjects ❑ Expressive arts ❑ Health and wellbeing ❑ Languages ❑ Religion and/or moral education ❑ Maths ❑ Sciences ❑ Social sciences ❑ Technologies  Course Scholars: Lyons & Arthur-Kelly (2014) TYPES OF INCLUSION 2.Strategic Inclusion 1.Authentic Inclusion - GOLD STANDARD Self-contained classes + integration Full inclusion; additional supports where necessary Placement of ALL students with PIMD in “base” special or self-contained Placement of ALL students with PIMD in regular, neighbourhood classes in local schools in fully inclusive school systems classes (based on boundaries) With strategic engagement with the regular class Fully inclusive school systems with some individual/group withdrawal C/P/A developed within an IEP context and regular classroom for focused teaching/learning activities engagement within differentiated context Differentiated Curriculum/Pedagogy/Assessment; consistent with Additional supports provided to address issues of equity External benchmark assessments to be accommodated (albeit UDL “modified” used in text) External benchmark assessments to be accommodated (albeit This pathway partly aligns with UNESCO inclusion policy guidelines; “modified” used in text) various restraints and barriers would hinder progress; broad precedents This pathway aligns closely with UNESCO inclusion policy for this pathway guidelines; philosophy is ethically equitable Where do we see this? Where do we see this? ○ USA: “least restrictive environment” (refer back to Cosier & ○ A few Scandinavian countries generally practice “full” Ashby, 2016) ; strong principles in community; educational and social inclusion; Finnish gov’ts position full ○ Canada: see also Lance (Iannacci, 2018) inclusion already achieved (p. 450) Many schools today – examples Iannacci connection – would be this type of inclusion in theory True integration UNESCO – focuses on the feeling of inclusion Students are either working toward a credit or not but taking the class This approach is heavily criticized Cosier Ashby – Kate Not possible in a neighbourhood school to meet every single need w Wanted to have students integrated the PIMD profile *strategic for their learning In theory, not in practice Least restrictive environment – tied to community Cosier and Ashby – utopia KC Far to difficult to operationalize  Course Scholars: Lyons & Arthur-Kelly (2014) TYPES OF INCLUSION 4.Quality of Life 3.Opportunistic Inclusion Own school + own curriculum Self-contained schools Alternative placement of ALL students with PIMD Placement of ALL students with PIMD in special or self-contained schools Alternative approach to curriculum design, development; significant Opportunistic engagement with the regular neighbourhood schools restructuring of C/P/A to align with principles of Quality of Life (QOL) ○ Chris’ example of Co-Op program ○ “We just want him/her to be happy” (p. 451) C/P/A developed within evidence-based IEP context; C/P/A practices ○ Goal student-to-student basis Complete restructuring of curriculum design Less progressive “LRE” (Least Restrictive Environment) interpretation Overarching goal for students with PIMD: improve their current and applies here future QOL; providing them with experiences and instruction that will **External benchmark assessments would not apply here improve their ability to experience life satisfaction, happiness, fun (p. ○ No EQAO, no credits for OSSD 451) ○ Differs from Chris’ school and Amethyst as they were working This pathway could have strong “in principle” support from various towards credit attainment This pathway hardly aligns with UNESCO inclusion policy guidelines; interest groups; functional curriculum; goals, dreams, hopes for self restraints and barriers impact progress; precedents for taking this pathway (child) ○ Inclusion for the rest of our lives, and not just for now ○ Functional over academic Where do we see this? Where do we see this? ○ UK and Australia: “cascade of placement options” for students with ○ UK: special schools; person-centered planning PIMD (reg class, self-contained class, (mostly) special schools); *we don’t know what this looks like yet ○ Britain (re)segregation of students with PIMD in residential schools Spirit of EPCC comes from here, but operationalization of EPCC is not widely opposing philosophical opinions 24/7 IEPs; “addressing ‘the *quality of life is not a mainstream school best interests’ of the students and their families” (p. 451) Doesn’t currently exist Meant to provide the utmost support for students Never seen before Does address best interest when comes to resources, nursing support, specialized equipment, specialized care KC  Course Scholars: Lyons & Arthur-Kelly (2014) MAIN THEMES AND CONNECTIONS Differentiate approaches – if not, taking an equality approach where including and everyone gets the same thing Needs the inclusive environments and feelings that are differentiated to meet individualized needs Iannaci – spaces are saying that they are inclusive, but they are not Chris (guest speaker) connection – all students in that school had similar learning profile ○ If someone was university bound, the school at first would not have been able to meet the needs ○ Was supposed to be inclusion for life, but it wasn’t Lance – inclusion for life ○ Self contained placement for functional literacy *recall Kate (cosier and ashby, 2016) Kate – cosier and ashby connection Have to navigate the risks carefully Tension kate felt: intended vs inactive Had a socially just education plan, but operational items communicated that her kids didn’t belong KC  Course Scholars: Sullivan & King Thorius (2010) ❑ Begin here!  