602 dis

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

‘Sit in my seat’: perspectives of students with learning disabilities about teacher effectiveness in high school inclusive classrooms

David J. Connor & Wendy Cavendish

To cite this article: David J. Connor & Wendy Cavendish (2018): ‘Sit in my seat’: perspectives of students with learning disabilities about teacher effectiveness in high school inclusive classrooms, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1459888

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1459888

Published online: 18 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 485

View Crossmark data

‘Sit in my seat’: perspectives of students with learning disabilities about teacher effectiveness in high school inclusive classrooms David J. Connor a and Wendy Cavendishb

aDepartment of Special Education, Hunter College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA; bDepartment of Teaching and Learning, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

ABSTRACT In the USA, students with learning disabilities (LD), after students with speech and language impairments, are the second highest incidence disability category of children and youth receiving the majority of their education in inclusive classrooms. However, very few studies exist that share perspectives of school experiences by students with LD in inclusive classrooms. This qualitative study focuses upon the importance of student voice through interviews of 40 high school students with LD in 3 schools. We share our findings about specific teacher characteristics and pedagogical skills that influence student perceptions of effective and ineffective teachers. From these findings, we provide a descriptive summary of what students identify as teacher characteristics and pedagogical skills that help them learn best. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings as related to theory, research, practice, and policy.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 14 October 2017 Accepted 27 March 2018

KEYWORDS Student perspectives; inclusive education; learning disabilities; co-teaching; high school

The purpose of this study is to document how high school students with learning disabil- ities1 (LD) identify ways a teacher’s pedagogy can support or stymie academic success. While much has been written in the USA from policy perspectives and teacher-educator perspectives about what constitutes an effective inclusive teacher, there have been few studies that focus on the perspectives of students with disabilities.2 However, when student voices are foregrounded, they can make a powerful contribution to knowledge in the field of education, informing us about a variety of issues relevant to all teachers (Keefe, Moore, and Duff 2006). In brief, we believe student perspectives can be useful in informing practices for both pre-service and in-service teachers.

In this article, we begin by justifying the need to study high school inclusive classrooms with view to maximising student academic success for students with LD. We provide support from a sample of selected studies recognising – for a variety of reasons – the power of student voice. Thus, our research method focuses on qualitative analysis of student interviews. We share our findings about specific teacher characteristics and ped- agogical skills that influence student perceptions of effective and ineffective teachers. From

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT David J. Connor [email protected] Hunter College, City University of New York, 695 Park Ave, New York, NY 10065, USA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1459888

these findings, we provide a descriptive summary of what students identify as teacher characteristics and pedagogical skills that help them learn best. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings as related to theory, research, practice, and policy.

Why focus upon high school students with LD?

According to the USA’s National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES 2016), 95% of students identified as disabled now receive the majority of their education in general edu- cation classrooms. Students with ‘high incidence’3 disabilities such as LD who constitute 4.4% of all students accurately reflect this statistic (NCES 2016). As a result of this shift in classroom culture, more general education teachers are expected to be: knowledgeable about legal accommodations documented in Individualised Education Programmes (IEPs)4; collaborative in various models of co-teaching (Friend and Bursuck 2002); prac- tice differentiated instruction (Tomlinson 2014); and implement principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Burghstahler and Corey 2008). When teachers are in agree- ment with the underlying beliefs of UDL and develop technical competence in differen- tiation, their classrooms are much more likely to provide a quality inclusive educational experience for all students (Salend 2007). On the other hand, when these concepts are mis- understood and poorly implemented by teachers, classrooms can become difficult environments for students with IEPs – and even their non-disabled peers – to navigate (Mastropieri et al. 2005).

It can be argued that the inclusive education movement has questioned the boundaries of who is responsible for instructing students with disabilities in an era of high stakes testing for all students (Danforth 2014). Over the past few decades, both general and special educators have shared a range of successes and challenges in inclusive classrooms, expressing both satisfaction (Botha and Kourkoutas 2016) and displeasure (Kahn and Lewis 2014) to varying degrees, the most telling, perhaps, being titled ‘I’d Rather Pump Gas’ (Vaughn 1994). It is clear that much work still needs to be done in our efforts to create manageable classrooms that foster student engagement. It is especially important to students most marginalised such as those with disabilities and/or of colour who are either ‘pushed out’ or ‘drop out’ of schools (Blanchett 2006).

Considering the general value of student viewpoints on school

Given the widely held belief around the world that schools are created for children and youth, research of student perspectives that explicitly seeks to foreground their ‘voice’ is noticeably limited. Some international examples that come to the fore include Burke and Grosvenor’s The School I’d Like (2003) in which the authors sought children’s essays, stories, plans, and pictures that allowed them to see, among other things, consist- encies in how children wish to learn in the UK. In Australia, based upon their findings that ‘Students were able to offer a range of thoughtful, clear descriptions of what worked and did not work for them at school and what needed to happen to make school meaningful and relevant to their lives and needs’ (1), Strikwerda-Brown et al. (2008) also concluded that ‘Student views of their teachers and schooling can influence motivation and interest in schooling and well as their approach to learning’ (1). Similarly, Baroutsis, McGregor, and Mills (2016) assert that student voice is an essential component to the principles of

2 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

democratic education as ‘ … a lack of voice in schools has been attributed to many margin- alized students’ alienation from mainstream schooling’. The authors argue that allowing students to have input in pedagogy ‘ … can not only work to engage students in learning, but to improve civic engagement’ (123). Other researchers share an interest in student voice, calling for genuine commitment, and warning about attempts to subvert views once they are made known (Messiou and Hope 2015). Related to this point, Gunter and Thompson (2007) are mindful that ‘student voice can reveal their experiences in ways that adults may not be able to or want to’ (181), indicating the need for willingness to engage in perspectives that can be quite different from those of educators.

Ianes, Cappello, and Demo (2017) compared students with disabilities and teacher per- spectives of classroom interactions in an Italian school, finding some ‘significant differ- ences’ (301), revealing levels of dissonance of which teachers were unaware. Katz and Sokal (2016) have also focused on the benefits of student voice in relation to better under- standing the experiences of children both with and without disabilities in a Canadian school when they engaged in new pedagogies based upon UDL. Likewise, in Ferguson, Hanreddy, and Draxton’s (2011) study of the impact of student voice on pedagogical prac- tice, they note how teachers in one school in the USA ‘ … used the information from stu- dents to make changes in the classroom climate, in their own teaching practices, and in the content area of what they were teaching’ (55).

In a related study, student perspectives of teachers were operationalised in one UK school in the form of students being trained as ‘lesson observers’, with three goals: ‘to (1) enhance students’ understandings and appreciation of teachers, teaching and the learn- ing process; (2) support students to work in partnership with teachers to improve peda- gogy and relationships; and (3) develop students’ positive self-image of learners’ (Keddie 2015, 225). Additionally, Moss and Brookhart (2013) advocate that principals in the USA who evaluate teachers should do so from a student’s perspective, thereby allow- ing them to ‘take away a better understanding of effective teaching and learning’ (42).

