A schoolwide approach to promoting student bystander behavior in response to the use of the word "retard".

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The use of the word retard ("the r-word") among adolescents sheds light on societal views about individuals with intellectual disability and the need to address the colloquial use of this word and its underlying stigma. Schools provide an important platform for intervening to promote social change among youth. The present study examined the impact of a schoolwide social inclusion program on students' bystander behavior against the use of the r-word. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: 1233 students from 5 high schools were surveyed about the prevalence of the r-word in their school, the contexts in which it is used, and their bystander behavior in response to the word. Approximately 40% of surveyed students participated in an R-word Campaign, Unified Sports team, and/or Unified Club as part of the Special Olympics Unified Champion Schools (UCS) program. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Students' prosocialness, the context in which the r-word was used, and participation in UCS activities significantly predicted active bystander behavior in response to the r-word. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: By empowering students to be active bystanders against the use of the r-word in school, school-based interventions provide a promising avenue for addressing both the use of the r-word and its underlying stigma.

Accommodation Decision Making for Postsecondary Students With Learning Disabilities: Individually Tailored or One Size Fits All?

Clinicians uniformly recommend accommodations for college students with learning disabilities; however, we know very little about which accommodations they select and the validity of their recommendations. We examined the assessment documentation of a large sample of community college students receiving academic accommodations for learning disabilities to determine (a) which accommodations their clinicians recommended and (b) whether clinicians' recommendations were supported by objective data gathered during the assessment process. In addition to test and instructional accommodations, many clinicians recommended that students with learning disabilities should have different educational expectations, standards, and methods of evaluation (i.e., grading) than their nondisabled classmates. Many of their recommendations for accommodations were not supported by objective evidence from students' history, diagnosis, test data, and current functioning. Furthermore, clinicians often recommended accommodations that were not specific to the student's diagnosis or area of disability. Our findings highlight the need for individually selected accommodations matched to students' needs and academic contexts.