I remember when I first began teaching in a specialized classroom that served students with emotional disturbance. I remember thinking that, as a special education teacher, it was my job to teach my students to not only excel at academics, but to also learn positive coping skills so they could be successful in a general education classroom. After a couple of years working with the same students, I began the process of trying to reintegrate them into general education classrooms. The students I felt were ready to begin the transition had completed the specialized system I had created to increase positive behavior and academic rigor. When I began talking to general education teachers in my building about the reintegration, I was saddened to hear most of the teachers say, “that kid is bad, and he will never make it out of that room”. I realized then that I needed to change the perception of adults when it came to behavior and the reasons behind it before any of my students would be successful in a mainstream classroom, not because of their disability, but because of the perception of the adults about that disability. Thus began my journey to educate teachers on proactive, positive behavioral strategies in the classroom.

As a teacher in any K-12 school, you will encounter many students with a wide variety of needs. Many students in your classroom will have needs that require them to receive special education services. Understanding each type of disability and how best to work with that type of disability will provide you with greater options and strategies that will enhance each student’s learning opportunities and will allow you to create a more positive and inclusive classroom. To do this, educators must reframe how those with disabilities are seen and taught. When discussing disabilities, it is often difficult to think about the strengths each child can bring to the educational environment rather than the deficits. Building an educational platform that allows a student with a disability to focus on their individual strengths rather than their deficits not only increases educational outcomes, but positive social skill development as well (Galloway, Reynolds, & Williamson, 2020; Johnson, 2021).

Critical Disability Theory (CDT) is a political movement that stems from Critical Race Theory (CRT). Theorists who study Critical Disability Race Theory, the idea that racial bias is integrated into many social and legal institutions that are primarily designed for white people, believe that “disability is socially constructed, that what disables is the environment, rejecting the objectification of people with disabilities and their portrayal as victims” (Rocco, 2005, pg. 1). Johnson, (2021, pg. 1) gives a definition that states, “Disability Critical Race Theory is a tool that, if implemented, can give voice to Black children with disabilities in a system that cares little about either. Its merger of disability studies (DS) and Critical Race Theory (CRT), if applied, would provide the necessary shock to the system to racist policymakers who would rather pity, at best, than support the empowerment of visible Black disabled bodies”. Critical disability theory seeks to create a system where those who are disabled are not treated with difference, with needing to be corrected and who should adjust to the world around them rather than be an integral part of it (Reaume, 2014). The main goal of Critical Disability Theory is to create a system that “works toward universal accessibility”. (pg. 1248). Reaume (2014, pg. 1249) goes on to explain that “Changing public attitudes toward disabilities is important. Some argue that the term “disabled people” emphasizes that disability is an essential part of self-identity. Others argue that the term “people with disabilities” stresses that functional limitation is only one aspect of overall identity”.

As educators, we must retrain our mindset to focus on strength-based learning rather than deficit correction. We must also begin to understand that it may be how each of us views a disability rather than the person who has a disability. What this means is that students with disabilities cannot be seen, nor treated like victims. We must learn to see each students’ strengths and teach them to work within their strengths. When we choose to see the person rather than the disability, we can move away from teaching the disability and begin to teach the individual, thus creating a positive, strength-based environment that allows our students to flourish and learn to advocate for themselves. Greven, Harlaar, Kovas, Chamorro-Premuzic, & Plomin (2009), stated that self-concept about ability is a better predictor of school achievement than I.Q. “Respect for the value of the student must be reflected in curriculum, pedagogy, and solidarity with the community of learners and parents that are purportedly the focus of special education efforts” (Johnson, 2021, pg. 3). This means that when educators focus on a student’s strengths, rather than their weaknesses, students can rise above what others feel is their educational limit. This must be done within the full scope of how curriculum and pedagogy are presented and utilized as well as how IEPs are written. Because the IEP is an accountability driven document, it is easy for IEP teams to focus on the student’s deficiencies rather than their strengths. If students with disabilities are to be truly included in relevant and meaningful educational opportunities, then IEP’s must be developed and implemented from a strength-based focus rather than a deficit-based model. Through using a strength-based IEP model, students with cultural and linguistically diverse needs would have a greater chance of participating in inclusive social opportunities (Gomes & McKee, 2020).

In the very recent past, the “disability discourse” throughout the United States has focused on “specific words such as disability, disorder, deficit, and dysfunction to describe students” (Armstrong, 2012, pg. 3). This discourse focused on what the student could not do, rather than what they could do. In recent years, the focus has slowly been shifting to the idea of “neurodiversity” (pg. 4). This paradigm is like bio or cultural diversity in that it replaces disability with diversity creating a more positive view of students with disabilities. If educators took the stance of celebrating the differences in all students, there would be less inclination to try to make students in special education be like “normal” students (Armstrong, 2012).

Turning Disability into Ability

The goal of this book is to introduce the world of special education to pre-educators. You will see the potential conflict of viewing strength vs. deficit when addressing students with disabilities but we must work in the educational world in which we operate. This means that for a student to receive special education services, teachers, parents, and other professionals see the weaknesses in a student and seek to increase support through the referral, assessment, and evaluation process of special education. This chapter will focus on the 13 disability categories set forth in IDEA along with definitions and general characteristics of those disabilities. However, it will also focus on research-based strategies designed to increase student strengths rather than their limitations. It is the hope of this author that a new view of special education will emerge and that readers will begin to change their preconceived notions of what special education is and the wonderfully unique students that it serves.

How to write a Strength-based IEP: