Student voice and agency can be leveraged to move away from deficit ways of thinking about disability and instruction. This framework offers an alternative to goal setting and instruction that aligns with student strengths and interests. Building on Person-Centered Planning and asset-based pedagogy literature, six steps make up this framework for student-centered, inclusive instructional planning: (1) Communication Inventory, (2) Centering the Student, (3) Making Action Plans, (4) Ecological Assessment, (5) Gather and Reflect, and (6) Inclusive Goal. This process, when taken up with several key commitments (i.e., prioritizing critical reflection), can be used to: get to know students, transition students to new school teams, facilitate student-centered annual Individualized Education Programs, or engage in the evaluation process.
AnnammaS.MorrisonD. (2018). DisCrit classroom ecology: Using praxis to dismantle dysfunctional education ecologies. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73, 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.008
2.
BaglieriS. (2017). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for embracing diversity in education (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315642543
3.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278.
4.
BibbyR. (2013). ‘I hope he goes first’: Exploring determinants of engagement in future planning for adults with a learning disability living with aging parents. What are the issues?British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41:, 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3156.2012.00727.x
BradyN. C.BruceS.GoldmanA.EricksonK.MineoB.OgletreeB. T.WilkinsonK. (2016). Communication services and supports for individuals with severe disabilities: Guidance for assessment and intervention. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(2), 121–138.
8.
BrockM. E. (2018). Trends in the educational placement of students with intellectual disability in the United States over the past 40 years. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(4), 305–314.
9.
CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [Graphic organizer].
10.
ChungY. C.DouglasK. H. (2014). Communicative competence inventory for students who use augmentative and alternative communication: A team approach. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47, 56–68.
11.
ClaesC.Van HoveG.VandeveldeS.Van LoonJ.SchalockR. L. (2010). Person-centered planning: Analysis of research and effectiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48(6), 432–453. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-48.6.432
12.
DonnellanA. M. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavioral Disorders, 9(2), 141–150.
FalveyM. A.ForesM.PierpointJ.RosenbergR. (1997). All my life’s a circle using the tools: Circles, MAPS & Path. Inclusion Press International.
15.
FlintA. S.JaggersW. (2021). You matter here: The impact of asset-based pedagogies on learning. Theory Into Practice, 60(3), 254–264.
16.
FreireP. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Penguin Books.
17.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S. C. § 1140 et seq. (2004).
18.
JonesJ. L.GallusK. L. (2021). Disability as diversity: Rethinking resilience for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and families. In JonesJ. L.GallusK. L. (Eds.), Belonging and resilience in individuals with developmental disabilities: Community and family engagement (1st ed., pp. 1–11). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81277-5
19.
KleekampM. C. (2021). Reimagining isolated literacy classrooms as interdependent networks: Tracing rituals, repetitions, and technologies. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 70(1), 181–201.
20.
KurthJ. A.Lockman TurnerE.GerasimovaD.HicksT. A.ZagonaA.LanseyK.PaceJ. R. (2022). An investigation of IEP quality Associated with special education placement for students with complex support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 47(4), 244–260.
21.
LópezF. A. (2017). Altering the trajectory of the self-fulfilling prophecy: Asset-based pedagogy and classroom dynamics. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(2), 193–212.
22.
LoveH. R.BenekeM. R. (2021). Pursuing justice-driven inclusive education research: Disability Critical Race Theory (DisCrit) in early childhood. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 41(1), 31–44.
23.
MillerA. L.KurthJ. A. (2022). Photovoice research with disabled girls of color: Exposing how schools (re)produce inequities through school geographies and learning tools. Disability & Society, 37(8), 1362–1390. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2021.1881883
24.
MitraD. L. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools lead to gains in youth development?Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651–688.
25.
MountB. (1995). Capacity works: Finding windows for change using personal futures planning. Communitas.
SchepensH. R. M.Van PuyenbroeckJ. M.MaesB. (2019). How to improve the quality of life of elderly people with intellectual disability: A systematic literature review of support strategies. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 32, 483–521.
30.
ShakespeareT. (2006). The social model of disability. The Disability Studies Reader, 2, 197–204.
31.
ShogrenK. A. (2013). A social–ecological analysis of the self-determination literature. Mental Retardation, 51(6), 496–511.
32.
ShogrenK. A. (2016). Self-determination and self-advocacy. In Critical issues in intellectual and developmental disabilities: Contemporary research, practice, and policy (pp. 1–18). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
33.
ShogrenK. A.RaleyS. K.BurkeK. M.WehmeyerM. L. (2019). The self-determined learning model of instruction teacher’s guide. Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.
34.
SmullM. W.HarrisonS. B. (1992). Supporting people with severe reputations in the community. National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services.
35.
TaylorA. (2018). Knowledge citizens? Intellectual disability and the production of social meanings within educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 88(1), 1–25.
36.
ToshalisE.NakkulaM. J. (2012). Motivation, engagement, and student voice. Jobs for the Future.
37.
TurnbullA. P.TurnbullH. R.Blue-BanningM. (1994). Enhancing inclusion of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families: A theoretical and programmatic analysis. Infants & Young Children, 7(2), 1–14.
38.
VandercookT.BowmanJ.GhereG.MartinC.Leon-GuerreroR.SommernessJ. (2021). Comprehensive inclusive education: General education & The inclusive IEP. TIES Center. publications.ici.umn.edu/ties/comprehensive-inclusive-education/main
39.
VandercookT.YorkJ.ForestM. (1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A strategy for building the vision. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14(3), 205–215.
40.
WaitollerF. R.ThoriusK. A. K. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389.
41.
WalkerR.HutchinsonC. (2018). Planning for the future among older parents of adult offspring with intellectual disability living at home and in the community: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 43(4), 453–462.
WellsJ. C.SheeheyP. H. (2012). Person-centered planning: Strategies to encourage participation and facilitate communication. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(3), 32–39.
44.
WestlingD.FoxL.CarterE. (2015). Teaching students with severe disabilities (5th ed.). Pearson.
45.
YossoT. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
