Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Self-Determination: Is a Rose by Any Other Name Still a Rose?
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Turnbull, Ann P. |
| Copyright Year | 2006 |
| Abstract | We invite you to read this Exchange focusing on the need to have more coherence and consistency in terminology/descriptions and in anticipated outcomes related to self-determination funding. We also invite you to contribute to a national dialogue to seek the coherence and consistency for which the article advocates. You can join the online discussion by visiting the Beach Center website (www.beachcenter. org) and looking on the home page for a link to the discussion board or you may link to the discussion board through TASH.org. Please join in! Q1 Does self-determination refer to a curriculum that teaches students with disabilities to be self-directed problem solvers, a technique for redirecting funding streams so that adults with disabilities can control the dollars allocated for their supports and services, or a philosophy grounded in democratic values and constitutional principles of autonomy and liberty? Or is it two or even all three of these? And, what terms should professionals use to inform policy leaders, practitioners, self-advocates, and families so that they will advance the self-determination cause? One of the first times the term Bself-determination[ was introduced to the special education field, was the 1989 National Conference on Self-Determination sponsored by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitative Research. Prior to this conference, a number of researchers began to investigate the effects of choice making and self-directed learning strategies on the performance of students with severe disabilities (see Agran &Martin, 1987; Guess, Benson, & Siegel-Causey, 1985; Mithaug, Martin, & Agran, 1987; Mithaug & Hanawalt, 1978; Ward, 1988). (Note: At that time the terms Bself-control[ or Bself-management[ were used.) Shortly after that historic conference, and based on the developing body of research findings on the positive effects of self-management and self-directed learning strategies, the Office of Special Education Programs funded model programs and curriculum-development projects to promote self-determination of youths with disabilities during their secondary education (Ward, 1996; Wehmeyer, Bersani, & Gagne, 2000). Those early programs were well-documented in the literature (Wehmeyer & Sands, 1998) and laid a strong foundation for subsequent research, demonstration projects, and instructional/curriculum models. Although different definitions have emerged through the work of various research teams, the most frequently accepted definition of self-determination in the field of special education relates is: Bacting as the primary causal agent in one’s life and making choices and decisions regarding one’s quality of life free from undue external influence or interference[ (Wehmeyer, 1996, p. 24). At roughly the same that self-determination models related to self-direction and problem-solving continued to expand within the field of special education, adults with disabilities began to demand greater control over their lives. Specifically, they sought to have the right to use Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) funds in ways that responded to their choices and needs as they themselves defined those choices and needs. In making these demands, they insisted that HCBS funds to which they are entitled were theirs to direct because they are the entitled beneficiaries Y they Bown[ the funds Y and that they, not service provider agencies, should have the right to say how the funds should be used. Moreover, they were displaying their dissatisfaction with living lives controlled by others. Their frontal challenge to the service-provider enterprise is summarized in the TASH newsletter, TASH Connections (March/April, 2005) which includes an excellent overview of policy, practices, and success stories related to this version of self-determination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the first demonstration project on self-determination (the term here refers to self-determination funding) at Monadnock Developmental Services in New Hampshire. This model focused on the development of individual budgets for adults with disabilities that were developed and implemented through the process of person-centered planning (Conroy, Fullerton, Brown, & Garrow, 2002). This paper focuses on the emerging literature related to self-determination funding which holds that individuals with disabilities should have greater control over the money allocated to serve them than they have had in the past, and that service-provider agencies have now. Our purpose is to review the literature on self-determination funding to analyze terminology/ Address all correspondence and reprint requests to Ann Turnball, Center of support for families of children with disabilities, University of Kansas Haworth Hall, Lawerence, KS 66045-7534. Email: turnball@ku.edu Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 2006, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1–6 copyright 2006 by TASH |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6247/SD_A_Rose_by_any_other_name.pdf?isAllowed=y&sequence=1 |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
