What is the difference between diversity and exceptionality

Support Learn 33 1 — Christian LG Understanding families: applying family systems theory to early childhood practice. Young Child 61 1 —20 Google Scholar. Res Comp Int Educ 4 3 — Degener T Disability in a human rights context. Laws 5 3 — Edyburn D Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Farrell P The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. Int J Incl Educ 4 2 — Fitzgerald P Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream classrooms.

Lit Learn Middle Years 24 2 — Accessed 2 Feb Google Scholar. Florian L Special or inclusive education: future trends. Br J Spec Educ 35 4 — Psychol Sch 53 10 — Prev Sch Fail 60 4 — Giangreco M Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: research, practices and alternatives. Australas J Spec Educ 37 2 — Infants Young Child 31 2 — Greenwood J, Kelly C Implementing cycles of assess, plan, do, review: a literature review of practitioner perspectives.

Br J Spec Educ 44 4 — Hardy I, Woodcock S Inclusive education policies: discourses of differences, diversity and deficit.

Int J Incl Educ 19 2 — Ho C Angry Anglos and aspirational Asians: everyday multiculturalism in the selective school system in Sydney. Hyde M Creating inclusive schools. Because a disability is mild does not mean that it is trivial or that it magically disappears at age 18 or Students with SLD, for example, are seriously impaired in one of the most important developmental tasks in a technologically. Poor reading skills in particular constitute formidable barriers to academic progress and significantly limit adult career opportunities.

People with disabilities at the moderate to severe levels typically have a large deficit on at least one of the important behavioral dimensions, as well as moderate to large deficits in one or more of the other dimensions. These deficits tend to have a biological or physiological basis, and affected persons usually carry physical symptoms that influence their appearance.

Disabilities at the more severe levels are typically diagnosed initially in the preschool years, often by medical personnel. During the school-age years, people with moderate or severe disabilities typically require assistance with certain daily living activities, such as self-help skills, mobility in the community, basic communication skills, and recreation. Special education programs for these students usually involve extensive assistance, whether in special classes with a very low student-to-teacher ratio e.

Most people with disabilities at the moderate or severe level require lifelong assistance with one or more of the everyday activities of work, recreation, mobility, and self-care. People with disabilities at the most severe level typically have large deficits, often in two or more areas, that result in poor educational performance and require extensive and consistent support.

Mental retardation is often a primary disability for people with severe multiple disabilities; for example, approximately 60 percent of people with cerebral palsy have mental retardation Batshaw and Perret, In educational contexts, the focus of defining severe disabilities has moved from describing negative behaviors e.

This latter approach emphasizes the discrepancy between what is expected in "normal development" and actual student performance e. Individuals with the most severe disabilities are far below normal development and require continuing assistance, in childhood and adult years, with very basic self-survival skills. As explained in the following pages, each dimension affects how children are identified and served in special education.

A high percentage of children in special education exhibit low achievement in at least one academic area. Achievement as a dimension of disability has important implications for standards-based reform. Serious debate exists about the relative importance of traditional academic literacy skills for students with severe disabilities and for many middle- and high-school-age students with moderate and mild disabilities.

The majority of students with severe disabilities will not reach basic levels of academic literacy as they are understood in standards-based reforms. Furthermore, students with mild disabilities may reach plateaus in academic achievement, or, if not actual plateaus, then stages in skill acquisition, at which further progress is extremely slow.

As we discuss in Chapter 4 , the low achievement of some children with disabilities raises difficult issues about whether an academically oriented curriculum is the most appropriate emphasis, particularly if it takes time away from teaching social and functional competencies and vocational skills. General intellectual functioning is typically assessed as part of the evaluation for special education, usually with a standardized IQ test individually administered by a psychologist.

Federal regulations define mental retardation as "significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior" 34 CFR Federal regulations for diagnosing specific learning disabilities require that there be a "severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability" 34 CFR Recent research, however, has challenged the validity of using an intelligence-achievement discrepancy to define SLD see Morison et al.

Although the meaning of the construct of intelligence continues to provoke debate, especially as it relates to achievement, some features of intelligence are reasonably well established. Intelligence is related to efficiency in information processing, the ability to learn abstract concepts, the spontaneous use of strategies to acquire and remember information and solve problems, and the capability to learn from incomplete instruction.

Generally the lower the levels of intelligence and achievement , the greater the need for more concrete, less abstract instruction that proceeds in small steps and includes ample demonstration and practice Campione et al. Intelligence is related to school performance and academic achievement, but the relationships are complex and difficult to separate Neisser et al. Intelligence is both a predic-.

