Volume 43 Number 2 2015 NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Official Journal of the National Social Science Association Name of Publication: NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Issue: Volume 43 # 2 ISSN 2154-1736 Frequency: Quarterly Offices of Publication: National Social Science Association Mailing Address 2020 Hills Lake Drive El Cajon CA 92020 Office Address 9131 Fletcher Parkway, Suite 119 La Mesa CA 91942 On Line journals: http://nssa.us e-mail address: [email protected]; [email protected] The National Social Science Journal is being abstracted in: Cabell's Directory; Eric Clearinghouse; EBSCO, Economic Abstracts; Historical Abstracts; Index to Periodical Articles; Social Science Source; Social Science Index; Sociological Abstracts; the University Reference System. We wish to thank all authors for the licensing of the articles. And we wish to thank all those who have reviewed these articles for publication This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Editor, Barba Patton EDITORIAL BOARD Editorial Board: Nancy Adams., Lamar University Stanley Alexander, Suffolk County Community College Mark Bellnap, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Richard Bieker, Delaware State University Benita Bruster, Austin Peay University Sue Burum, Minnesota State University, Mankato Jose da Cruz, Armstrong Atlantic State University Robert Dewhirst, Northwest Missouri State University Amy Shriver Dreussi, University of Akron Talitha Hudgins, Utah Valley University James Mbuva, National University Barbara Peterson, Austin Peay University Pegly Vaz, Fort Hays State University NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNAL Volume 43 #2 Table of Contents Ongoing Professional Development Needed to Fulfill IDEIA and FAPE for Students With Exceptional Learning Needs Nancy J. Adams, Nancy Leffel Carlson, Vance Cortez-Rucker, Lamar University 1 The 2012 American Elections in Perspective Sunil Ahuja, The Higher Learning Commission 14 Urban Tennessee Teachers’ Perceptions of High-Stakes Testing and Social Studies Pedagogy Sarah Smilowitz, South Mecklenburg High School Jeffrey M. Byford, University of Memphis 24 The Power of Partnership: Exploring International Humanitarian Law in Higher Education Michaelene Cox, Illinois State University Amy L. Atchison, Valparaiso University Laurie D. Fisher, Robert Wiltz, American Red Cross 31 Bibliotherapy in the Classroom Minden Yuskevich, Beverly A. Doyle, Creighton University 49 Librarians on the Loose: High Tech and High Touch Research Assistance from Embedded Librarians Jacquelyn F. Haggard, Caroll R. Haggard, Fort Hays State University 54 “Patriotism Is Not Enough”: Nurse Edith Cavell, World War I Hero William M. Kirtley, Central Texas College Patricia M. Kirtley, Independent Scholar 61 Negative Campaigning: What Is It, Why They Do It, and What Difference Does It Make? Joseph A. Melusky, Saint Francis University 71 Information, Appropriation, Value and Questions Noel Packard, Independent Scholar 80 The Current State of Evidence-Based Practices with Classroom Management Peter Ross, Bruce Sliger, Mercer University 89 We Have Heard Your Call to us, as Men and Christians: Ohio and Irish Famine Relief Harvey Strum, Sage Colleges 94 Student Paper Competition Winner – Undergraduate Corporate Style Education Reform and the Latino Community Steven Pray, Central Washington University 112 Ongoing Professional Development Needed to Fulfill IDEIA and FAPE for Students with Exceptional Learning Needs Nancy J. Adams, Nancy Leffel Carlson, Vance Cortez-Rucker, Lamar University Abstract: Study of educators’ knowledge of special education law (IDEIA) with implications for providing professional development and training for delivering a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with special learning needs. This study investigated educators' knowledge of special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), related to placement and programs for students with exceptional learning needs. Qualitative data from five open-ended questions are reported. Participants made recommendations related to special education law, guidelines, teaching strategies, and major concerns of teachers who serve students in special education. Background P.L. 94-142, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enacted in 1975, provided for services to students with exceptional learning needs including placement in the least restrictive environment. IDEA defined special education as specially designed services and instruction to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities (Cordeiro & Cunningham, 2013). Requirements for educating students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment were specified in IDEA amendments of 1997: To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled. Special classes, separate schools, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [(sec.612.(a)(5)] (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2004). The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, called Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), aligned with No child Left Behind (NCLB) so education of students with disabilities was held to the same high standards as for other students. The IDEIA revision changed the way students were classified for special education, emphasized highly qualified teachers, and scientifically based instruction. Response to Intervention (RtI) was introduced to emphasize early interventions provided in general education classrooms to reduce the need to label children to address their learning and behavioral needs (Cordeiro & Cunningham, 2013; Wright & Wright, 2006). Literature Review Requirement of Federal Law (IDEIA and FAPE) Students requiring only some modification or accommodation in their learning were given a 504 plan to support their learning environment and/or instruction methodology. An Individual Education Plan (IEP) was developed for students who were identified with a disability or exceptional learning need that required specialized instructional practices or special education (Giangreco, Cloninger, & Iverson, 1993). Giangreco et al. (1993) noted “if one knowingly did not provide needed accommodations, it could be 1 viewed as discrimination and the individual teacher or instructional specialist and the school system could be liable for legal action.” The school decision-making team made the decision for the appropriate educational program, instructional placement, and determined the need for related services for students with exceptional learning needs. The team developed long- and short-term objectives and specific support plans in general education settings for the free and appropriate public education (FAPE) of students with exceptional learning needs (Giangreco et al). IDEIA required annual re-evaluation of all IEPs to monitor student progress, to ensure IEPs meet individual student’s needs, and to maintain the integrity of lessons for classmates without disabilities (Giangreco et al, 1993). IEPs are signed by the school administrator, assessment specialists, teachers, parents, and in some cases the student. IEPs are legal documents and can create both legal and instructional issues (Armenta & Beckers, 2006). Cordeiro and Cunningham (2013) noted all conditions of the IEP must be provided. All teachers who provide direct instruction to the student should be involved in the planning process that creates instructional accommodations and modifications. All accommodations must be applied consistently rather than selectively to the student's instructional activities. All instructional decisions should meet the spirit and the letter of the law (Armenta & Beckers, 2006). Each year more students with exceptional learning needs are placed in general education classrooms. The number of students with disabilities who spent 80% or more of their time in general education classes rose from 25% in 1985 to more than 50% in the 2000s (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Inclusion placed students with exceptionalities in general classes where special education resource teachers work with general education teachers in team-teaching models (Cordeiro & Cunningham, 2013). Zigmond (2003) reported the quality of the instructional program and the support system developed within the school to support the student with exceptional learning needs was more important than the setting itself. Villa and Thousand (2003) report administrative support and vision was the most powerful predictor of general educators’ attitudes toward inclusion and the student's success. Villa and Thousand (2005) noted the administrator played a key role in successful implementation of the inclusion model and suggested five actions administrators could take to facilitate inclusive practices: 1. Build consensus for a vision of inclusive schooling; 2. Develop educators’ skills and confidence to be inclusive educators through ongoing professional development; 3. Create incentives (time, training, responding to concerns) and recognition; 4. Reorganize and expand human and other teaching resources; and 5. Plan for and take action to help the community see and get excited about a new vision. Due Process Hearings Disputes over educational practices and