Considering the specific value of students with LD viewpoints on school

Students with LD often struggle in the process of learning within a classroom environment wherein many teachers do not feel informed, or equipped, to teach them effectively (NCES 2013). Stories by students with LD of their educational experiences have revealed the com- plexities of their lives, including both positive and negative relationships with teachers (Mooney 2008; Rodis, Garrod, and Boscardin 2001). Similar to the findings of Ianes, Cap- pello, and Demo (2017), in a study of adolescents with LD, the Connor (2008) notes how students’ perspectives of effective teaching and learning can sometimes be in stark contrast to that of teachers’ perspectives and researchers in the fields of education and special education.

In their synthesis of 20 studies featuring the perspectives of children and youth with disabilities in inclusive classrooms (760 with high incidence disabilities), Klingner and Vaughn (1999) concluded that

… students with nigh-incidence disabilities want the same activities, books, homework, grading criteria, and grouping practices as their classmates. Their peers without disabilities agree, believing this is most fair. Yet everyone recognizes that not all students learn in the same way, or at the same speed. Students with and without disabilities value teachers

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

who slow down instruction when needed, explain concepts and assignments clearly, teach learning strategies, and teach the same material in different ways so that everyone can learn. (23–37)

The authors also determined that students considered a helpful teacher to be: one who would slow down instruction on an as needed basis, clearly explain concepts and assign- ments, and teach the same material in multiple ways, thereby providing access to all learners.

In addition to this synthesis, there exists a relatively small number of studies about perspectives of high school students with LD. The limited research with high schools stu- dents includes their: challenging of traditional LD definitions and how schooling struc- tures that ‘track’ do not mirror the world (Cook-Sather 2003); views on adaptations for report card grading (Bursuck, Munk, and Olson 1999); criticisms of co-teaching and lack of in-class accommodations (Leafstedt et al. 2007); self-knowledge of accommodations needed for high stakes testing (Thompson, Thurlow, and Walz 2000); increasing aware- ness of self-determination and personal potential (Eisenman et al. 2015); recognition of significant gaps in reality among students, teachers, and administrators (Robins and Gilbert 1998) and; learning from the experiences of others in navigating school to college (Wren 1987). While this body of literature on perspectives of high school stu- dents with LD is underdeveloped, we believe it holds the potential of providing unique insights into the largest group of students with disabilities included in general education classes.

Research questions

This study was guided by research questions that probed the perspectives of high school students with IEPs in inclusive classrooms:

(1) What do high school students with learning disabilities believe are (a) traits and/or (b) activities that make an effective teacher who supports all students in successful learning?

(2) What traits and/or activities make an ineffective teacher and detract from all students learning?

(3) What do students believe teachers should understand about how students learn best?

Theoretical framework

The field of Disability Studies in Education (DSE) and its engagement with inclusive edu- cation informs the theoretical framework guiding this study (Baglieri 2012; Danforth 2014; Slee 2011). Several of the tenets of DSE are pertinent, including: (1) it privileges ‘the inter- ests, agendas, and voices of people labeled with disability/disabled people’ (Connor, Gabel, Gallagher, & Mortin, 2008); (2) promotes ‘social justice, equitable and inclusive edu- cational opportunities, and full and meaningful access to all aspects of society for people labeled with disability/disabled people’ (448); (3) assumes competence and reject deficit models of disability, and; (4) adheres to an emancipatory stance, conceptualising researching working with people with disabilities as informed participants not ‘subjects’.

4 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

In addition, a DSE lens is grounded in the daily lives of people with disabilities, recognises disability as natural part of human diversity, and supports inclusive education.

Method

The research took place in a large Northeastern city within the USA and is part of a larger study that explores the malleable factors in school-based practice that may increase facili- tation of meaningful student and family involvement in educational planning. As part of the data collection, a sample of 40 high school students with LD was included. This was the total number of students who met the criteria for our larger study that focuses on how schools are preparing students for graduation and post-school life. Participants were inter- viewed using three quantitative5 surveys and one qualitative protocol. This qualitative semi-structured interview consisted of 13 open-ended questions, purposefully designed to encourage greater depth of conversation between the researcher and student, including exploratory discussions of student examples. In this article, we focus upon the teacher effectiveness subdomain questions of the open-ended interview that asked students to contemplate the characteristics of effective and ineffective teachers. The questions were: (a) What makes an effective or good teacher? (What types of things do they do in class to help students learn?); (b) What makes an ineffective or bad teacher? (What types of things do they do in class that are not helpful for student’ learning?); and (c) If you could say anything to teachers to help them understand how students learn best, what would you tell them?

Participants

We used purposeful sampling to select 40 students with IEPs from 3 high schools in the same district to be interviewed. Students were identified through each school’s special edu- cation department database and contacted by the research team at school (see Table 1). Altogether, students were approximately 50% Latino, 40% Black/African American, 5% White, and 5% Asian American, and approximately equally divided by gender. All stu- dents were attending inclusive, general education classes for content area courses and received supports through either co-teaching classrooms or ‘pull out’ resource room support.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection took place over a period of 18 months, focusing upon one school at a time. Once parent consent and student assent forms were obtained, one or both of the authors conducted private interviews with individual students. Interviews were approximately 1 hour in length (or 2 visits of 30 minutes) and took place in available places such as the school library or unused classrooms and administrative offices. All questions were read aloud and student responses were audio recorded and transcribed.

We utilised a grounded theory approach (Creswell 2015), first analysing data in relation to the research questions posed to identify repeated elements that were then extracted and reviewed, with view to determining major concepts or categories, and then further

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Table 1. Student participant demographics by school.

School Free or reduced luncha Male N (%)

Female N (%)

Black N (%)

Latino N (%)

White N (%)

Asian N (%)

High School A 75% 9 (56) 7 (44) 7 (44) 9 (56) 0 0 High School B 63% 3 (30) 7 (70) 0 9 (90) 1 (10) 0 High School C 5% 9 (50) 9 (50) 6 (33) 6 (33) 5 (28) 1 (6) Total 21 (48) 23 (52) 13 (30) 24 (55) 6 (14) 1 (2)

School A participants N (%)

School A %

School B participants N (%)

School B %

School C participants N (%)

School C %

Total participants N (%)

Gender Male 9 (56) 42% 3 (30) 40% 9 (50) 50% 21 (48) Female 7 (44) 58% 7 (70) 60% 9 (50) 50% 23 (52)

Race/ethnicity Black 7 (44) 27% 0 12% 6 (33) 20% 13 (30) Latino 9 (56) 62% 9 (90) 73% 6 (33) 29% 24 (55) White 0 3% 1 (10) 7% 5 (28) 34% 6 (14) Asian 0 5% 0 6% 1 (6) 17% 1 (2)

Notes: The proportion of students served in special education for grades 9–12 ranges from 11% (school l B) to 19% (school l A). Our student participants were drawn from grades 10 to 12. The proportion of all students with IEPs in grades 10–12 who agreed to participate ranges from just over 50% (school B) to over 80% (school A).

Our student participant demographics are somewhat reflective of the school population, however, our sample includes a greater proportion of Black students and fewer Asian students than the overall school demographics. This is likely due to overrepresentation of Black students in special education.

a To qualify for free lunch, children’s family income must be under $15,171 in 2015 (below 130% of the poverty line). To qualify for reduced lunch, children’s family income must be below $21,590 annual income in 2015 (185% of the poverty line).