Adaptive Behavior. Adaptive behavior, also referred to as adaptive skills or social competencies, is traditionally defined as "the effectiveness or degree with which individuals meet the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural group" Grossman, Included in this concept are domains of behavior such as: 1 independent functioning —examples at the most basic level include toileting, eating, dressing, avoiding danger, getting around the community, handling money wisely; 2 social functioning —e.

The mental retardation diagnosis explicitly requires a determination of adaptive behavior deficits and cannot be made solely on the basis of an IQ score. Diagnosis of SED also involves adaptive behavior domains; conduct disorders involving aggression against persons and property and refusal to comply with societal norms and rules are the most frequent kind of SED.

Because adaptive behavior expectations vary by age, setting, and cultural group, they are sometimes difficult to assess. But adaptive behavior is essential to every disability category, and adaptive behavior competencies are widely recognized as crucial to the adjustment of students with disabilities, especially as they mature into adults.

Emotional Adjustment. Emotional adjustment involves attitudes, values, and emotions that can facilitate or interfere with academic and social behaviors in a variety of settings. A relatively small number of students with SED have problems with emotional adjustment called internalizing disorders. These disorders involve patterns of behavior, such as excessive anxiety, dysphoric mood, and repetitive ritualistic behaviors, that cause distress to the individual and interfere with everyday performance.

Depending on state and local practices, children and youth with internalizing disorders may receive related services such as counseling. Because the dimensions of achievement and intelligence are so closely related, we use the term cognitive disability throughout the rest of the report to describe disabilities that affect students' learning and thinking processes.

Understanding and using language to communicate also is crucial to determining the level of disability in other categories and is a central focus of special education programming for many students with disabilities. Sensory Status. Sensory status, particularly auditory and visual acuity, is the basis for the disability categories of deafness, hearing impairment, deaf-blindness, and visual impairment.

Screening for sensory deficits is routinely included in full and individual evaluations for special education. Motor Skills. Special education and related services are often needed by students with motor disabilities to compensate for their motor limitations and to treat associated problems such as speech production difficulties.

Motor skills limitations also can influence participation in activities associated with the general education curriculum and standards-based reform.

For example, many students with motor limitations have difficulties with the response formats required on standards-based assessments e. Health Status. A wide variety of health problems, some of which are life threatening, can result in a disability diagnosis and referral to special education. Some students are so ill that they cannot participate in the general school curriculum or activities associated with standards-based reform.

Students with severe head injuries, for example, who are attempting to regain very basic cognitive functions such as awareness and memory, can hardly be expected to participate meaningfully in standards-based reforms. A few students have health problems that are so severe and chronic that their special education and related services do not incorporate any skills that would be included in the general education curriculum at the lowest grade levels.

The current special education classification system mixes two different ways of thinking about the nature and origin of disabilities: the medical and the social system models of deviance Mercer, ; Reschly, b. Each model implies different assumptions about etiology, identification, assessment, and treatment.

The medical model generally applies to disabilities that have known biological bases; retinopathy caused by premature birth as a cause of blindness is an example Mercer, ; Reschly, b.

Medical model disabilities are generally lifelong, can be observed across most if not all social roles and settings, and are likely to be identified regardless of cultural context. Medical model disabilities typically are identified by medical personnel during the preschool years, of-. Treatment focuses on eliminating the underlying cause, if possible, or compensating for its effects on daily activities to the extent feasible.

In contrast, the social system model typically refers to disabilities that are socially constructed and relevant to some but not all settings. In the social system model, disorders are defined as discrepancies from expected patterns or normative standards of performance on important dimensions of behavior.

In children, many such disabilities are evident only after a child enters school and begins to have difficulty with academic learning. Statistical indices such as percentile ranks and discrepancy scores are used to quantify the amount of divergence from age or grade-level averages. Often a point or two in these discrepancy scores can determine whether a student receives special education services and whether additional thousands of dollars are spent on the child's education.

The 13 disability categories in the IDEA reflect to varying degrees these two models of deviance. The medical model is useful for describing such categories as deafness, deaf-blindness, hearing impairment, multiple disabilities, other health impairment, traumatic brain injury, visual impairment, and the moderate or severe levels of mental retardation.

Nearly all of the children and youth with these types of impairments have identifiable biological and observable physiological anomalies that are permanent and that have a direct relationship to impairments in behavior. The mixture of the medical and social system models has the most serious consequences in the area of SLD; there often is confusion over the relative importance of underlying causes and symptoms in the assessment, identification, and treatment of this disability.

