Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices are important for nonverbal students with disabilities to communicate with the verbal world. AAC devices provide access to academic and social opportunities for students with disabilities. With the changing demographics of schools and an emphasis on meaningful, culturally relevant instruction for all students, it is important to consider how AAC devices are utilized and perceived by individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and their families. This paper reviewed empirical studies that addressed the perspectives and use of AAC devices by CLD students with disabilities and their families. A total of N = 11 studies were selected spanning almost two decades of research related to AAC use in culturally and linguistically diverse populations internationally. Discussions and implications highlight the need for a deeper understanding of culture and race as they inform instruction for AAC users with disabilities and additional current studies related to this critical topic within the field.

Using a dis/ability critical race theory (DisCrit) and critical quantitative (QuantCrit) lens, we examine disproportionate application of exclusionary discipline on multiply marginalized youth, foregrounding systemic injustice and institutionalized racism. In doing so, we examined temporal-, student-, and school-level factors that may result in exclusion and othering (i.e., placing into special education and punishing with out-of-school suspensions) within one school district. We frame this study in DisCrit and QuantCrit frameworks to connect data-based decision making to sociocultural understandings of the ways in which schools use both special education and discipline to simultaneously provide and limit opportunities for different student groups. Results showed a complex interconnectedness between student sociodemographic labels (e.g., gender, race, and socioeconomic status) and factors associated with both special education identification and exclusionary discipline. Our findings suggest that quantitative studies lacking in-depth theoretical justification may perpetuate deficit understandings of the racialization of disability and intersections with exclusionary discipline.

Special education teachers of color (SETOC) multiply experience marginalized positions as students of color in P-12 classrooms, as teachers in teacher preparation programs, and alongside the experiences of students of color with disabilities. Instead of drawing from their identities, SETOC tend to be absorbed into the ableist, behaviorist, and racist system of special education and are expected to become complicit in the system. For educators of color, critical affinity groups provide support, reduce trauma, and support work toward collective intersectional justice. Using qualitative narratives, this paper describes how a critical affinity group (re)positioned three SETOC as smart, knowledgeable, and addressing racism and ableism in schools. Disability studies and critical race theory (DisCrit) illuminated SETOC’s unique experiences and how they came together to process racist/ableist interactions and resisted the erasure of their identities as teachers of color. Implications discuss how teacher preparation programs can support the needs of SETOC.

The purpose of this study was to complete an in-depth examination of the construct of teacher beliefs by investigating preservice teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Interview and artifact data were collected for 11 preservice teachers during a 10-month period. Dimensions of beliefs investigated were expressed beliefs and beliefs-in-use, the stability of beliefs, and sources of beliefs. Results indicate that preservice teachers’ beliefs systems are complex, made up of enduring, deeply rooted expressed beliefs as well as beliefs-in-use that are highly dependent on discipline-specific working knowledge. These beliefs are not the same in how they are formed or sustained; thus, an implication of this study’s findings is that researchers and teacher educators be more specific and explicit when describing studies of preservice teacher beliefs. Additional implications for future research and practice regarding the relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher education are provided.

No abstract