Explore the vast range of titles available.

The researchers in this special, themed issue of The Teacher Educator resist the invisibility of queer-positive models of teacher educators and bring their collective strength and understanding to reveal the struggles and triumphs of entering the teaching profession while negotiating sexual orientation.

This volume focuses on multicultural curriculum transformation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics or STEM subject areas broadly, while also focusing on sub-content areas (e.g., earth science, digital technologies) in greater detail. The discussion of each sub-content area outlines critical considerations for multicultural curriculum transformation for the sub-content areas by grade level (early childhood and elementary school education, middle and/or junior high school education, and high school education) and then by organizing tool parameters: standards (both in a generalized fashion, and specific to Common Core State Standards, among other standards), educational context, relationships with and among students and their families, civic engagement, considerations pertaining to educational \"ability\" broadly considered (for example, for gifted and talented education, bilingual gifted and talented education, \"regular\" education, bilingual \"regular\" education, special education, bilingual special education), as well as relative to specific content and corresponding pedagogical considerations, including evaluation of student learning and teaching effectiveness. In this way, the volume provides a conceptual framework andconcrete examples for how to go about multiculturally-transforming curriculum in STEM curricula. The volume is designed to speak with PK-12 teachers as colleagues in the multicultural curriculum transformation work at focus in each subject area and at varied grade levels. Readers are exposed to \"things to think about,\" but also given curricular examples to work with or from in going about the actual, concrete work of curriculum change. It bridges the gaps between preparing PK-12 teachers to be able to 1) independently multiculturally adapt existing curriculum, and, 2) create new multicultural curriculum differentiated for their content areas and grade levels, while also, 3) providing ample examples of what such adapted and new differentiated curricula looks like. In so doing, this volume also bridges the gaps between the theory and practice of multicultural curriculum transformation in higher and PK-12 educational contexts.

This volume focuses on multicultural curriculum transformation in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics or STEM subject areas broadly, while also focusing on sub-content areas (e.g., earth science, digital technologies) in greater detail. The discussion of each sub-content area outlines critical considerations for multicultural curriculum transformation for the sub-content areas by grade level (early childhood and elementary school education, middle and/or junior high school education, and high school education) and then by organizing tool parameters: standards (both in a generalized fashion, and specific to Common Core State Standards, among other standards), educational context, relationships with and among students and their families, civic engagement, considerations pertaining to educational “ability” broadly considered (for example, for gifted and talented education, bilingual gifted and talented education, “regular” education, bilingual “regular” education, special education, bilingual special education), as well as relative to specific content and corresponding pedagogical considerations, including evaluation of student learning and teaching effectiveness. In this way, the volume provides a conceptual framework andconcrete examples for how to go about multiculturally-transforming curriculum in STEM curricula. The volume is designed to speak with PK-12 teachers as colleagues in the multicultural curriculum transformation work at focus in each subject area and at varied grade levels. Readers are exposed to “things to think about,” but also given curricular examples to work with or from in going about the actual, concrete work of curriculum change. It bridges the gaps between preparing PK-12 teachers to be able to 1) independently multiculturally adapt existing curriculum, and, 2) create new multicultural curriculum differentiated for their content areas and grade levels, while also, 3) providing ample examples of what such adapted and new differentiated curricula looks like. In so doing, this volume also bridges the gaps between the theory and practice of multicultural curriculum transformation in higher and PK-12 educational contexts.

[...] grade was the year I learned in school that I was poor. Because of Ricky, I felt self-conscious about doing the family tree assignment. Sometimes I would be \"sick\" on the day we had to bring our favorite holiday gift to school for show-and-tell. Besides the fact that I'd already eaten most of my little book of Lifesavers, I knew that the other boys would have robots that moved or racecar tracks.

Sapp discusses the nature of transcendent education and at the same time attempts to illuminate its phenomenon as well as familiarize the readers with its dynamics as it is lived by those who have experienced it. The method of data collection, using six focus groups under the heuristic research paradigm, revealed that it is through and by means of education that individuals can be provoked to reach beyond themselves, become empowered to think about what they are doing so as to be mindful, and to make varied sense of their lived worlds.

