No description available.

No description available.

Inclusive research based on collaborative partnership with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities has the potential to lead to relevant and meaningful research outcomes. An inclusive research approach is necessary for research endeavors which strive to improve the lives of LGBTQ+ people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, who experience layered stigma due to complex interactions between their disabilities, gender and sexual identities, and other sociocultural identities. In this dissertation, I present three research articles about the Rainbow Inclusion Speaking Up (RISE Up) Project, an inclusive research project with and for LGBTQ+ adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities to promote gender and sexual self-determination. In chapter one, I define relevant terminology, justify the importance of inclusive research, and synthesize previous research on the experiences of LGBTQ+ people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In chapter two, I organize prior scholarship about planning inclusive research into five components and describe how I planned The RISE Up Project according to these components. Then, in chapter three, I present a qualitative interview-based study on the barriers and facilitators to gender and sexual self-determination in the lives of LGBTQ+ adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In chapter four, I share practical lessons from The RISE Up Project on conducting gender and sexualities research consistent with core principles of community-based participatory research. Throughout this work, and in chapter five, I highlight implications for conducting meaningful inclusive research and for promoting gender and sexual self-determination for LGBTQ+ adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities.

Post-pandemic data demonstrate that there has been an increase in student mental health and behavioral needs, and these changes have a significant effect on the culture and climate of schools. School administrators have traditionally relied on suspension to address challenging behaviors, yet this approach has not been shown to be effective. While alternative approaches to discipline and behavioral response have been adopted, it is unclear when and how principals decide to use these approaches. In this phenomenological study, I interviewed 12 New Hampshire principals about their experiences with student behavior and discipline, including their responses to and attributions for student behavior. Participants identified student, school, and family factors that were important in their disciplinary decision-making. Themes that emerged included balancing equity and equality, the “moral wrangling” associated with disciplinary decision-making and the emotional toll on principals. Principals’ attributions for behavior are discussed, and disciplinary responses were examined for their association with those attributions. Findings from this dissertation have the potential to guide the provision of resources for school administrators and to inform practice and policy to support students experiencing emotional and behavioral challenges at school.

In this three-study dissertation, I present an in-depth examination of patterns in the paraeducator workforce across two states: Indiana and Washington. In each study, I leverage longitudinal administrative data to answer questions about the distribution, turnover, and impact of paraeducators in the workforce using both descriptive and causal methods. Together, these studies indicate that paraeducators are often unevenly distributed across contexts (e.g., by school urbanicity, student enrollment by subgroup) and these contexts play a role in shaping workforce patterns among paraeducators. More specifically, I find differential statewide distributions in paraeducator allocation based on district characteristics, differential risk for turnover based on paraeducator characteristics (such as race/ethnicity, gender, experience, and salary), but universally limited impacts of paraeducator turnover on student test scores. While the latter finding was surprising given substantial research demonstrating the critical role of paraeducators in supporting students and teachers, I discuss the implications of such a finding, including that educators, policymakers, and researchers need to look beyond programmatic silos (i.e., general education and special education) to develop effective educational systems. Together, these studies indicate that paraeducators are often unevenly distributed across contexts (e.g., by school urbanicity, student enrollment by subgroup) and these contexts — in combination with personal characteristics — play a role in shaping workforce patterns among paraeducators. Overall, this dissertation adds to the growing body of literature that uses administrative data to answer questions of consequence in special education and illuminates an area of the workforce often looked past in large-scale quantitative analyses. This work holds implications for research, practice, and policy, particularly around diversity in the educator workforce, policy incentives for educator retention, and increasing the quality and use of administrative data and research on the paraeducator workforce.

Ableism and other systems of oppression continue to be upheld and maintained in both university teacher preparation and K–12 schooling systems. Thus, there is an urgent need to examine and disrupt these oppressive forces and begin to (re)imagine teacher preparation and K–12 schooling so that disabled and multiply marginalized students and educators are supported, affirmed, and valued in their respective communities. Using TL Lewis (2022) definition of ableism and DisCrit Classroom Ecology as a conceptual framework for anti-ableism (Annamma & Morrison, 2018), this dissertation includes three papers focused on identifying and disrupting ableism in both systems. Chapter 1 introduces the aims of this dissertation, its conceptual framework, relevant literature, and the methodology of each paper. Chapter 2 is a critical qualitative research study that examined how self-contained special educators from one Northeastern school district reproduced and/or resisted ableism and white saviorism in their conversations about their working conditions. Chapter 3 is a community-based participatory research study where we examined the schooling experiences of eight disabled adults to inform recommendations for K–12 and teacher preparation. Chapter 4 is a conceptual essay written with a practicing early elementary educator and four disabled educators. Together, we share how we developed and enacted curricula about positive conceptions of disability, anti-ableism, and disability histories with young learners. Finally, Chapter 5, provides future directions for research and practice that is rooted in criticality, community partnership, and justice.

No description available.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--West Virginia University, 1999. / Title from document title page. Document formatted into pages; contains vii, 321 p. Includes abstract. Includes bibliographical references (p. 287-308).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1970. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A.)--Rowan University, 2005. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references.