Inclusion Policy in Practice

Art Education

Volumn 56, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 46-53

  Keifer Boyd, Karen ^a   Kraft, Leah Michelle ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b LUBBOCK CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85042037605     PISSN: 00043125     EISSN: 23255161     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00043125.2003.11674148     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Anderegg, M. L., & Vergason, G. A., (1996). Preserving the least restrictive environment: Revisited. In W., Stainback & S., Stainback (Eds.), Controversial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 44–54). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
2. Bartlett, L., & McLeod, S., (1998). Inclusion and the regular class teacher under IDEA. Education Law Reporter, 128, 1–14.
3. Blandy, D., (1999). A disability aesthetic, inclusion, and art education. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 34–41). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
4. Blandy, D., (1991). Conceptions of disability: Toward a sociopolitical orientation to disability for art education. Studies in Art Education, 32 (3), 131–144.
5. Blandy, D., (1989). As I see it: Ecological and normalizing approaches to disabled students. Art Education, 42 (5), 7–11.
6. Blandy, D., Branen, K., Congdon, K. G., & Muschlitz, L., (1992). Integrating people experiencing disabilities into community arts events: Model projects and guidelines. Journal of Social Theory in Art Education, 12, 16–33.
7. Blandy, D., Pancsofar, E., & Mockensturm, T., (1988). Guidelines for teaching art to children and youth experiencing significant mental/physical challenges. Art Education, 41 (1), 60–66.
8. Cajori, M., (Producer & Director). (1998). Chuck Close: A portrait in progress [Video]. Chicago, IL: Home Vision Arts.
9. Capistrano Unified School District v. Wartenberg, 59 F.3d 884 (C.A. 1995).
10. Carrigan, J., (1994). Attitudes about persons with disabilities: A pilot program. Art Education, 47(6), 16–21.
11. Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 119 S. Ct. 992 (1999).
12. Chris C. v. Gwinnett County School District, 780 F.Supp. 804 (N.D.Ga. 1991).
13. Clements, C., (1999). Art education and person-centered futures planning: The dynamic new wave in human services. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 142–154). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
14. Connell, B. R.,; Jones, M., Mace, R., Mueller, J., Mullick, A., Ostroff, E., Sanford, J., Steinfeld, E., Story, M., & Vanderheiden, G., (1997). What is universal design? In The Center for Universal Design (Version 2.0 4/1/97), NC State University [On-line]. Available: http://www.design.ncsu.edu:8120/cud/univ_design/princ_overview.htm
15. Ewing, L., (2000). Art in the dark: A nonvisual learners' curriculum. In D. E., Fehr, K., Fehr, & K., Keifer-Boyd (Eds.), Real-world readings in art education: Things your professors never told you (pp. 83–89). New York: Falmer Press.
16. Guay, D. M., (1999). A way in: Strategies for art instruction for students with special needs. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 17–33). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
17. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988).
18. Jorgensen, C. M., (1997). Curriculum and its impact on inclusion and the achievement of students with disabilities. Consortium on Inclusive Schooling Practices Issue Brief 2 (2). CISP Publications and Resources [On-line]. Available: http://www.asri.edu/CFSP/brochure/curricib.htm
19. Kraft, L. M., (2001). A historical/legal analysis and case study of a high school art classroom as a least restrictive environment for students experiencing disabilities. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62, 02A (Accession No. AA13005249)
20. Loesl, S., (1999). Art education for students with disabilities: Practical strategies for successful inclusion. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 55–62). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
21. Mark A. v. Grant Wood Area Educ. Agency, 795 F.2d 52 (8th Cir. 1986).
22. New Horizons for Learning (2001). Inclusive learning environments for students with special needs [On-line]. Available: http://www.newhorizons.org/spneeds_intr.html
23. Nyman, A. L., & Jenkins, A. M., (Eds.). (1999). Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs. Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
24. Pappalardo, R. G., (1999). Curricular issues: The visual arts and students with disabilities. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 42–54). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
25. Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Rachel H., 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir. 1994).
26. Taylor v. Board of Education, 649 F.Supp. 1253 (N.D.N.Y. 1986).
27. Thunder-McGuire, S., (1999). Narrative accounts of experience, context, meaning, and purpose. In A. L., Nyman & A. M., Jenkins (Eds.), Issues and approaches to art for students with special needs (pp. 99–108). Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.
28. Turnbull, H. R., (1991, October). The communitarian perspective: Thoughts on the future for people with developmental disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the North Carolina Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, Raleigh, NC.