Course Scholars: Gross Stein (2002) ❏ “Cult of inefficiency”: - “Efficiency, or cost-effectiveness, has become an end in itself, a value often more important than others” (p. 3) - Efficiency is “the best possible use of scarce resources to achieve a valued end” (p. 6) - Language of efficiency creeping into the public & private life - “paramount sin is now inefficiency” (p. 2) - Misunderstandings about efficiency: not an end, not a goal, not a value, but a means or instrument to achieve valued ends/goals - Efficiency is measured through accountability -> we see this in relationship between government and citizens, however becomes problematic when applied to public services such as education ❏ Big ideas from Stein: - Consumers, value & voice - Adam Smith’s ‘pins’ - Mechanical world view, automation (Internet of Things) - Efficiency becoming who we are (not what we are) & comparing ourselves to other nations - Productivity - Markets as solutions (shifting to privatization, neoliberal values) - Utilitarianism - Creation of public markets Refer to slide on accountability, neoliberalism & efficiencies for elaboration & connections to education  BIG IDEAS: Inclusion ❑ Inclusion for life: ○ Lance in Iannacci’s (2018) vignette: Lance experienced individualized programming relevant to his goal of becoming a hairdresser. This programming was located in a special education classroom for half the day, before Lance joined his mainstream class for the other half. There was communication between his general education teacher and his special education teacher to ensure accommodations or modifications were made. This can be compared to Stacey’s experience of inclusion, where geographically she was included in a mainstream class, but her chair located in the back of the classroom and the lack of participation makes inclusion confusing. When inclusion is for a school’s optics, the student is not included for life. ○ Chris’ program: Achievement is not equitable, but engagement is. Changed his aim (Shelley Moore’s 7-10 split). While Chis’ school was segregated, the program set students up to be included in life. In each grade, students participated in visiting, observing, and working in co-op. The school had to change the way learning looked, pulling from curriculum, but ensuring that each student would, as Chris said, “leave us better.” ❑ Inclusion is not a “one size fits all” situation. Ideas of fairness and sameness have students taking the form of ghosts, guests, and pets in the classroom (Iannacci, 2018). Inclusion must provide students with what they need, and this varies extensively  BIG IDEAS: Visible vs. Less Visible Disabilities ❑ Consider “It’s Time” case study from the Ianacci reading, Vlad struggled with literacy and math ○ Received withdrawal support with lessons tailored to his needs and interests to keep him engaged and motivated ○ Was later successfully transitioned to regular classroom ❑ Special education subscribes to the medical model of disability, it views disability as “abnormal” and in need of fixing ○ According to Cosier, abnormality creates a “power structure [...] that favors ‘abled’ over ‘disabled’ and ‘normal’ over ‘abnormal’ and subsequently serves to oppress individuals with disabilities.” (Cosier, 301) ○ Likewise, Ianacci argues that viewing disability through a deficit based lens creates “impoverished and disabling pedagogies devoid of utility and engagement” Think about what Chris said in his speech, he was learning, he was achieving, but he was not ENGAGED This highlights how gifted pupils are considered not in need of specialized supports  BIG IDEAS: Disability Model(s) ❑ Social Model: society creates barriers, which in turn create disability, society holds the burden ○ Socioeconomic Model: the concept of disability is socially constructed, disability is understood as a social process. ○ Cultural Model: takes lived experience into account, understands disability as different for all due to lived experiences. ❑ Medical Model: the individual needs to be ‘fixed,’ this is the dominant discourse of disability ○ Individual Model: focuses on what the individual cannot do rather than what they can do. ❑ Disability Studies in Education Model (DSE): challenges all the models and how they fit into the education system classrooms, differences are natural and serve as a foundation for inclusive education. ❑ All these models have worked (and not worked) in different times throughout history. We began with the medical model, which became very exclusionary and problematic pretty fast (considering institutionalization). We still mainly use the medical model, considering in order to get accommodations for anything you need a diagnosis. ❑ It is not possible to say what the best approach is, that is truly your opinion and can depend on the situation you find yourself looking at. ❑ Real and sustainable change can be created through the social model (and the models stemming from it), and the DSE model because they see the individual as a person, not as something that needs to be fixed. ❑ How we implement the models again depends on the situation you find yourself looking at.  