Journal of Disability Policy Studies

In this study, we sought to understand the contexts, experiences, and needs among a sample of U.S. secondary education stakeholders to inform both a theoretical framework and policy contexts underpinning college and career readiness (CCR). Results confirmed a theoretically constructed framework of academic and non-academic CCR skills, with participants offering descriptions that validated and extended the framework. In addition, participants provided critical understandings of educational contexts in which CCR occurs, with both policy constraints and facilitative influences described. Participants identified strategies, policies, and practices to support student readiness for college and career outcomes. Finally, we provide study limitations and implications for research, policy, and practice.

Twenty-five years ago, the author contributed a historical review of evidence on the foreign language (FL) learning problems of low-achieving and learning disabled (LD) students. Educators had proposed a new disability, FL learning disability, and developed policies permitting LD students to substitute courses or waive the FL requirement. The introduction of this new disability was premature because empirical evidence found no relationship between FL learning problems and LDs. Even so, several misguided assumptions about a unique disability for FL learning and a special relationship between FL learning problems and LDs persisted, and an LD diagnosis became the de facto criterion for FL course substitution/waiver policies. In this updated review, these assumptions and evidence falsifying them are examined. Cultural reasons for the assumptions about FL learning and LDs and the adoption of course substitution policies are proposed. The author concludes with recommendations for policymakers.

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of COVID-19 and remote learning on education for college students with disabilities. A qualitative research method, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), was used to investigate participants’ learning experiences during the pandemic. A total of 10 U.S. participants were divided into three focus groups for data collection. Data were analyzed using the standard IPA process, and four themes were identified. Discussion of and implications for online instruction and related policies are presented.

The field of adapted physical activity (APA) and other areas often associated with APA focused on physical activity for people with disabilities, such as adapted physical education (APE) and disability sports (DS), is often marginalized and misunderstood. Little attention has been given to subsets of the general population’s familiarity of this field and related areas. The purpose of this study was to examine college students’ awareness of APA terminology and related organizations. Undergraduate students from 2 U.S. universities (n = 995) completed a survey on their familiarity of APA terminology (APE, DS, and therapeutic recreation [TR]) and related organizations (Paralympics [PL], and Special Olympics [SO]). Students were most familiar with SO, DS, and PL. Familiarity with these terms and organizations, except for TR, were positively associated with being comfortable with people with disabilities (p < .01). Students who reported having a close connection to a person with a disability were significantly more familiar with DS and SO (p = .001). Students with personal connections to people with disabilities appeared to be more aware of APA-related professions and associations. As future leaders, college students can influence the direction of future public policies and resources; thus, because these findings suggests that college students lack the basic familiarity with many APA-related areas, this insinuates that these areas may suffer from a lack of support policies and resources needed to flourish. Further research is needed to fully understand the relationships college students have with people with disabilities and how these may have more awareness of APA-related professions and associations.

A confluence of research and current events in the United States has brought guardianship for people with disabilities into focus in recent years. In the process, the field of special education has been confronted with an unpleasant reality. In their action or inaction, special education professionals may play a role in parents of students with disabilities pursuing undue and overbroad guardianship. The purpose of this study was to work with researchers and practitioners supporting alternatives to guardianship to gather their foremost recommendations for the field of special education on addressing the use of undue guardianship. To this end, the researchers conducted a three-round Delphi study with these established professionals to solicit, rate, and revise their ratings of related recommendations toward achieving consensus. The 30 top recommendations they offered have been collected here and discussed in terms of their relevance for policy, practice, and research in the field.

The field of special education stems from the efforts of parents, adults and children with disabilities, invested policymakers, and other civil rights advocates within legal and policy forums. Yet, over time, as intervention- and scientific-based research within special education were moved to the forefront, the focus on how special education practices are shaped by law and policy were siloed within academic discourse in special education journals. To better understand the use of legal and policy analysis as a methodology within special education journals, the authors systematically analyzed the submission criteria for the top-10 U.S. -based special education journals. Stemming from these findings, this article argues why it may be necessary to consider expanding the field of special education research to include more peer-reviewed academic journals with a predominant focus on special education and disability law and policy, as an understanding of how law and policy shape the academic and personal lives of students with disabilities and their families remains pertinent. Finally, the article offers a framework for creating new academic journals in this space that may offer opportunities to generate dialogue between academics, practitioners, and policymakers across an interdisciplinary discourse.