6 D .J.C

O N N O R A N D W .C

A V EN

D ISH

reviewed for related sub-categories. As Charmaz (2010) notes, ‘The grounded theorist’s analysis tells a story about people, social processes, and situations’ (196), thus making it an approach compatible with our intention to find out about high school students with LD and the teaching and learning process in inclusive classrooms.

All data were hand analysed. Responses to the teacher effectiveness subdomain inter- view questions were excerpted from each of the 40 students’ transcript into 3 documents labelled (1) student perspectives of what makes an effective/‘good’ teacher, (2) student per- spectives of what constitutes an ineffective/‘bad’ teacher, and (3) what do students with IEPS think teachers should know about them? Data were analysed three times for categ- orical themes using the constant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin 1990). During the first round, two broad categories emerged, one being ‘teacher characteristics’ and the other being ‘pedagogical practices’. The second analysis focused upon related themes then became sub-categories to these two major themes, and all data were subsequently reorgan- ised under each of the sub-themes. This form of axial coding developed by Strauss and Corbin (1998) is ‘aimed at making connections between a category and its subcategories’, including ‘conditions that give rise to the category, its context, the social interactions through which it is handled, and its consequences’ (Charmaz 2010, 188). This process of analysis allowed for data to be ‘segregated, grouped, regrouped and relinked in order to consolidate meaning and explanation’ (Grbich 2007 in Saldana 2008, 8). A third round of analysis was then undertaken for reflection, clarification, and final sorting of codes into sub-themes under each question. Student voices are represented verbatim in excerpts from transcripts that provided best evidence to support the themes identified, described, and discussed.

Findings

Student perspectives of effective teachers

When students were asked what makes an effective or ‘good’ teacher? (What types of things do they do in class to help students learn?) their responses fell into two major cat- egories that we have termed ‘Teacher Characteristics’, which speaks to a teacher’s person- ality and general disposition, and ‘Pedagogical Practices’, which focus on the actions teachers take to ensure students are learning.

Teacher characteristics The following traits were identified by students via their initial descriptions of what an effective teacher is like. These characteristics foreground the major issues found within student responses.

Empathetic. Students thought effective teachers demonstrate empathy, particularly for those who struggle in the learning process. As one student noted, teachers should ‘Not be judgmental. I think that’s really important’. Another stated, ‘If a student doesn’t under- stand, they go for help’. Teachers who recognise that students may not understand how to do the task – and then provide help – are those that students deem effective. As one student explains,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

… if we don’t understand something and they, they know it… that they see that we don’t, that we’re having a hard time and they understand why, I feel like they can correct that and actually help us and then that will improve us understanding the material.

Being understanding includes having an awareness of the whole student. One student notes that an effective teacher ‘understands your personal life and what you’re going through… cause there’s certain days that you come in you just don’t feel like doing nothing’. Stated simply by one student, ‘If they understand us, that’s what makes them a good teacher’.

Accepting of differences. Related to understanding is acceptance. One student shares, ‘A good teacher is somebody who can help understand somebody’s point of view and how they’re struggling… and help them get better and better every day’. Being empathetic and accepting is viewed synonymously as caring. Another student states, ‘ …making sure they understand the student’s needs. If they’re slipping, maybe to bring them up and help them, explain things in a different way’. Allowing for differences is crucial if all students are to feel comfortable, with one noting, ‘I think the most important thing for a good teacher is to make exceptions for students, and not expect everyone to be the same’. Being patient also appears connected to characteristics of being empathetic and accepting, with one student claiming, ‘If I don’t get something, you’re the teacher you’re supposed to help me’.

Positive and supportive. Students often referred to effective teachers as those that ‘support you whenever you need something, give you positive energy instead of negative energy. Help you reach your goals, help you finish your work… ’. Likewise, another student describes an effective teacher she knows as having ‘Just a really positive attitude’. By this, she means, ‘He’s always saying “hey”. He’s always telling jokes. Which makes us really active in class. And, a lot of people respect him and I feel like a lot of people actually do good in his class because of that’. Teachers’ positivity is integral not only to facilitate student engagement and motivation but to their own motivation, too. Several students commented upon the self-motivation of teachers, stating that they must like what they do. One noted, ‘If they’re passionate about their job, then it’s good because it keeps them focused’.

Dedicated in terms of time. Students can witness a teacher’s dedication in many ways, and one of those ways is spending time – both inside and outside of class. A student explains, ‘They offer a lot of time for them to help you… and a lot of opportunities to increase the good grade that you have or get a better understanding of something’. In general, students recognise teachers who ‘dedicate their time, their free time, and their spare time, and actu- ally help you. They actually wanna see you succeed, see you persevere… see you move forward’. Teachers providing help after school are viewed as the most dedicated, with one student noting ‘ … they kind of only focus on you’. Another student values ‘A teacher that’s always there after school…who sits down, and doesn’t scream at you when you don’t get it. A teacher that’s like, “You don’t understand? Alright. Let me sit with you and do it”’.

8 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

Receptive toward student feedback. Students often commented upon the need for teachers to listen to students who are in the process of learning. One student identified teachers who ‘Listen to the students’ opinions… if they want a class a little more easier, and under- standable’. This comment suggests that the rate and/or volume of content needs to be slowed down at times for some students. Additionally, the special educator in the colla- borative classroom is able to provide this support when needed, verified by a student who notes, ‘She teaches the same way as the different teachers, she just breaks it down slower, because teachers go fast’. Another student remarks how ‘The best teachers are the ones who are very open-minded…with what students have to say’.

Firm, fair, and fun. Interestingly, approximately a third of students commented how they appreciate a teacher’s ability to manage classrooms, tending to favour those who are mod- erately strict, consistent in how they treat students, and are fun to be with. As one suc- cinctly states, ‘To be honest, I think a good teacher… could be a strict… and get along with the students’. Another shares his preference for ‘A teacher who… is always on top of you in class, so you can be able to stay on task and not get into trouble or get distracted’. Similar sentiments about effective teachers are expressed by a student who shares:

I guess they have to be fun… but they have to be strict at the same time. So people don’t push them over. They have to be willing to go out in the distance for their kids. And they always have to be willing to understand the frustrations that students have.

In some ways, the blend of ‘nice but serious’ described by this student suggests the need for directness and honesty as part of being an effective teacher. This desire is echoed by another student who values ‘ … a teacher who’s willing to tell you that you’re doing a – pardon my French – shit job’, as evidence of ‘tough love’.

Teacher pedagogical skills Students identified the following pedagogical characteristics in their descriptions of what constitutes an effective teacher. These observations foreground the major skills identified within student responses, with many being connected to a teacher’s general disposition.

Motivating. Students want to be motivated, but their interest is not automatic. Teachers who work at gaining attention will likely maintain it. As one student explains, ‘Teachers who are all about work, that just doesn’t interest me. Because I will look at the wall and stare blankly for fifteen minutes if you don’t entertain me in some way’. In sharing advice, the same student continues, ‘ … be different and distinct from other teachers instead of just giving us a worksheet and then, “Oh we finished. Homework. Bye”. Catch my attention. You know what I mean?’.

It appears that students recognise teachers’ efforts in gaining their interest. This effort by teachers is imperative if students are to be motivated to become engaged.