The conceptualization of learning disabilities as a problem with psychological processing emerged in the s. Various definitions have evolved over time, and most incorporate the ideas that learning disabilities 1 are different from other achievement-related conditions such as mental retardation or slowness in learning, 2 can be expressed as unexpected difficulties in a range of basic ability domains, such as thinking and spoken or written language, and 3 are caused by something within the individual, often presumed to be an underlying neurological condition Keogh and MacMillan, The most widely used definition states that SLD is "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or using language" and refers to such conditions as "perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia" Mercer et al.

However, the majority of students with SLD do not show identifiable signs of neurological deficits Hammill, Dyslexia occurs along a continuum that blends imperceptibly with normal reading ability. These results indicate that no distinct cutoff point exists to distinguish children with dyslexia clearly from children with normal reading ability; rather, the dyslexic children simply represent the lower portion of the continuum of reading capabilities.

Different perspectives on the definitions and key criteria are not the only complication in the area of learning disabilities. Problems in its implementation in the school context include unsound diagnostic practices, unreliable measures, different choices of discrepancy models for operationalizing the definition, different understandings of SLD by those making referrals, and preference for the SLD diagnosis because it incurs less stigma than some other categories Keogh and MacMillan, ; Lyon, Thus, "the heterogeneity evident in any identified group of learning disabled individuals is a function of both conceptual and operational inconsistencies" Keogh and MacMillan, Proper diagnosis of disabilities is complicated by the nature of current policy requirements, especially the all or none character of eligibility—that is, a student must be deemed either to have or not to have a disability for educational purposes.

In fact, the capabilities and needs of many students do not fit into such a neat dichotomy but rather exist on a broad continuum, often lacking clear demarcations between students with disabilities and those without.

Problems with the current classification system were recognized at least 20 years ago in the massive federally funded exceptional child classification project. Hobbs characterized the conventional categories and the procedures for arriving at them as follows:. They are imprecise: They say too little, and they say too much. They suggest only vaguely the kind of help a child may need, and they tend to describe conditions in negative terms.

Generally, negative labels affect the child's self concept in a negative way, and probably do more harm than good. Some of the assumptions behind the current categorization system were again questioned in a later report issued by a National Research Council panel on selection and placement of students in programs for the mentally retarded Heller et al. To what extent must children be classified and labeled according to a generic class of deficiencies in order to receive special education services?

Diagnostic categories such as EMR [educable mentally retarded] may be more an administrative convenience than an educational necessity, allowing schools to count the. If categorical labels are required for administrative purposes, they could be chosen to reflect the educational services provided, thereby emphasizing the responsibilities of school systems rather than the failings of the child.

Following are brief descriptions of some of the problems involved in classifying disabilities, with selected references for further reading. The degree to which classification or labeling, as it is sometimes called, produces lifelong, permanent negative effects is still disputed.

Certainly, the more extreme claims made by critics of classification procedures in the late s and early s e. Nevertheless, the common names of MR and SED used for students with those disabilities have negative connotations. An earlier, now classic, review MacMillan et al. Concerns about the effects of classification on individuals have led to calls for the elimination of the common classification categories National Association of School Psychologists, A concern for stigmatization has been cited as one of the reasons for the growth in the numbers of children diagnosed as SLD, as this label is thought to be more socially acceptable than MR or SED Lyon, Although this literature is complex, one conservative conclusion is that categorical classification should be used as sparingly as possible, should use terms with as few negative connotations as possible, and should focus on skills rather than presumed ''inherent attributes" or internal characteristics of the individual.

Current diagnoses using traditional categories are frequently unreliable, for several reasons. Second, teachers vary in their tolerance for student differences, and different screening and placement practices exist within and between districts Hersh and Walker, ; MacMillan et al. Fourth, as explained above, classification criteria vary among and within states.

A number of researchers have long noted the degree of. Research also suggests that current disability classifications have some limitations in validity. A category is also considered valid if the information used to classify the student is useful to the individual's prognosis or outcomes. For example, information needed to determine whether a student is eligible to be classified as SLD, MMR, or SED typically does not relate closely to treatment decisions, especially decisions about the student's general educational goals, specific objectives, or educational interventions, nor is it particularly useful in evaluating outcomes.

Some evidence now suggests that the educational interventions provided to students in the different disability categories are far more alike than different Algozzine et al. This same research and other reviews also indicate that traditional categories do not have a demonstrable relationship to specific outcomes or to prognoses Epps and Tindal, ; Kavale, ; Kavale and Glass, Another difficult question, one that has important implications for eligibility policy, is whether some students with mild cognitive disabilities can be reliably and validly distinguished from other students who are alternately termed "low achieving," "slow learners," or "educationally disadvantaged.

