The purpose of this qualitative multicase study was to explore the perceptions of individuals who could speak from both sides of the special education desk--as students and as teachers. The three participants for this study each received special education services for learning disabilities while in school and were currently teaching students with learning disabilities. Specifically the study focused on how participants' past experiences with receiving special education services influenced their current practice as special education teachers. Participants' views on service delivery models, the importance of teacher expectations, and the value of conceiving a learning disability as a tool rather than a deficit are discussed.

This qualitative study examined barriers to literacy for individuals with severe speech and physical impairments. The study gave voice to parents, teachers, university faculty, and administrators involved in the literacy education of these students. Following a constant comparison to model parameters set by disability rights authors, 4 dominant models emerged from the dialogue: (a) medical, (b) materialist, (c) administrative, and (d) social barriers. The medical and materialist models reflected the dominance of a functional/life-skill curriculum and the lowering of academic expectations for traditional literacy achievement. The administrative model intertwined with financial allocations in areas of teacher training, assistive technology, and classroom materials. The social barriers model influenced marginalization in scheduling for literacy instruction and inclusion in scope and sequence curricula.

This qualitative study examined obstacles to literacy for individuals with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI). Using a constant comparison approach, the authors addressed attitudinal and opportunity barriers to literacy education from the perspective of parents, teachers, university faculty, and administrators involved in literacy education of students with SSPI. Major themes emerged within the categories of knowledge, policy, practice, and attitude relating to funding issues, segregation of students with SSPI, use of a life skills curriculum, lack of certification preparation and training in methods and assistive technology, and attitudes that embraced stigmatization and lowered expectations.

Approaches to assessment can be divided into two types, positivist and responsive. While positivist assessment compares a student's performance to predetermined standards, responsive assessment focuses on the context and the questions that need to be answered to guide instruction. This article presents vignettes to illustrate the nature of responsive assessment. A variety of assessment techniques are also described.

This study examined the perceptions of 12 students or graduates of a distance education training program in teaching students with visual impairments. Participants in the study discussed their experiences with courses delivered via interactive video, over the Internet, and by live instructors.