Presents one teacher educator's experiences working to transform the classroom by telling his own stories and coming out to his students early in the semester. The author believes that by sharing his story with his students, he shows them how to embrace freedom and enter into communication with each other in states of being, not seeming. (SM)

The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).

In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator who had ventricular tachycardia, catheter ablation was associated with a lower rate of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or ICD shock at 28 months than an escalation in antiarrhythmic drugs. Ventricular tachycardia caused by the scarring that occurs after myocardial infarction carries a substantial risk of death, a risk that is significantly reduced by the placement of an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD). 1 ICDs are implanted in more than 100,000 patients annually in the United States. Of these patients, 15% are initially treated with concomitant antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) therapy, 2 and up to 38% receive an appropriate shock for ventricular arrhythmia within 5 years. 3 ICDs effectively terminate ventricular tachycardia, but recurrent arrhythmias and ICD shocks may cause impairment in the quality of life, 4 are associated with an increased risk of death, heart failure, . . .

Patients with ventricular tachycardia and ischemic cardiomyopathy are at high risk for adverse outcomes. Catheter ablation is commonly used when antiarrhythmic drugs do not suppress ventricular tachycardia. Whether catheter ablation is more effective than antiarrhythmic drugs as a first-line therapy in patients with ventricular tachycardia is uncertain. In an international trial, we randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with previous myocardial infarction and clinically significant ventricular tachycardia (defined as ventricular tachycardia storm, receipt of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator [ICD] shock or antitachycardia pacing, or sustained ventricular tachycardia terminated by emergency treatment) to receive antiarrhythmic drug therapy or to undergo catheter ablation. All the patients had an ICD. Catheter ablation was performed within 14 days after randomization; sotalol or amiodarone was administered as antiarrhythmic drug therapy according to prespecified criteria. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause during follow-up or, more than 14 days after randomization, ventricular tachycardia storm, appropriate ICD shock, or sustained ventricular tachycardia treated by medical intervention. A total of 416 patients were followed for a median of 4.3 years. A primary end-point event occurred in 103 of 203 patients (50.7%) assigned to catheter ablation and in 129 of 213 (60.6%) assigned to drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.03). Among patients in the catheter ablation group, adverse events within 30 days after the procedure included death in 2 patients (1.0%) and nonfatal adverse events in 23 patients (11.3%). Among the patients assigned to drug therapy, adverse events that were attributed to antiarrhythmic drug treatment included death from pulmonary toxic effects in 1 patient (0.5%) and nonfatal adverse events in 46 patients (21.6%). Among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ventricular tachycardia, an initial strategy of catheter ablation led to a lower risk of a composite primary end-point event than antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02830360.).

Recurrent ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with prior myocardial infarction is associated with adverse quality of life and clinical outcomes, despite the presence of implanted defibrillators (ICDs). Suppression of recurrent VT can be accomplished with antiarrhythmic drug therapy or catheter ablation. The Ventricular Tachycardia Antiarrhythmics or Ablation In Structural Heart Disease 2 (VANISH2) trial is designed to determine whether ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drug therapy as first line therapy for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. The VANISH2 trial enrolls patients with prior myocardial infarction and VT (with one of: ≥1 ICD shock; ≥3 episodes treated with antitachycardia pacing (ATP) and symptoms; ≥5 episodes treated with ATP regardless of symptoms; ≥3 episodes within 24 hours; or sustained VT treated with electrical cardioversion or pharmacologic conversion). Enrolled patients are classified as either sotalol-eligible, or amiodarone-eligible, and then are randomized to either catheter ablation or to that antiarrhythmic drug therapy, with randomization stratified by drug-eligibility group. Drug therapy, catheter ablation procedures and ICD programming are standardized. All patients will be followed until two years after randomization. The primary endpoint is a composite of mortality at any time, appropriate ICD shock after 14 days, VT storm after 14 days, and treated sustained VT below detection of the ICD after 14 days. The outcomes will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle using survival analysis techniques The results of the VANISH2 trial are intended to provide data to support clinical decisions on how to suppress VT for patients with prior myocardial infarction. Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT02830360.