Engaging. One student lamented how ‘Some of the teachers here, they just go straight into the topic or straight into the lesson’, understanding that, ‘Yes, that’s part of what you need to do, but you also need to interest them [students]… Some students… they’re not inter- ested at all. So, be involved with the student’. Another student expands on the topic, stating, ‘Keep us awake. Keep the class active. Not give boring… just “read that book”’.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

Instead, she urges, ‘ … have discussions in class. I like debates a lot. I love when teachers do that’. For some students with IEPs, engagement comes hand-in-hand with the tasks being accessible. One student observes that his teacher, ‘ …made sure that the wording was easy to understand for 10th graders. Easy to quickly copy down. I really enjoyed the way he presented things and the way he spoke to the class’.

Using multi-modalities. Teachers who used a strengths-based approach with their stu- dents were recognised as strong teachers. One commented, ‘I’m more a visual learner. So the audio is not really helpful for me… I have to see’. Other students require auditory and visual stimulation in order to solidify learning concepts and recall them. For some, it is the use of videos, ‘Cause the videos help you remember most of the stuff. And… the pic- tures, you know like what’s going on in the picture’. For others the trick is ‘using slides, every day… PowerPoints to get your points across’. Handouts can also help galvanise learning, as one student explains, ‘I like being able to read and listen and just have lots of different sources of what we’re trying to learn about’. Finally, one student shared her perception that ‘Some teachers just talk, just to talk. And I feel like more hands-on activi- ties help. ’Cause it makes you have to pay attention ’cause you have to do it’. Here we see preferences for manipulatives as they serve to help some students focus and execute the task at hand, reflecting the principles of UDL.

Checking in via questioning. Students appear to appreciate interactive, transactional strategies for learning that involve the teacher and peers. In regard to class discussion activities, one student notes, ‘I guess if the teacher’s interactive, engages the students. Asks us questions. I like those kinds of teachers’, while another observes and advises, ‘I might find something easy and another student’s like, “I don’t get it”. Have students ask them questions’. It is clear that questioning serves multiple purposes, including motivation and engagement, yet can also facilitate a ‘check in’ to see if students are understanding the material being taught, offering an opportunity to individualise support as needed. One student conveys this point, stating, ‘Ask questions. Ask “do you actually get this?”. And if they feel that someone is not getting it spend extra time with them’.

Explaining clearly. A number of students indicated the importance of teachers being clear when explaining both content and directions for students to engage with that content. One student notes, ‘Good teachers… some of them explain well, and some… don’t explain well… they say half of the story and the rest we have to do it by ourself [sic]’. The impor- tance of gauging a teaching pace compatible with student learning is noted by students, with one appealing, ‘Slow down the teaching plan, and try to break it down and just tell this and that’, with another noting how ‘others [teachers allow us to]… take our time, do not rush, and tell everything to us. Explain to us’. Other students are aware of the importance to make connections with existing knowledge, with one recognising tea- chers ‘ … try to help you, they try to relate it to other things… by getting the students involved’.

10 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

Personalising responses to struggling learners. Students often reminded us of their desire to not solely be seen as students but as whole people with complex lives, hopes and aspira- tions for the future. One notes,

I feel like a good teacher’s somebody who’s there for you, who’s willing to help. Not only in school, but also once in a while, see how you’re doing. Are you okay? Is everything fine at home? You know, somebody that… you feel comfortable and confident with.

Another student describes ‘ … a teacher that also gets close to you… like just as a student and teacher relationship, but like an actual person to person’. Such a relationship is partly forged through individualising interactions and support. In the words of another student, ‘ … they sit down, and they dedicate time to you, like when they know that you’re strug- gling they don’t just leave you and move on with the rest. Get everybody involved, and nobody gets left behind’.

Student perspectives of ineffective teachers

When students were asked what makes an ineffective or bad teacher? (What types of things do they do in class that are not helpful for student’ learning?) their responses can also be viewed within the same major categories of ‘Teacher Characteristics’, which speaks to a teacher’s personality and general disposition, and ‘Pedagogical Practices’, focusing on the actions of teachers to promote the process of learning.

Teacher characteristics The following traits were identified by several students via their initial descriptions of what an ineffective teacher is like. As such, these characteristics foreground the major issues found within student responses.

Indifference. The most frequently raised concern among students is teachers who they perceive as indifferent. As one stated simply, ‘They don’t help out’. Another student puts it down to a ‘lack of communication’, elaborating upon the consequences, ‘They don’t give you any type of credit. Help you out. Help to fix a problem. They just leave the problem’. The same characteristic of perceived indifference also applies to ‘The teacher who basically doesn’t care about them [students] not turning in homework and just saying, “Oh, it’s your grade, not mine”’. Several students attribute indifference to tea- chers who are ‘not willing to tell you that you’re failing’, implying that teachers purpose- fully withhold information. One student described dissatisfaction with the situation as such, stating ‘Someone that sees you failing but don’t pull you off to the side and say, you’re failing, this is what you need to do’.

Unreceptive to individual student needs. Closely linked to characteristics of indifference and unhelpfulness are perceptions of teachers who are unreceptive to individualised student needs. One student is able to see the multiple considerations a teacher has to bear in mind, sharing, ‘I think teachers really need to know what’s appropriate for the grade that they’re teaching. What is gonna interest a grade. And also what each kid needs individually’, in other words, teachers balancing content, motivation, and

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

individualised support. Students are aware of the situation when a teacher works with only part of the student body in class. One explains,

When it comes time for the homework that’s due, they get angry at you, really. They’ll give you a look of disappointment, and the student’s just looking at them like, ‘I asked you for help and you didn’t help me’.

The theme of a teacher who keeps on going when students are not understanding or con- nected to the material surfaced several times. One student identifies an ineffective teacher as one who will ‘ … just probably tell to you what to do… doesn’t try to help you at all’. Another student described a teacher who does ‘Not spend time with… the student… if they know they are not doing their work… ignoring them, just letting them stay confused’. A lack of individualised support is perceived not only as unhelpful, but as uncaring too.

Overly strict. One student identified teachers who are ‘really strict without getting along with any students’ as being ineffective. Another student provided an interesting example, ‘When they’re really strict and don’t offer us makeup work. Or if I completely bomb a test and they don’t offer a redo. That’s a horrible teacher I think. Because a second chance is… always best’. One student complained of ‘A teacher who’s too strict and unreasonable’, elaborating, ‘Today she told us that all of us don’t have any bathroom breaks or anything for the whole entire year. Which is really unfair’. Here it is apparent that group contingencies as a whole class behaviour strategy are viewed negatively by students.

Having a bad attitude. Teachers’ ‘attitude’ was a contributing factor in students’ assess- ment of those who are effective. One student identified an ineffective teacher as one ‘ … that comes in with a bad attitude. Who doesn’t care. Who doesn’t like their job’. One student reflected, ‘Don’t be mean. You could be hard on us, and you could be strict, but just don’t like be mean… out of nowhere’. Students appeared to link character- istics of what they perceived of ineffective teachers to a teachers’ desire to actually teach and work with them. As one explained

’Cause there are some teachers that are just here for a paycheck and get out. And I’ve seen it … it sucks because they don’t really care… ’Cause… you’ve gone through high school, you’ve finished, you’ve done all of that. This is the next generation. This is somebody’s future. This is somebody’s life. It’s not to be just thought of about, ‘oh, I can pass them and they’ll get on’.