Under current practice, although it is virtually impossible for a student whose achievement level is average or near average to be diagnosed in a category like SLD, it is not clear-cut how to distinguish between various degrees of below-average achievement and SLD or MMR. Research evidence that could guide these decisions is mixed. For example, a growing body of evidence indicates that a significant number of students identified as SLD do not differ on any psychometric or functional dimensions from other low-achieving students Keogh, ; Ysseldyke et al.

Other researchers, however, have found that reliable and large differences exist on multiple dimensions between students who are identified as SLD and low-achieving students who are not so identified Bursuck, ; Kavale et al.

Similarly, research evidence is mixed on whether the two groups respond differently to educational treatments. Some studies have indicated that effective instructional programming or psychological treatment uses the same principles and often the same procedures regardless of whether the student is classified SLD, MMR, SED, slow learner, or educationally disadvantaged Carter, ; Epps and Tindal, Other research has suggested that SLD and low-.

The validity of a given classification is strongly related to the use or purpose to which the category is put. Our discussion has mentioned the importance of a valid taxonomy for two different purposes: making eligibility determinations and making treatment decisions. As described earlier, evidence suggests that the existing classification system largely serves the first purpose at the expense of the second.

For this reason, some have suggested moving to a more global category system for determining eligibility e. But, as this chapter suggests, some method of categorizing different disabilities is important for research purposes, because research indicates that achievement and outcomes vary dramatically for children with different kinds of disabilities and at differing levels of severity.

In addition, as Chapter 5 suggests, some kind of taxonomy of functional characteristics related to disability will be needed to design valid assessment accommodations. A taxonomy that is useful or valid for one of these purposes may not necessarily be valid for the others.

A possible resolution to the problem of eligibility and treatment decisions is to establish diagnostic constructs based on a child's placement along a number of continuous dimensions of disability, rather than an either-or dichotomy. Reschly proposed a model for determining eligibility that would recognize a broad continuum of need and produce levels of funding based on degree of need.

In this model, degree of need is ascertained by determining: 1 the number of discrepancies from average levels of performance using the eight dimensions described earlier in this chapter; 2 the size of the discrepancy on each of the dimensions; 3 the complexity of the treatment required kind of professional assistance and equipment or special environments ; and 4 the intensity of the treatment amount of time per day and the length of treatment needed to provide an appropriate education.

These four variables could also be used as weighting factors in a regression equation that would yield a total number of dollars available to support the special education of a particular student.

Approaches like this may result in a more consistent classification system that could be implemented at all stages of the special education process, including screening, prereferral intervention, classification, programming, and funding. The variety of issues surrounding eligibility has prompted calls for a more flexible taxonomy. Congress and the Clinton administration have considered proposals to use a generic category, such as "developmentally delayed," for children through age 9, which in effect would eliminate the federal requirement for categorization of younger children.

Other proposals would abolish the requirement to define disability at all and would send special education funds to states and local districts based only on some proportion of the school-age population, to be used for whichever children they see fit. But, although the difficulties with current eligibility policy and practice are widely acknowledged within special education, there is little consensus surrounding the solutions.

In sum, there is no single accepted taxonomy, or classification system, for identifying which children have disabilities or describing the functional characteristics of various disability dimensions. The categories specified in federal regulations are general and are not universally used.

The most commonly used taxonomies combine medical and social approaches in ways that are not always clear-cut. Nevertheless, some national data are available about the numbers and characteristics of children in each of the 13 federal categories. These data are reviewed in the next section.

Department of Education. These data are collected on a yearly basis from states and aggregate the number of children being served in special education programs across the 13 categories of disability. Although other kinds of national surveys have been done, they often rely on parent reports of disability characteristics and specific educational problems and do not provide reliable prevalence estimates Lewit and Baker, Table provides a summary of disabilities by key category for children ages 6—11 and 12—17 for school year —95 U.

The prevalence of disabilities varies by age and category. SLD is the most frequently occurring disability at both age intervals, and it is particularly prominent at the 12—17 age interval. Specific learning disabilities now account for over half of all students classified as having disabilities. Indeed, the SLD category has grown substantially since , when the department began collecting classification data.

