This study analyzed how culture influenced a disability-specific curriculum in one specialized school. It assessed past and present artifacts, expressed values, and underlying assumptions. Variables for change were targeted to balance academics with the expanded core curriculum. The results indicate that some areas changed while other areas continue to struggle.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshcroftS. C., HendersonF., SanfordL. D., & KoenigA. J. (2001). New programmed instruction in braille (3rd ed.). Nashville, TN: Scalars Publishing.
2.
BosworthK. (2000). Protective schools: Linking drug abuse prevention with student success.Tucson: Arizona Board of Regents.
3.
CraigR. (1987). Learning the Nemeth code.Lexington, KY: American Printing House for the Blind.
4.
FeaginJ., OrumA., & SjobergG. (1991). A case for the case study.Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
5.
FordA., SchnorrR., MeyerL., DavernL., BlackJ., & DempseyP. (1997). The Syracuse community referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
HatlenP. (1996). The core curriculum for blind and visually impaired students, including those with additional disabilities. Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairments, 28(1), 175–182.
7.
HuebnerK. M., Merk-AdamB., StrykerD., & WolffeK. (2004). National agenda for children and youths with visual impairments, including those with multiple disabilities, revised.New York: AFB Press.
8.
LohmeierK. L. (2005). An analysis of disability specific curriculum in a specialized school for the blind: A case study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, UMI No. 3187969).
9.
SmithM., & LevackN. (1999). Teaching students with visual and multiple impairments, A resource guide (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired Press.