In this quotation, we can see some of the tangled complexities involved in teaching and learning, and the expectations of both teachers and students within our systems, and what can appear as mutual blame for when classrooms are not working well.

Being disrespectful. Students are aware of teachers who express dissatisfaction in ways they deem disrespectful to them. One student identifies an ineffective teacher as someone who is ‘always complaining about how we’re failing or… how we’re not understanding’. Another perceived form of disrespectfulness to students is a teacher who ‘gets mad very often’, that results in ‘them yelling a lot’. One student is wary of teachers ‘getting too emotional’, explaining, ‘’Cause I had this one teacher who would have… class at one

12 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

period and then the next period just come out and yell at my class for no reason’, indicat- ing displaced anger. Another student reflects, ‘There’s no reason to be loud all the time. Sometimes… some teachers are very loud and it’s just not… effective because people are just like “Why is she yelling?”’. In sum, students expect teachers to ‘handle the class- room’, and if one or a few students are not behaving appropriately, ‘You can’t take it out on everybody’.

Teacher pedagogical skills The following pedagogical skills were identified by several students via their initial descrip- tions of what an ineffective teacher is like. These observations foreground major practices identified within student responses, with many related to each teacher’s disposition and the characteristics listed in the section above.

Unvarying in practices. A number of students identified ineffective teachers as those who did not vary their delivery of instruction, particularly those who had a habit of ‘relying on the text book’. One student critiques a teacher ‘who just gives us a text book and says read pages blah blah blah to blah blah blah for the rest of the class, and that’s it’. Another described experiencing the teaching and learning process reduced to ‘ … just read’. In one instance, a student reveals how overreliance on a text- book can negatively influence student interest in a particular topic. She notes in Chem- istry class,

There’s no fun in it. There’s no labs… you have to do labs so you can learn something. We don’t do any labs. We just-- she reads a textbook, we take notes. That’s basically our whole entire class. Sometimes… I mean we do labs, but they’re really boring.

Although she contradicts herself in saying there are no labs when some exist, this student still conveys the largely lock-step formula of the class that remains unalleviated by labs. Other students expressed dissatisfaction with essays and worksheets that make both methods seem decontextualised through repetition.

Being boring. It is unsurprising that students equated ineffective teaching with ‘Being boring’, synonymous with ‘dull’, ‘not making the class fun’, and ‘not having any fun activi- ties’. According to one student, a boring teacher is someone ‘just lecturing’. Here we see the default teaching method of some teachers that may be a quicker and easier way to prepare a lesson (often from a set text), yet teachers cannot assume student interest, and the approach inadvertently impacts effective learning. As one student explains,

… in my history class I’ve had a case where a lot of students fall asleep… So teachers… con- tinue their lesson, and teach kids that are actually paying attention. Instead of letting those kids sleep, just teaching their lesson, that makes them a bad teacher. Because then those kids are gonna be lost and then they’re gonna wanna come to the teachers to ask for help, and then the teacher’s gonna have to re-explain that. And if you actually let a student sleep throughout the class, and then another student sees that, they’re gonna be like ‘Oh, okay, so that teacher doesn’t care… I could do that too’. So that’s where it all begins.

Although the ‘it’ that the student refers to can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, we suggest that it pertains to the breakdown of the learning process and good teacher– student relationships.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13

Pacing lessons too fast for learning Students shared that teachers ‘rush’ through lessons, ‘without thinking or relaxing’. According to one student ‘They just do it quick, nobody knows what they have to do. For example, homework they give, they just… say what we have to do… Just rush. Every- thing is in a rush’. Another explains,

I had Global teachers that… go three days… take the test, and kids fail. But… if you go through stuff really fast then you expect the kids to not do so good. The teacher here, she’ll [teach] for… a week, and then next week there’s like a test. But…we have, you know, the notes. And if… all teachers have their own websites…where they make up flash cards for the kids that are having tests… .

Here we witness the pressure of a fast-paced curriculum on both students and teachers, potentially causing mutual resentment. Another student yearns for a compromise, wanting teachers to ‘ … Just… not to take it slow, but put it to the pace. Like the level that the average of the class is and like the speed of how you’re teaching, and what you’re teaching at that point’. Pacing also impacts perceptions of the amount of work that many students feel is excessive in terms of keeping up with ‘ … a whole ton of homework’.

Student perspectives of what helps them learn best

Similar to the two preceding sections, this third one features student responses to the ques- tion posed, allowing them to share their perspectives. Likewise, we look at both teacher characteristics, and pedagogical practices. Given that students identified what they con- sider effective and ineffective teachers, we realise that some of these topics reemerge in this section in the alternative form of advice.

Teacher characteristics The following suggestions are drawn from areas identified by several students, and are intended for teachers to reflect upon. Each is framed in a positive manner that conveys the possibilities of taking an active stance.

Be respectful. As one student shared, ‘I respect you if you respect me’. This sentiment is mirrored in the words of another who elaborates,

I think we learn best when we’re sort of just treated like – not like equals, but…we’re impor- tant… as if we actually mean something, other than just blank canvasses…As if we actually – I wouldn’t say matter, but as if we actually are close to being at their level, I guess.

There is something poignant in this statement about the desire to be recognised, one human being to another. It also speaks to a certain level of caring that effective teachers have. As one student states, ‘Care about your students. Make sure you like teaching’.

Find out who your students are. Several students conveyed how they feel their teachers do not know them in ways they want them to. One suggested that teachers ask of students

…what are some things that you like or what are some things that I should know about you? I always tell the same thing to every teacher. I get frustrated really fast. I shut down. If I don’t understand work, I get like angry and upset… .

14 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

Another student shared, ‘Sit down – if you have time, sit down one-on-one with multiple students and see how they learn. Or, just talk to them, so you could get on the right page’. Yet another brought up the need to relate to students, and understand differences so they do not ‘get in the way’. She shares,

I think the most important thing is to be understanding and be relatable. If you seem so much older, or even if you are really old, just don’t be like you’re with kids all the time. So, try to relate.

Be empathetic, patient, and humourous. As one student simply stated, ‘sit in my seat’, a classroom version of the universal phrase ‘be in my shoes’. Another shares,

Think about it as this: sometimes it’s not easy, ’cause there are students that are just crazy. But you also have to be patient… this is somebody’s future, this is somebody’s life. It’s not where you give up, cause you get frustrated. So it’s like, screw it, I’m gonna just pass ’em to get them out of my life. No, you gotta be patient.

Students also recognise that humour often serves as bridge across many potential divides – including frustration on both ‘sides’. They prefer teachers who can alleviate tensions by being ‘funny at times’, suggesting they ‘crack some jokes here and then, you know’. Another way is ‘To have fun with the students, to enjoy the class that they have’, which can occur through making ‘the activities fun… to engage the students’.

Teacher pedagogical skills The following pedagogical suggestions are drawn from areas identified by several stu- dents, and are intended for teachers to know and reflect upon. Like the section above, each is framed in a positive manner that conveys the possibilities of taking an active stance.

