Search results

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may subject to debate. Some may argue for full inclusion, which is the idea that all children irrespective of impairments or needs should receive all services in general education settings. Full inclusion implies that all decisions about what, how, and where special education is provided must conform to general education contexts. Full inclusion is an absolute imposition and, accordingly, is diametrically opposed to an individualized approach articulated in US special education law. This chapter briefly addresses the incompatibility of inclusion (based on individualization) and full inclusion (based on absolute conformity) for students with severe disabilities, and suggests that special education professionals and leaders should champion meaningful curriculum delivered with effective instruction and behavioral supports. The foundations for this advocacy with and on behalf of students with severe disabilities should be scientific evidence, evidence-based practice, and the continued rights and protections associated with an individualized approach.

In this chapter, the author reflects on nearly 40 years of professional experience in the field of special education. She offers personal perspectives and comments based on a variety of professional and personal experiences, including (1) teaching public school and college; (2) delivering professional development to school staff; and (3) coaching young adults who are creating independent adult lives after receiving special education during their school years. Her comments are also based on her personal experience as the parent of two young adults who needed special education services during their school years. Thus, the author writes with a unique perspective on special education. Among the current practices on which she comments are (1) variations on the process of response to intervention; (2) the role of the IEP; (3) the importance of curriculum and instruction; (4) the changing demographics of disability; (5) misunderstanding of the concept of least restrictive environment; and (6) the overwhelming volume of paperwork involved in the special education process. Special education practices between 1982 and 2010 are then contrasted with present-day implementation. Finally, the author proposes needed changes in special education and considers ways in which it might be improved in the future. This chapter provides a retrospective on special education through the years, offering both realistic criticisms and reasons for optimism.

This chapter explains how special education is an integral part of the US system of public education; detailing the critical rationale for distinctions and specializations as well as how both general and special education might improve in the future delivery of an evidence-based educational system. Particular attention will be given to the importance of maintaining a structure that protects special education's particular purpose for a specific population, with the conceptual framework that preserving and enhancing special education's special and specialized identity are critical to adequate service delivery for the most vulnerable populations of students, families, and communities.

We review the concept of response to intervention (RtI) as it is being applied to emotional and behavioral disorders (EDB) in the early part of the 21st century, examining how it differs from and incorporates features of other approaches to addressing those problems, including pre-referral interventions, applied behavior analysis, functional behavioral assessment, curriculum-based measurement, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and special education. After discussing alternative concepts about how RtI might be applied to students with EBD, we note that our search of the literature revealed very few studies examining the application of RtI with students having EBD. We found both substantive and methodological problems in the studies we reviewed. For example, researchers did not describe adequately how students were selected for tiers, what dependent measures were chosen and why, what independent variables were manipulated, what criteria led to moving a child to a different tier, and how RtI addressed (or failed to address) the need for special education services. We conclude that, although some of the components of RtI have solid evidentiary bases, little evidence supports common claims of the benefits of RtI, especially as applied to students with EBD.

Changes are occuring at a startling fillip in our society and our world. One of the changes is the need to revamp how persons with disabilities are treated and educated. In the United States of America, laws have been pulmulgated to reduce the plight of learners with disabilties. As a result, myriad intervention strategies have been instituted to identify, assess, label, place, and educate these learners. However, some interventions continue to be very traditional. To go beyond tradition and adequately maximize the fullest potential of learners with disabilties, we must value the “specialness” of special education as a powerful intervention program, listen to new voices with new ideas, and debunk deficit thinking that are prejudicial, especially in helping people with disabilities to survive in our competitive society. Interestingly, the chapters in this book have exposed the different intervention options for learners with disabilities. Clearly, without innovative interventions for these learners, special education will be a failure.

This chapter discusses what special instruction is and alternative ways of providing special education. It considers the values and limitations of the typical self-contained classrooms and special schools, resource rooms staffed by special educators, collaboration with general educators, and co-teaching in addition to inclusion. The revolutionary idea that a science of instruction should guide the evolution of instruction and instructional environments is also discussed.

We evaluated the best-available evidence for the effects of receiving business-as-usual or naturally delivered special education services in K-12 US schools. Our best-evidence synthesis of 44 empirical studies evaluated which outcome domains and disability types have been investigated and whether findings varied by the rigor of the study design and methods. Regression-based studies comparing students with educational disabilities (SWED) to students without disabilities (SWOD) yielded mostly negative associations of receiving special education with academic achievement, behavior, and long-term or other outcomes. In contrast, regression-based studies that contrasted SWED receiving special education to other SWED not receiving special education produced a pattern of estimates similar to quasi-experimental designs that contrast SWED to SWOD. The most rigorous designs utilized quasi-experimental methods that compared SWED receiving special education services with SWED not receiving special education services, and generally reported more positive than negative evidence of receiving special education services across most outcome domains. Future research that utilizes rigorous quasi-experimental methodology and appropriate comparison groups to investigate the effectiveness of special education is needed, particularly for nonachievement outcome domains.

Some students with documented learning needs (e.g., learning disabilities, physical challenges) receive strong support through the legislation, funding, and accountability systems associated with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (1973). However, in the absence of supportive federal policy, other students with documented learning needs (e.g., high cognitive ability) experience varying levels of support due to differences in state and local policies, funding, and accountability requirements. These differences are due in large part to misconceptions about students with advanced learning needs (e.g., that they can meet grade-level standards without intervention) and equity concerns (e.g., students with the greatest perceived needs should be served first). Special education has a long history of alleviating educational mismatches by preparing students for challenging learning opportunities, providing classroom support structures, and monitoring educational placements through a system of regular evaluation and adjustment. Students served in gifted and talented education can benefit from these same asset-based, sociocultural approaches. However, efforts to support students with advanced learning needs are more likely to be consistently and successfully applied if they are backed by changes to existing policies, funding, and accountability systems.

The essential obligation of special educators under the law known as individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA) is to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to all students identified as having a disability. A secondary and related obligation is to provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE). To assist a student's individualized education program (IEP) or placement team to determine the setting in which a student will receive a FAPE, the IDEA mandates that school districts have available a continuum of placements (CAP) in which the team will choose the least restrictive and appropriate setting in which the student will receive their special education and related services. Our purpose in this chapter is to explain these requirements and why following the chronological order of determining FAPE and then LRE when developing a student's special education program is critical to meeting the IDEA's programming and placement mandates. We also explain why determining FAPE in the LRE cannot be accomplished without using the CAP.