BIG IDEAS: Disability Positioning Social positioning: outside of norm, difference Medical positioning: a problem to fix/treat, deficit Educational positioning: “special categories”, special education programs, away from mainstream Visible disabilities: structured support, experience more stigma, known barriers Non-visible disabilities: can be overlooked, inadequate accommodations and support Intersectionality: taking race, socioeconomic status, etc. into account can change how disabilities are positioned (King Thorius, 103- white males w disability from wealthy families had much greater access to educational opportunities) Why do we keep subscribing to the current understandings? Legacy of medical model, need for labelling, societal bias BIG IDEAS: Infrastructure ❑ENABLING FACTORS ○ Legal frameworks - Ontario’s Education Amendment Act and Regulation 181/98 Mandate the identification, placement, and review process for exceptional learners and ensure exceptional learners are provided with IEPs ○ Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) Documents that address the individuals strengths and needs, making accommodations to provide proper access to the curriculum ○ Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (DI) These frameworks are embedded in Ontario’s approach to education, promoting accessibility and equity by designing instructional strategies that benefit all learners ○ Accommodations and Modifications Assistive technology, specialized equipment, etc. ❑ DISABLING FACTORS ○ Systemic barriers - lack of funding, inadequate teacher training , reliance on the medical model ○ Medical model dominance - focus on pathologizing students to fit categories for access ○ Unequal resource distribution - lack of resources to implement UDL and DI ○ Rigid processes - reliance on assessments for IEPs delay support BIG IDEAS: Infrastructure ❑How Current Policies and Guidelines Support and Miss the Mark ○ Support: Ontario Human Rights Code - mandates accommodation for students with disabilities, striving to minimize barriers Learning for all Framework - focus on personalization, precision and professional learning to address diverse needs(UDL and DI principles) IEP and IPRC Processes - formal mechanisms in place to identify, plan and review support for exceptional learners ○ Missing the Mark: Over-pathologization - the need for diagnoses to fit the categorizations marginalizes those who don’t necessarily fit Focus on academic outcomes - the emphasis on achieving grade level expectations can overlook some skill development ❑ Different Exceptionalities - they influence how infrastructure is experienced, different needs, need different supports ❑ Pathologizing for access? (needing a diagnoses) ○ Can provide clarity but it reinforces a deficit-based view and potentially stigmatizes students and also marginalizes them if they don’t necessarily fit the proper category or criteria then they don’t receive support at all  Course Material: Videos ❑Transforming Inclusive education. ○ The seven ten split metaphor ○ Teaching is like bowling you roll the ball down the middle try and help as many kids as possible, we have another chance to help the other kids left standing, the kids who need the most support and the kids who need the most challenge. ○ To get a system that can help all kids we need to change the way we educate or “put a curve in the ball” instead of putting it straight down the middle, as supports the outer pin kids need are often helpful to all kids ❑ Post industrial society ○ Divides history into 3 stages: the agrarian society (money comes from animals, crops and farming), the industrialism era (many workers, few capitalists) and the service era (all service work is information work) ❑ No child left behind ○ Has teachers discuss the effects of no teacher left behind in one word ○ Key words: Sad, Devastating, took away the soul of education, takes focus from child and puts focus on test scores, took away the creativity, made more children get left behind.  Course Material: Videos ❑Neoliberalism ○ Anything that doesn't fit into market value doesn't count. ○ Attempts to hold back all those institutions which speak to public good ○ Attempts to privatise so that the only thing that motivates people is making money ❑ Don’t should on me ○ Greenness ties back to industrial revolution where in a factory consistency was key. ○ Public education was founded on similar ideas so when kids graduated they could come work in factories ○ Many students who don’t fit feel they are broken but rather it is the system ○ Calls for changing the question from where should you be and change it to where are you now and where's your next step  Course Material: Social Constructions ❑ Clayton ❑ What are ‘Social Constructions’? ○ Something that is created and/or widely accepted by society at large ❑ Where do we see these in educational systems? ○ Grade Level ○ Averages ○ Dis/ability ○ ❑ In the course material/literature? ○  Course Material: Privileged Identities ❑ Mullins and Preyde ○ Having a disability that is invisible can make it easier for these students to be treated normally; it also means, however, that the validity of the disability can be questioned and that others may not understand the full extent of their limitations. ○ People with invisible disabilities “don’t have a handicap sign” allowing them to exists unrecognized as disabled but means they often have to fight harder for recognition and support. ❑ Sullivan and king thorius ○ People with disabilities who converge with other markers of difference often experience disparate and treatment ❑ AODA guide ○ Majority of representation of disabled population is physical disabilities with little to no representation of intellectual disabilities