Motivate students through engagement. Students recognise when a creative teacher is trying to engage them. One urges, ‘Be creative and be, I guess, funny… because if you are fun and creative people will enjoy your class’. She goes on, ‘If you are just sitting there, you are boring, you are just speaking out answers and just throwing out answers’. Another student states, ‘Just basically make me love this class…make me adore this class as much as you can… at least take the time to try’. One student notes, ‘I feel like learning is all about being engaged’. This thought emerged throughout many interviews, including one student who advocates,

Make sure they’re engaged. If they’re not engaged [they’ll be] somewhere else.…Any teacher can print out an article and ask them [students] to annotate it, but can you make them anno- tate a paper as a group and make it somewhat more enjoyable or something like that?

Be willing to individualise instruction Students frequently articulated their desire to receive direct support from their teachers that is customised to their needs. One suggested that teachers should ‘Maybe rotate a lot, during different sections of work so they… can know what students are struggling on’. Another is mindful that, ‘Not everybody has the same problem in the class, and you just need to fix each problem one by one instead of just like trying to do everything at once’. Individualisation of instruction through one-to-one conversations is clearly

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

important to students. One asks teachers ‘to not compare us… to other students. To have an open mind when it comes to different types of students’, including establishing how a student thinks about what is being taught. Finally, another student verifies the need for individualisation by claiming, ‘I think it’s different for everyone’, sharing, ‘For me… I think I’d do better with one on one’.

Be willing to use multi-modal and differentiated instruction Many students asserted their desire for multi-modal teaching. One stated, ‘They should switch it to people who need to see it, or people who needs to hear it’. A number claimed a preference for having a visual component, with one sharing ‘ … I learn better visually than just mentally. That’s how I learn. I have to see something to get it’. Another agreed, ‘ … a lot of the students here are visual learners. And all they give us is paperwork and paperwork and stuff to copy down off the board’, advocating, ‘if they made… the concept a little bit more fun, I think the kids would definitely be eager to learn a little bit more’. One student asked for instructional variation stating, ‘I think they should offer as many different ways to reach the same goal. Different – lots of options’.

Provide additional access to teachers. Students often have difficulty in managing time and balancing all they have to learn. Providing time inside and outside of the general education classroom is seen as important. One student said she likes a teacher who says, ‘I’ll sit here with you until you understand it’, and who is there during ‘lunch and in the morning. So we have three times to come to them… I like that when teachers… a whole lot, to stay with kids’. Students who have an additional period of resource room, appreciate the support it provides, with one noting of her teacher, ‘She is always there after school, always, she’s like come to my room, come to my room… I’m like, alright’. Interestingly students suggested additional access to their teachers is beneficial, one claiming ‘I feel like I would tell them that they should have a period where they can meet with students one-to-one’, and another stating, ‘Having a time period where I can talk to my teacher and ask her what I’m missing, or ask her anything that I don’t understand in class, that would be very helpful’.

Maintain a reasonable pace. As one student put it, ‘Give us time to learn, to understand it. Don’t pressure us to get it… let us go at out own speed because everyone is different’. Another urged, ‘ … relax, explain well, don’t rush…Kids need to figure out what they need to do without no rushing cause they will be confused’. A third echoed the point stating, ‘Slow down the teaching plan, and try to break down and just tell this and that’. These and other time-related comments speak to the fast pace of high school curri- culum and how many students struggle to keep up every day. Students with IEPs fre- quently experience particular difficulty in keeping up with standardised pacing in school.

Stay on top of us and don’t give up on us. Students expressed the desire to be refocused if they appear to be getting off topic, with one stating, ‘ … tell us when…we’re getting off [task] – we’re getting distracted or something’. Another student suggested, ‘Stay on top of them – on top of them more. And to go around the class every few minutes, checking the

16 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

work that they’re giving them to see how they’re doing on it’, encouraging proximity control to help with refocusing. Finally, one student shared the following,

Ignore the rude kids, because there is a huge group of people that really does care about what you’re saying… I feel really bad when that happens because I don’t think us, as a student body, really understand how hard it is to teach kids. And so I’d say there are kids who appreciate what they’re doing. And if you’re engaging the students and interacting with them, you’re doing everything perfectly. So, engage us, because then we’ll really listen and really learn.

Here we see empathy with teachers and their daily work, and arguably a tacit plea of ‘don’t give up on us’.

Discussion: implications for practice, theory, policy, and research

In our closing section, we discuss the importance of incorporating student voice into the interrelated areas of practice, theory, policy, and research. In terms of practice, we see some overlaps and several tensions when contemplating the teacher that students are desirous of when compared to the teacher that education programmes produce (and argu- ably the teacher that school systems in the USA forge over time). Ultimately, students describe a deeply caring person who acknowledges the students’ individuality, including their specific needs, and is fair to all members of the class. To reiterate, teacher character- istics of being respectful, knowledgeable about students, empathetic, patient and humour- ous, coupled with being skilled in motivating students by engagement, individualising and differentiating instruction as needed, providing a consistent pace, and being accessible and available, all contribute the definition of supportive educator. Student suggestions are actually in line with research designed to help teachers be informed about, and be comfor- table teaching in, inclusive classrooms (see, for example, Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie- Richmond 2009; Robinson, 2015).

Based on our experiences and that of our colleagues across the country, we agree that most or all of the characteristics of good teachers identified by students are located in some shape or form within teacher education programmes across the USA. We also know that they are emphasised to different degrees, given the political nature of how institutions determine ‘the curriculum’ (Carnochan 1994). At the same time, we are mindful of the current pressurising educational discourse of high stakes testing, Common Core Stan- dards, school report cards, threats of ‘failing’ schools, closing of the racial ‘achievement gap’, pacing calendars, and increased teacher accountability that can serve to dominate the lives of educators (Bauml 2015; Lambert and McCarthy 2006). New teachers in alternative certification routes such as Teach for America have also been enculturated in their role as part of ‘the answer’ (Foote 2009), perhaps creating additional pressure. Emphases on specific values and pedagogies within teacher education programmes can also contrast with local education authority policies and the stated needs of organisations (e.g. certain charter school organisations such as Success Academy). In other words, ped- agogical methods and teacher dispositions similar to what students in this study have identified are traditionally taught in most teacher education programmes but may not be similarly prioritised in some schools (Dishon and Goodman 2017) and even be prohib- ited in others (K. Garnett 2017, personal communication). Related to these instances of dissonance, of great concern to educational institutions in the USA is the systemic under- mining of schools of education, as can be seen in the push for alternative forms of teacher

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 17

certification, some proposed programmes only lasting several weeks in duration (Taylor 2017), suggesting a gross oversimplification of skills and knowledge needed to be effective in the profession. Thankfully, the importance of caring teachers that students speak of in this work has been consistently documented throughout educational literature (see, for example, Ladson-Billings 2009; Nieto 2005). Unfortunately, these accounts currently seem overshadowed by the dominant discourse of conceptualising pedagogy as a mechan- istic skill set applied to students to help them prepare for and pass mandated high takes examinations (Lemov 2015).

