The Marginalisation of Students with Learning Disabilities as a Function of School Philosophy and Practice
Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Moral Education 30 (3):273-286 (2001)
|Abstract||Advocacy on behalf of students with learning disabilities in schools that do and do not acknowledge learning disabilities reveals a dynamic that can be active in both settings. This dynamic is one of student marginalisation in favour of institutional empowerment. Affording voice to students and responding to students' voice is requisite of education that is moral. Schools that practise student marginalisation abrogate moral responsibility incumbent upon them. Illustrations of marginalisation using material derived from advocacy activity on behalf of two learning-disabled students voicing opposing needs and attending schools with diametrically different philosophies toward learning disability will be presented. Descriptive material provided will also be used to illustrate a structure of institutional responsiveness revealed by advocacy activities. The structure of institutional responsiveness consists of four levels of responsiveness to children with learning disabilities. This structure of responsiveness can be used to evaluate and describe the responsiveness of institutions to special needs students and guide change processes undertaken to achieve greater institutional responsiveness|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lisa A. Eichhorn, Reasonable Accommodations and Awkward Compromises: Issues Concerning Learning Disabled Students and Professional Schools in the Law School Context.
Trevor Gale (2001). Under What Conditions? Including Students with Learning Disabilities Within Australian Classrooms. Journal of Moral Education 30 (3):261-272.
Cynthia Hughes (2010). A Preliminary Investigation Comparing Academic Locus of Control and Perceived Quality of Academic Life Across College Students with and Without Disabilities. Inquiry 25 (1):9-16.
Anita Silvers (2007). Teaching to/by/About People with Disabilities: Introduction. Teaching Philosophy 30 (4):341-344.
Julie-Anne Regan (2011). The Role Obligations of Students and Lecturers in Higher Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 46 (1):14-24.
Joseph R. Herkert (1997). Collaborative Learning in Engineering Ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (4):447-462.
Mollie K. Galloway (2012). Cheating in Advantaged High Schools: Prevalence, Justifications, and Possibilities for Change. Ethics and Behavior 22 (5):378 - 399.
Mohammad Alauddin, What They Think, What They Expect, and What They Practise: A Multivariate Analysis of Students′ Perceptions About Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Sarah K. Donovan (2008). Teaching Philosophy Outside of the Classroom: One Alternative to Service Learning. Teaching Philosophy 31 (2):161-177.
Cheryl Cates & Bryan Dansberry (2004). A Professional Ethics Learning Module for Use in Co-Operative Education. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (2):401-407.
Peter Silcock & Diane Duncan (2001). Values Acquisition and Values Education: Some Proposals. British Journal of Educational Studies 49 (3):242 - 259.
Joan E. Sieber (2005). Misconceptions and Realities About Teaching Online. Science and Engineering Ethics 11 (3):329-340.
Ramona Ilea & Susan Hawthorne (2011). Beyond Service Learning. Teaching Philosophy 34 (3):219-240.
Maralee Harrell, Using Argument Diagrams to Improve Critical Thinking Skills in 80-100 What Philosophy Is.
Maralee Harrell (2012). Assessing the Efficacy of Argument Diagramming to Teach Critical Thinking Skills in Introduction to Philosophy. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 27 (2):31-39.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads3 ( #213,976 of 739,429 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?