Although one disability is usually designated to be the primary disability and thus a student is counted in that category in Table , many students have. As a result, states believe these total counts are highly accurate. In contrast, states define their own eligibility criteria for each disability category; although the data are aggregated across states to get national totals in each of the 13 categories, the comparability of characteristics of students in each category is unknown. The percentages are based on a total estimated enrollment of children age 6—17 of 44,, The most frequently reported additional disabilities in that study were mental retardation and speech impairment Wagner et al.

Although there are wide variations among students in each of the 13 categories of disabilities, some general trends occur. In contrast, the disabilities in the category of "other" in Table , which account for about 7 percent of the school-age population with disabilities and about 1 percent of the overall population, are much more likely to cause moderate or severe levels of impairment. These include the categories of autism,. Other than age, OSEP does not collect any demographic information from the states concerning students with disabilities.

The data that exist come from other sources. Most data on school-referred samples of children indicate that boys are identified for special education at higher rates than girls Heller et al. However, recent data using clinically identified samples of students suggest that approximately the same number of girls and boys are identified when functional characteristics are assessed e. Minority students, LGBTQ students, and students who engage in behavior that deviates from accepted gender norms are considered at higher risk of being bullied , which can lead to problems with academic performance, decreases in mood, and even suicide attempts.

Intentionally creating learning environments in which students are empowered to acknowledge and celebrate differences is paramount to their safe education and protection.

Educators agree that teachers who are culturally responsive and proficient , and perhaps diverse themselves, can help address racial disparities in student achievement. By encouraging and celebrating diversity in your classrooms, you can empower students to feel safe, build healthy relationships, and make meaningful impact on others.

Safe learning spaces are diverse learning spaces. Below are more specific reasons that diversity should be taught in the classroom. It begins with the individual. Students whose differences are accepted in a culture of inclusion can build the confidence to accept themselves. Acceptance goes beyond the self and into the community around us. Students who learn to be accepting and inclusive can develop empathy for others. When adults teach empathy, through diversity-driven lessons and through modeling empathetic behavior, children can develop socially with less prejudicial attitudes.

Children will inevitably interact with others around the world from different backgrounds, interests, and perspectives. Their future professions might take them into the global economy. They might even travel at some point in their young or adult lives. Having an understanding and respect for other cultures is an important aspect to being a responsible citizen of the world.

When students are able to respect and celebrate the differences between people, they are better equipped to manage real-world scenarios in which varying perspectives and compromise come into play. Diverse classrooms have social and cognitive benefits, according to research. Students in integrated schools are more likely to have higher test scores and to enroll in college.

The racial achievement gap is also smaller at these schools. We want to provide our students with the safest educational environments and experiences that we can.

It is a duty as much as a desire, and it includes teaching diversity in the classroom. It requires not only creating spaces that are physically safe and secure, but that also protect and promote the emotional health of students, making them feel validated, nurtured, and included. As educators, we can practice equality and diversity in teaching and how to promote inclusion among students.

We can all strive to create culturally diverse safe spaces that encourage, welcome, and celebrate our differences through:. Finding out as much as possible about your students and their families will start you off on the right track toward creating a culturally inclusive classroom. Start the school year off by inviting families to fill out questionnaires sharing important family information, such as cultural backgrounds and traditions, parent professions, and household composition.

To the contrary, Angela learns quite well through other formats e. Likewise, the teacher expected that Robert would be nonverbal and have excessive disruptive behaviors, such as rocking his body and flapping his hands. Instead, the only behaviors of concern are his social skills, which are somewhat awkward. In fact, no two students with the same exceptionality act or achieve in exactly the same ways. It is important for teachers to learn about all aspects e.

Understanding how a disability affects the student will allow teachers to make specific instructional adjustments. Revisiting the Challenge. Assistive Technology. Two approaches for helping them to do so—Universal Design for Learning UDL and differentiated instruction—are designed to meet the needs of the widest range of students i. In the case of students with disabilities, their IEPs might outline more specific supports in the form of accommodations, modifications, or assistive technology.

Click on the graphic for a brief description of each. Transcript: Ginger Blalock, PhD — Individualized instruction Individualized instruction is taking the goals and objectives that the team has identified as critical for a particular student and then putting them into play in the classroom.

Transcript: Ginger Blalock, PhD — Accessing the general education curriculum Regarding the education of students with disabilities, their individual education program includes a statement of how the student will be supported in obtaining the annual goals that the team decides is important. Any device or service that helps an individual with disabilities to access the general education curriculum; examples include index cards to help a student track the line of text on a page while he is reading low-tech and screen reading software that reads digital text aloud high-tech.

Accommodation : A service or support that allows a student to access the general education curriculum without changing the content or curricular expectations e.