Given the comments of students in our research, it strikes us that working with them in a unique classroom ecology as opposed to applying generic strategies to them will help tea- chers create and maintain authentic relationships within their classrooms (Duncan- Andrade 2009). It is clear that constructive student feedback to teachers can be useful for educators to constantly hone their craft, including adaptations designed to meet the needs of class members. For example, teacher-initiated assessments by students can be developed and everyday practices such as exit slips can be tailored to teachers assessing their effectiveness in reaching all students (Leigh 2012). In addition, having the com- ponents of ‘good teaching’ as defined by students listed as part of daily lesson plans (or even one area to focus working on) can serve to remind busy teachers what to strive for.

In terms of theory, Burke and Grosvenor’s (2003) idea of inviting students to ‘imagine’ and document their desires for how schools are configured and classrooms are run claims that listening to students can make better schools. Our theoretical framework of DSE seeks to centre the people who are researched, and work with them to ensure their perspectives are heard, and lest we do not lose sight of a mantra from the disability rights movement, ‘Nothing about us without us’ (Charlton 2000, 1). Indeed, the phrase seems particularly pertinent to educational settings. The 40 students in this study shared their daily lives within classrooms and in doing so provided teachers with insightful suggestions. When we returned to the largest of the three schools6 to share our findings with the faculty, tea- chers struck us as both surprised and intrigued by student comments, and engaged with us and each other in a productive discussion about their daily work. We, therefore, believe that a DSE framework can help teachers reflect upon student viewpoints.

By opening the door for students sharing their voices about teacher dispositions and pedagogy, we see the potential for future research in this area to expand their participation in research and deepen their knowledge of teaching and learning. We agree with Baroutsis et al. that student participation in analysing classrooms pedagogy can ‘ … not only work to engage students in learning, but to improve their civic engagement’ (123), something that the work of Keddie (2015) alludes to with students playing an integral part of studying pedagogy in schools. Of particular importance would be to engage with students about cultural competency (Brown and Rodriguez 2017) and culturally sustaining pedagogies (Paris and Alim 2017) as this would also introduce factors of student diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, sexual orientation and, among others, we would also argue disability (Connor 2012).

In regard to policy, it may be worth considering high school students provide feedback to their teachers as a part of constructive evaluations. We think this idea is more useful than some current evaluations of teachers based upon student text scores. Of course, this should be developed in ways that are meant to inform and support the teacher, and not be punitive or embarrassing in nature. This idea does not seem a far stretch if

18 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

we consider that in the space of months, many high school students are evaluating their college professors at the end of their first semester. In some school systems, teachers provide feedback to their principal and this is factored into an evaluation by the superin- tendent (Shelton 2013). Rather than seeing such an evaluative practice in a hierarchical manner, it can be reframed as an opportunity for students to practice self-determination and also as an empowering one for the evaluator, lessening power differentials and requir- ing all individuals a degree of humility with the common ground of being professionals who are expected to contemplate the effectiveness of our daily practices.

While inclusive education has grown in schools throughout the world, it can be argued that teacher education preparation programmes have not been sufficiently developed to provide inclusive experiences that would help pre-service teachers transition into in- service educators (Rosenzweig 2009). That said, models such as that described Bentley- Williams et al. (2017) purposefully provide student teaching contexts in inclusive class- rooms while focusing upon ‘ideal teacher qualities for undertaking challenging inclusive practitioner roles’ (270). In brief, we urge for an increased number of responsible place- ments within actual inclusive school settings, along with ongoing support during student teaching assignments, as potential teachers then have greater understanding and ‘readiness’ to teach in diverse classrooms.

Duncan-Andrade has stated, ‘At the end of the day, effective teaching depends most heavily on one thing: deep and caring relationships’ (2009, 191). What struck us about the perspectives of students with LD is that areas they articulated appeared reasonable, universal, and undergirded by a sense of caring. Furthermore, there were no noticeable differences between what students with and without LD have identified as good teaching, largely echoing the findings of Klingner and Vaughn (1999) 20 years earlier. In sum, when a caring teacher provides them with what they need to learn, they feel supported and more confident to succeed academically.

Notes

1. The legal definition of ‘Specific learning disability’ within federal regulations is:

. The term ‘specific learning disability’means a disorder in one or more of the basic psycho- logical processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.

. Disorders included. Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

. Disorders not included. Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional dis- turbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

Note that there are also different definitions that are used in professional organisations, and by disability advocates.

2. In the USA there are 13 categories of disability defined by the federal government. LD one of them. https://idea.ed.gov/uploads/finalregulations.pdf.

3. High incidence disabilities include: learning disabilities; speech and language disorders; emotional/behaviour disorders; and, intellectual disabilities.

4. IEPs are required by law once a student has been identified as meeting the criteria for a dis- ability category.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 19

5. The quantitative measurements were (i) Student Involvement Survey (SIS) that measures perceptions of school efforts to facilitate student involvement in IEP and transition planning; (ii) the Arc Determination Scale to examine the relationship between self-determination and possible factors related to its promotion or inhibition; (iii) the Family Environment Scale to examine perceptions of members’ real, ideal, and perspective of their family.

6. We also plan to share the information with the other two schools.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

David J. Connor, EdD, is a Professor and Chairperson of the Special Education Department at Hunter College, City University of New York. His research interests include learning disabilities and inclusive education.

Wendy Cavendish, PhD, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Miami. Her research interests include transition planning and the overrepresentation of students of colour in special education.

ORCID

David J. Connor http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2886-8149

References

Baglieri, S. 2012. Disability Studies in the Inclusive Classroom: Critical Practices for Creating Least Restrictive Attitudes. New York: Routledge.

Baroutsis, A., G. McGregor, and M. Mills. 2016. “Pedagogic Voice: Student Voice in Teaching and Engagement Pedagogies.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 24 (1): 123–140.

Bauml, M. 2015. “Beginning Primary Teachers’ Experiences with Curriculum Guides and Pacing Calendars for Math and Science Instruction.” Journal of Research in Childhood Education 29 (3): 390–409.

Bentley-Williams, R., C. Grima-Farrell, J. Long, and C. Laws. 2017. “Collaborative Partnership: Developing Pre-Service Teachers as Inclusive Practitioners to Support Students with Disabilities.” Development and Education 64 (3): 270–282.

Blanchett, W. J. 2006. “Disproportionate Representation of African Americans in Special Education: Acknowledging the Role of White Privilege and Racism.” Remedial and Special Education 35 (6): 24–28.

Botha, J., and E. Kourkoutas. 2016. “A Community of Practice as an Inclusive Model to Support Children with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in School Contexts.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (7): 784–799.

Brown, T. M., and L. F. Rodriguez. 2017. “Collaborating with Urban Youth to Address Gaps in Teacher Education.” Teacher Education Quarterly 44 (3): 75–92.

Burghstahler, S., and R. Corey. 2008. “Postsecondary Education: From Accommodation to Universal Design.” In Disability Studies in Education: An International Reader, edited by S. L. Gabel and S. Danforth, 561–581. New York: Peter Lang.

Burke, C., and I. Grosvenor. 2003. The School I’d Like: Children and Young People’s Reflections on an Education for the 21st Century. Hove: Psychological Press.

Bursuck, W. D., D. D. Munk, and M. M. Olson. 1999. “The Fairness of Report Card Grading Adaptations: What do Students with and Without Learning Disabilities Think?” Remedial and Special Education 20 (2): 84–105.

