Search results

Learners with autism require specialized education and supports to ensure acquisition and mastery of various communication skills. This is particularly true for individuals whose disability significantly impacts their language development. Without functional communication, these individuals often engage in severe behavior, have reduced self-determination, and experience diminished quality of life. Accordingly, researchers in special education and related fields have sought ways to improve the communication skills of learners with autism who need specialized language and communication interventions. Although the Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) is well-established in the empirical literature and has helped countless individuals learn to communicate, the method known as facilitated communication (FC; which also is being called “supported typing” and “rapid prompting method”) has become increasingly popular in recent years. Few methods in special education have been as thoroughly discredited as FC and perhaps none are as dangerous. This chapter contrasts the thoroughly debunked FC and its pseudoscientific characteristics with those underpinning PECS. A brief historical account of each method is provided along with key scientific and pseudoscientific features that distinguish science from pseudoscience. Ultimately, our intent is to further clarify how FC is not an augmentative or alternative communication method and why PECS is.

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.

Change is not synonymous with improvement. Improvement of special education requires better instruction of individuals with disabilities. Although LRE and inclusion are important issues, they are not the primary legal or practical issues in improving special education. Federal law (IDEA) requires a continuum of alternative placements, not placement in general education in all cases. To make actual progress in education of students with disabilities, a single and strict principle of equality or/and antidiscriminatory legal instruments, such as the CRPD, is not enough. Social justice as a multifaceted principle can serve the education of the whole spectrum of special educational needs in national and international contexts. Responsible inclusion demands attention to the individual instructional needs of individuals with disabilities and consideration of the practical realities involved in teaching. If inclusive education is to move forward, it must involve placing students with disabilities in general education only if that is the environment in which they seem most likely to learn the skills that will be most important for their futures.

The innovations in this volume instill a sense of optimism about how special education professionals might improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Although many interventions illustrate scientific progress toward an evidence-based profession, many special educators may find it challenging to discriminate between scientifically validated innovation and various fads. While innovation reflects the gradual progress of science, fads usually arise suddenly and lack an evidentiary foundation. Some fads may persist over time but without supportive evidence. We present several reasons why we believe special educators adopt fad interventions during an era when scientifically validated special educational practices are readily available. We propose that fads and similar unsubstantiated practices likely will be a persistent problem for special educators. A conservative and judicious approach to adopting “the next big thing” therefore seems important to an evidence-based special education.

Youth in juvenile corrections settings have significant academic, behavioral, and mental health needs. Additionally, a disproportionate percentage of them are identified with a diagnosed disability, with Emotional Disturbance (ED) as the most common diagnosis. Despite these facts, appropriate education and intensive mental health care is often lacking in these settings. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that some facilities use methods such as disciplinary confinement as a response to behavioral infractions; a practice that is not only counterproductive to rehabilitation, but violates federal education law and established legal standards. This study examined the use of disciplinary confinement in a juvenile justice system and investigated factors associated with frequency of this practice and time spent in disciplinary confinement. Participants were 2,353 youth with and without identified disabilities at state-run juvenile corrections facilities. Results indicated that students with disabilities spent considerably more time in disciplinary confinement than students without disabilities. Students with ED spent considerably more time than students in other disability categories and students without disabilities. Additionally, Black students, Black students with ED, and Hispanic students with ED spent considerably more time in disciplinary seclusion than other groups. The authors discuss results with respect to disproportionate use of disciplinary confinement and provide subsequent recommendations including the reexamination of disciplinary confinement practices by leaders in juvenile corrections.