20 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH

Carnochan, W. B. 1994. The Battleground of the Curriculum: Liberal Education and American Experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Charlton, J. I. 2000. Nothing About us Without us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Charmaz, K. 2010. “Grounded Theory: Objectivist and Constructivist Methods.” In Qualitative Educational Research, edited by W. Luttrell, 183–207. New York: Routledge.

Connor, D. J. 2008. Urban narratives: Portraits-in-progress–life at the intersections of learning dis- ability, race, and social class. New York: Peter Lang.

Connor, D. J. 2012. “Diversifying “diversity”: Contemplating dis/ability at the table(s) of social justice and multicultural education.” Disability Studies Quarterly 32 (3): 1. http://dsq-sds.org/ article/view/1770.

Connor, D. J, S. L Gabel, D Gallagher, and M Morton. 2008. “Disability studies and inclusive edu- cation–Implication for theory, research, and practice: Guest editor’s introduction.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 12 (5-6): 441–457.

Cook-Sather, A. 2003. “Listening to Students About Learning Differences.” Teaching Exceptional Children 35 (4): 22–26.

Creswell, J. 2015. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Danforth, S., ed. 2014. Becoming a Great Inclusive Educator. New York: Peter Lang. Dishon, G., and J. F. Goodman. 2017. “No-excuses for Character: A Critique of Character

Education in No-excuses Charter Schools.” Theory and Research in Education 15 (2): 182–201. Duncan-Andrade, J. M. R. 2009. “Note to Educators: Hope Required When Growing Roses in

Concrete.” Harvard Educational Review 79 (2): 181–194. Eisenman, L. T., M. M. Pell, B. B. Poudel, and A. M. Pleet-Odle. 2015. “‘I Think I’m Reaching my

Potential’: Students’ Self-Determination Experiences in an Inclusive High School.” Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 38 (2): 101–112.

Ferguson, D. L., A. Hanreddy, and S. Draxton. 2011. “Giving Students Voice as a Strategy for Improving Teacher Practice.” London Review of Education 9 (1): 55–70.

Foote, D. 2009. Relentless Pursuit: A Year in the Trenches with Teach for America. New York: Vintage Books.

Friend, M., and W. D. Bursuck. 2002. Including Students with Special Needs: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gunter, H., and P. Thompson. 2007. “Learning About Student Voice.” Support for Learning 22 (4): 181–188.

Ianes, D., S. Cappello, and H. Demo. 2017. “Teacher and Student Voices: A Comparison Between two Perspectives to Study Integration Processes in Italy.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 32 (3): 301–313.

Jordan, A., E. Schwartz, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2009. “Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Classrooms.” Teaching and Teacher Education 25 (4): 535–542.

Kahn, S., and A. R. Lewis. 2014. “Survey on Teaching Science to K-12 Students with Disabilities: Teacher Preparedness and Attitudes.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 25 (8): 885–910.

Katz, J., and L. Sokal. 2016. “Universal Design for Learning as a Bridge to Inclusion: A Qualitative Report of Student Voices.” International Journal of Whole Schooling 12 (2): 36–63.

Keddie, A. 2015. “Student Voice and Teacher Accountability: Possibilities and Problematics.” Pedagogy, Culture & Society 23 (2): 225–244.

Keefe, E. B., V. M. Moore, and F. R. Duff. 2006. Listening to the Experts: Students with Disabilities Speak Out. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Klingner, J., and S. Vaughn. 1999. “Students’ Perceptions of Instruction in Inclusion Classrooms: Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 66 (1): 23–37.

Ladson-Billings, G. 2009. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

Lambert, R., and C. McCarthy. 2006. Understanding Teacher Stress in an age of Accountability: Research in Stress and Coping in Education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 21

Leafstedt, J. M., C. Richards, M. Lamonte, and D. Cassidy. 2007. “Perspectives on Co-teaching: Views from High School Students with Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal 14 (3): 177–184.

Leigh, J. 2012. “The Classroom is Alive with the Sound of Thinking. The Power of the Exit Slip.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education 24 (2): 189–196.

Lemov, D. 2015. Teach Like a Champion 2.0: 62 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mastropieri, M. A., T. E. Scruggs, J. Graetz, J. Norland, W. Gardizi, and K. Mcduffie. 2005. “Case Studies in Co-teaching in the Content Areas: Successes, Failures, and Challenges.” Intervention in School and Clinic 40 (5): 260–270.

Messiou, K., and M. A. Hope. 2015. “The Danger of Subverting Students’ Views in Schools.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (10): 1009–1021.

Mooney, J. 2008. The Short Bus: A Journey Beyond Normal. New York: Henry Holt. Moss, C. M., and S. M. Brookhart. 2013. “A New View of Walk-Throughs.” Educational Leadership

70 (7): 42–45. National Center for Educational Statistics. 2016. https://nces.ed.gov. National Center for Learning Disabilities. 2013. The state of learning disabilities. http://www.ncld.

org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf Nieto, S. 2005. Why We Teach. New York: Teachers College Press. Paris, D., and H. S. Alim, eds. 2017. Culturally Sustaining Pedagogies: Teaching and Learning for

Justice in a Changing World. New York: Teachers College Press. Robins, M., and R. N. Gilbert. 1998. Welcome to Our World: Realities of High School Students.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rodis, P., A. Garrod, and M. L. Boscardin, eds. 2001. Learning Disabilities & Life Stories. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Rosenzweig, K. 2009. “Are Today’s General Education Teachers Prepared to Meet the Needs of

their Inclusive Students?” NERA Conference Proceedings 2009. http://digitalcommons.uconn. edu/nera_2009/10.

Saldana, J. 2008. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Salend, S. 2007. Creating Inclusive Classrooms: Effective and Reflective Practices for all Students. 6th

ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Shelton, S. 2013. “Evaluating School Principals: A Legislative Approach.” Washington, DC. http://

www.ncsl.org/documents/educ/schoolprincipals.pdf. Slee, R. 2011. The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education. New York, NY:

Routledge. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and

Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Strauss, A, and J Corbin. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Strikwerda-Brown, J., R. Oliver, D. Hodgson, M. Palmer, and L. Watts. 2008. “Good Teachers/bad

Teachers: How Rural Adolescent Students’ Views of Teachers Impact their School Experiences.” Australian Journal of Teacher Education 33 (6): 28–43.

Taylor, K. 2017. “Some Charter Schools Can Certify their Own Teachers, Board Says.”NewYork Times, October 11. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/nyregion/suny-charter-schools-teacher-training.html.

Thompson, S., M. Thurlow, and L. Walz. 2000. Student Perspectives On the Use of Accommodations on Large-Scale Assessments. Minnesota Report No. 35. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. https://nceo.info/Resources/ publications/OnlinePubs/MnReport35.html.

Tomlinson, C. A. 2014. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of all Learners. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: ACSD.

Vaughn, S. 1994. “Teachers’ Views of Inclusion: ‘I’d Rather Pump Gas.’” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, April 4–8.

Wren, C. 1987. College and the High School Student with Learning Disabilities: The Student’s Perspective. Chicago, IL: De Paul University.

22 D. J. CONNOR AND W. CAVENDISH